Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditPolitical reporters have now toggled from worrying that Obama gets "too much" media coverage to asking whether he is "too" good at communicating through the media. Maybe even obnoxiously good. Maybe even -- here comes that loaded word from the primaries -- too articulate.
The A.P.'s Liz Sidoti is on the case. And this is from a news article:
Obama has been a constant presence in the mass media as he expands the bureaucracy's reach into the private sector.... In doing so, he has created a quandary. Put aside for a moment the question of whether government is actually intruding into people's lives more than before. The point is that many people feel like it is -- in part because Obama doesn't stop talking about his goals. If President George W. Bush got slapped around for being inarticulate, is Obama obnoxiously articulate?
What a quandary!
Once you "put aside" the actual facts and policy debate, there's that President talking on the TV about "his goals" -- and talking so articulately -- it just makes you wonder if the government is going to tell you how to mow your lawn. Or something. The article doesn't really try to support its own premise, as blogger Brendan Nyhan explains:
Sidoti is forced to admit later in the piece that she has no empirical support for her claim:
While Obama has been criticized for being too visible, AP-GfK surveys in the spring and summer found that most people say he is on TV about the right amount.
If the "political" hook is that all this might matter because voters want different prime time programming, that's wrong, too. Note that we only "know" this because pollsters are spending money to ask whether The President is on TV too much. (On the list of frivolous things that get too much airtime, the federal government and leader of the free world are near the bottom.) And then, just to round out the media madness, one of Nyhan's commenters did a little research and found the same A.P. reporter wrote an article last month about Obama failing to articulate his vision to the public. How obnoxious.
[N]o one seems to know what the president seeks [on health care]..."I don't know what he wants to do," says Phil Axworthy, a Pittsburgh software developer. A failure of leadership? Or simply a failure to communicate? Are those things the same when a complicated issue is so important to so many? And if a president can't articulate his vision on something so sprawling and all-encompassing, how can he lead?
It is surreal.
I've debated the "overexposure" concern troll question myself, in meta-television segments, naturally, and the whole thing feels like the the media is eating its own tail and jumping the shark all at once. Sorry that wasn't more, you know, articulate.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Yeah, uppity, you mean. Too articulate for morons & the media congloms that cater to morons. Too intelligent for a Goebbels kultur.
Posted by sloper at 10/15/2009 @ 10:05am
"Yeah, uppity, you mean."
Posted by sloper at 10/15/2009 @ 10:05am
Oh man, I miss Slim Pickens and Harvey Korman.
Posted by Benchrest at 10/15/2009 @ 10:10am
MELBER: "-- it just makes you wonder if the government is going to tell you how to mow your lawn."
Here's a heads up! The Gubbers will be telling us how to mow our lawns!
It's well known that the lawn mower and assorted small-engine tools used in lawn care are among the highest `polluters' of fossil fuel burners.....
You can take it to the bank that the busybodies just can't leave this BIG `leisure/exercise' sector alone!
Posted by Happy at 10/15/2009 @ 10:12am
A few weeks ago I heard George Will say on TV that he was sick of seeing the President. You know, just tired of him. After suffering through eight years of the Boy King, I want to respond, "How does it feeel/Oh, how does it feeel?"
Maybe having a qualified president will create new job opportunities for college kids seeing journalism careers -- fewer openings for Kens and Barbies, more openings for people who can keep up with the President and not whine that the homework is too hard.
Posted by RLawrence at 10/15/2009 @ 11:06am
"You can take it to the bank that the busybodies just can't leave this BIG `leisure/exercise' sector alone!"-----Posted by Happy at 10/15/2009 @ 10:12am
Poor HAPP has been oppressed since they stopped him from hunting bald eagles and using Agent Orange as a weed-killer in HIS OWN BACKYARD DAMMIT!!!!
Posted by Mask at 10/15/2009 @ 11:11am
i'm sure george will, a conservative "intellectual," must have loved hearing:
"is our children learning?"
Posted by darladoon at 10/15/2009 @ 11:11am
What Obama has demonstrated since becoming president is that he suffers from an extreme case of narcissism.
The guy loves to hear himself speak.
It's not surprising that many on the left prefer this superficial trait to actual leadership. Especially given that most of liberalism is emotionally driven.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 11:18am
"Especially given that most of liberalism is emotionally driven."----Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 11:18am
Larry of course is driven by "pure logic"....like a Vulcan.
LOL
Posted by Mask at 10/15/2009 @ 11:26am
Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 11:18am
What Reagan has demonstrated since becoming president is that he suffers from an extreme case of narcissism.
The guy loves to hear himself speak.
It's not surprising that many on the right prefer this superficial trait to actual leadership. Especially given that most of conservatism is emotionally driven.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/15/2009 @ 11:27am
BTW, the "subtle" reason the Right likes to play up this "Obama just loves to talk" thing is...
WHEN Obama talks, it turns the issues back to him. The more he does it, the worse it is for them.
Soooooooooo, the Spin Meisters came up with "Obama's an egotist!" to try to counter that....and dutiful zombies repeat it. No names of course.
heheh
Posted by Mask at 10/15/2009 @ 11:31am
I am truly saddened that the AP, once one of the bastions of straight journalism read by millions the world over, has devolved into yet another right-wing slanted "talker." People once looked to the AP as an unbiased source for news and information from around the world, and now they're concerned that our Black President may be too smart for his own good.
Or maybe he's not communicating his ideas to the public well enough.
Oh, never mind, they don't know WHICH it is.
Just sad. Not surprising considering most of their board members are conservatives.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/15/2009 @ 11:34am
Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 11:18am
putting aside your hatred of obama's personality, can you point to a specific bill he has signed into law which you feel has hurt the country, and which no moderate republicans supported?
you always like to talk about "action," instead of "words," so do tell us, which specific "actions" of obama have hurt the country.
and these actions have to be completely partisan (i.e. no moderate republican support at all).
1....2....3.....i'm waiting.
Posted by darladoon at 10/15/2009 @ 11:42am
What Reagan has demonstrated since becoming president is that he suffers from an extreme case of narcissism.
The guy loves to hear himself speak.
It's not surprising that many on the right prefer this superficial trait to actual leadership. Especially given that most of conservatism is emotionally driven.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/15/2009 @ 11:27am
Is that why you argue that UHC is the "right thing to do" and consistently make emotional appeals for expanding the role of govt.
In fact, conservatives absolutely do not rely upon emotion to promote their cause.
Are there hucksters out there on both sides involved in emotionalism? Of course, but they are not actually promoting the values of conservativism.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 11:59am
"In fact, conservatives absolutely do not rely upon emotion to promote their cause"
you have just revealed a tremendous, gaping flaw (or myth) of conservativism: that conservatives do not rely upon emotion to promote conservativism.
underlying this claim is the false belief that logic and emotion are mutually exclusive. they are not. they are always and alreay overlapping.
one cannot ever escape emotion. it is as ubiquitous as light. with every action, every statement, every breath, there is emotion.
conservatives would like to *pretend* they aren't emotional, but oh dear (do i even have to say this): they are extremely and so obviously emotional.
limbaugh is the perfect encapsulation of repressed emotion, and more so, repressed sexuality. that is why they fear homosexuals, women, etc. that is why they regularly denigrate anti-war protestors as being 'weak' or 'effete'.....it's projection of that fear, and repressed emotion/sexuality.
that is precisely why limbaugh divorced three times, and sought out cheap sex with young girls in the caribbiean, w/ the help of viagra.
Posted by darladoon at 10/15/2009 @ 12:07pm
What exactly is "obnoxiously articulate"? It seems to me that those who are complaining need to read more. That way they won't be so intimidated by how the President speaks. I see nothing wrong with how he speaks. I've never felt like he was being condescending. Of course I graduated from high school and am used to using and hearing words with more than three syllables. Go figure.
Posted by k330k at 10/15/2009 @ 12:11pm
Stephen,
Are you aware that newspapers gave about 80% to Democrats in the last election?
http://tinyurl.com/ygknnyk
Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 12:11pm
putting aside your hatred of obama's personality, can you point to a specific bill he has signed into law which you feel has hurt the country, and which no moderate republicans supported?
you always like to talk about "action," instead of "words," so do tell us, which specific "actions" of obama have hurt the country.
and these actions have to be completely partisan (i.e. no moderate republican support at all).
1....2....3.....i'm waiting.
Posted by darladoon at 10/15/2009 @ 11:42am
I don't hate his personality. As a person, I think he is a good and decent person. But, he has demonstrated a "need" to be in the media that transcends all previous presidents
I am for eliminating all moderates from the republican party since they primarily represent the views of the Democrats.
But I will cite the bills I believe have been harmful for the country.
The Tarp last year
The additional trillion dollar "stimulus" bill in February
Other than that there have been very few bills actually signed by Obama. Conservatives have been able to get enough support from Blue Dog Democrats to hold back the liberal agenda.
As to other actions:
Obamas Cairo speech was one of the worst representations of America in our history.
Obama's executive order lifting the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research
Fortunately, Obama has not been able yet to actually inact much of the leftist agenda; thus we are left with his words. But the words of any president carry much influence.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 12:41pm
Why not just say that Obama is 'obnoxiously competent'...?
...implying, of course... that Bush was 'endearingly dissipating'... and Clinton was 'an aesthetic slut'...
If Obama was 'down' because of mistakes he had made in policy... mistakes that have turned to economic meltdowns... mistakes that have spurned our just created 'ownership society'... mistakes that have led to archaic warring and the societal topographies that inevitably accompany them...
...then he would have to answer for them.
So... while this game of pin the tail on the President continues... should we have a candid look at the realities that were 'put in place' during the last administration?
And yes... the one before that too... for it surely planted the seeds for our financial crisis... which were then watered and carefully fertilized by the ambitions of ambiguity...
Posted by ttr at 10/15/2009 @ 12:45pm
One thing Obama definitely is not is obnoxiously progressive ... or obnoxiously true to his campaign promises. Cf. Naomi Klein's piece. And Hayden's.
Posted by sloper at 10/15/2009 @ 1:07pm
Is that why you argue that UHC is the "right thing to do" and consistently make emotional appeals for expanding the role of govt.
In fact, conservatives absolutely do not rely upon emotion to promote their cause.
Are there hucksters out there on both sides involved in emotionalism? Of course, but they are not actually promoting the values of conservativism.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 11:59am
Are you stating that abortion isn't an emotional conservative issue? Is immigration not an emotional conservative issue? You yourself get emotional about your viewpoints on the Constitution, or are you the most rational person on earth who doesn't have emotions ( a Vulcan, as Mask recently opined)?
Please, we are all emotional creatures, and our emotions are what drive us to do what we do, much more than rational thought. Now, do I wish for a more rational world? Absolutely, because it would eliminate such foolish arguments like abortion, because rationally, it's no one's business by the mother (and the father if she so chooses), because it's her body.
I don't deny my emotionalism; it comes from many years of studying people and their emotions. My political emotionalism is based on doing what is best for the greatest number of people. TO me, that means a liberal bent, ESPECIALLY on the social issues, because I am tired of seeing our country devolve from the highest ideal in the Constitution: every man is equal. We have yet to reach that ideal when we live in a world of bigotry, racism, homophobia and misogyny, which many right-wingers joyfully embrace.
Conservatism, by its very definition, is about self and self gratification first. If we all worry about ourselves, then everyone will be OK. Or have you not been keeping up with your Ayn Rand lately?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/15/2009 @ 1:08pm
Seems like antisocialist has issues with articulation, especially by people with whom he may disagree. As opposed to W43, he being the polar opposite of articulate, in fact he is inatrticulate in two languages.
So far the game is, whatever Obama is, blame it on him and claim it is a 'bad thing'. Then complain that he keeps doing it. But if he should change something, then call what it used to be a good thing and ask why doesn't he do it any more. One more example of the fine minds that came up with 'the party of just say no'.
Posted by alwarner at 10/15/2009 @ 1:11pm
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/15/2009 @ 1:08pm
I'll yield that abortion is an emotional issue in the same manner that all murders have an emotional aspect to them.
You have conservativism completely wrong. Real conservativism is about the maximum liberty to empower individuals and families to maximize their inalienable rights that come from G-d. It is about upholding the vision of the Founders that govt only intrudes on liberty, it never enhances liberty.
I have never read Ayn Rand nor desire to do so.
The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others."
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.
"You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; right derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe."
John Adams
"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated."
Thomas Jefferson to Charles Hammond, 1821.
"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."
Thomas Jefferson, letter to E. Carrington, May 27, 1788
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer."
Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776
Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 1:27pm
Poor HAPP has been oppressed since they stopped him from hunting bald eagles and using Agent Orange as a weed-killer in HIS OWN BACKYARD DAMMIT!!!!
Posted by Mask at 10/15/2009 @ 11:11am
Are you now officially adopting the modern Legacy Media's standard of making things up? Don't have actual archived quotes of mine?
Or am I just slow in noticing?
Posted by Happy at 10/15/2009 @ 2:26pm
WHEN Obama talks, it turns the issues back to him. The more he does it, the worse it is for them.
Posted by Mask at 10/15/2009 @ 11:31am
Nice, but an alternate reality! Unless you think he hasn't been on MEDIA enough and all the polls are wrong....you might, I can understand....denial is healthy for the depressed.
BTW, I got to hand a HAPPY Backbone Prize to Magic! He's got backbone where it counts, to face his Left-wing base!
Posted by Happy at 10/15/2009 @ 2:29pm
One thing Obama definitely is not is obnoxiously progressive ... or obnoxiously true to his campaign promises. Cf. Naomi Klein's piece. And Hayden's.
Posted by sloper at 10/15/2009 @ 1:07pm
You better get back on the plantation....lest they send hit squads to take you down at the air strip.
Posted by Happy at 10/15/2009 @ 2:31pm
I would argue that Obama is the first overtly postmodern President. Beyond ideology,beyond the idea that there is objective truth. Its a kind of perspectivsm, where speech is an autonomous, selfcontained region that is disconnected from reality. So we can be coherent and logical in that region of speech, but don't look for any connection between speech and reality. So you can't confront him and point out that there is a disconnect between speech and reality. For a perspectivist, there is no connection since there is no objective truth. So you can change your views from day to day; perspectives are not absolutes. That's what we are dealing with. 'Obnoxiously articulate' simply means we can't pin him down to a fixed statement about anything. Nothing real and objective exists.
Posted by trueleftist at 10/15/2009 @ 2:34pm
trueleftist:
That's funny, nicely provocative ... "nothing real & objective exists."
Well, reality does exist, by deifnition, but we ain't gonna hear about it, except in tiny drips & drabs, often inadvertent.
As in any totalitarian society, secular or religious.
Posted by sloper at 10/15/2009 @ 2:57pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 12:11pm
The list you cited included book and magazine publishers as well as newspaper companies, and did not have a particularly large sample of the latter as far as I could tell.
Historically, Republicans have generally gotten the great majority of newspaper endorcements for president. I don't know the data for 2004 or 2008, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Dems got the majority of presidential endorcements in one or both years.
Posted by cka2nd at 10/15/2009 @ 4:28pm
The list you cited included book and magazine publishers as well as newspaper companies, and did not have a particularly large sample of the latter as far as I could tell.
Historically, Republicans have generally gotten the great majority of newspaper endorcements for president. I don't know the data for 2004 or 2008, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Dems got the majority of presidential endorcements in one or both years.
Posted by cka2nd at 10/15/2009 @ 4:28pm
That ranked the largest donations and I have no control over their filter.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 5:25pm
This is great stuff Ari. Drives home several points perfectly.
Posted by Milhaus at 10/15/2009 @ 5:27pm
The problem with comparing Obama to Reagan is that Reagan finished his two terms with something like a 63% approval rating.
Obama is clinging to a 50% 9 months into his.
And Reagan vanquished his second term opponent, Mondale, with a bone-crushing 49 state landslide.
Frankly, I'm just not seeing that happen in 2012.
And I still believe "All Obama, All the Time" coverage and limelight is going to damage him. After 4 years of continuous coverage, it is going to seem like 8 years already.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/15/2009 @ 5:33pm
I'll tell you what obnoxiously articulate is: when Obama answers a citizen who complained that FEMA was not funding adequately the reopening of an important New Orleans hospital, Obama replied with how much confidence he has in FEMA that its director is working tirelessly to do what has to be done.
That is NOT an answer. An honest answer would have beeen: I'm sorry, Sir, but we are borrowed from China up to the neck and we need to spend that on making war in Central Asia.
Lying, dissembling, insincerity, that's what obnoxiously articulate is, and that is what Barack Obama is.
Posted by goedel at 10/15/2009 @ 5:52pm
I'll tell you what obnoxiously articulate is: when Obama answers a citizen who complained that FEMA was not funding adequately the reopening of an important New Orleans hospital, Obama replied with how much confidence he has in FEMA that its director is working tirelessly to do what has to be done.
That is NOT an answer. An honest answer would have beeen: I'm sorry, Sir, but we are borrowed from China up to the neck and we need to spend that on making war in Central Asia.
Lying, dissembling, insincerity, that's what obnoxiously articulate is, and that is what Barack Obama is.
Posted by goedel at 10/15/2009 @ 5:52pm
@Citizen_carrier: Your stats may be correct, but they should tell you how Obamanably stupid the average American voter is to have elected and re-elected Ronald Reagan, one of our unbroken line of bad presidents, post WWII.
Posted by goedel at 10/15/2009 @ 5:58pm
I think Obama is shown and played on our various forms of media too often. That said,I also believe that with an economy in the toilet and people across the nation jittery about the future what should the President do ,go to Crawford,Texas? I hope he can maintain his energy. I'm tired of George Will and I watch him once a month. Who in the Congress does the American people trust and respect? Both sides have shot so many arrows that neither side trusts the others leadership or commentators for that matter. Our President commands respect both here and abroad. Now it is the time for the vPresident to stand tall on health care reform.
Posted by whatozz at 10/15/2009 @ 5:58pm
I don't think Obama should be characterized as 'obnoxiously articulate', but rather as over-exposed. He's been sighted live on one network or the other more times than the last five Presidents combined and he's only in his tenth month on the job.
No, I think the title of 'obnoxiously articulate' goes to Rush Limbaugh.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/15/2009 @ 6:17pm
Communications Director Anita Dunn was exposed today by Glenn Beck, in a revealing video, as identifying with none other than Mao Tse Tung. Yes that's right. She says he was the philosopher that she most often turns to. She made that statement in an address last May to high school students. Chairman Mao, the charming, philosophical soul that he was, was responsible for the murder of eighty million people, millions more than Hitler was responsible for exterminating.
Anita Dunn is Barack Obama's WH's Director Of Communications. What message is the WH trying to send? The obvious question, why was Fox the only network, once again, to have broken this story?
Oh, and just to soften up her indoctrination to these students, she also threw in a quote from Mother Teresa. Hmmm, Chairman Mao and Mother Teresa.
Is this the change Obama was referring to? Why does he put all these Communist types in position of power in his adnistration? Is he responsible or is someone else? Does the buck stop on his desk?
No wonder Dunn wants to wage war against free speech.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/15/2009 @ 6:28pm
He's been sighted live on one network or the other more times than the last five Presidents combined and he's only in his tenth month on the job.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/15/2009 @ 6:17pm | ignore this person | warn this person
really?
regardless, after the last mushmouthed, silver spoon gagged incompetent i suppose even an average iq president would appear reel smart, much less a legitimate harrison bergeron...
if some pea brained tea baggers can't keep up with the uppity mulatto's fancy schmansy college talk...
eff the slothful ignoramuses. they're the ones who voted for the moron who almost ran the country into the trash heap of history. maybe if they worked on their vocabulary and critical thinking skills they'd understand what he's saying and recognize the lies they accept as truth for the lies they are...
but then that would be a perfect world and that's never going to happen.
i'm just sick of what now accounts for about a third or less of the electorate continuing to insist on dragging down the rest, imposing their obnoxious ignorance on the rest of us, and tricking politicians into thinking their rude volume represents more than maybe a third of the electorate.
Posted by dexter666 at 10/15/2009 @ 6:33pm
Posted by dexter666 at 10/15/2009 @ 6:33pm
I take it that you haven't noticed that the more Obama talks, the lower his approval rating goes. That's what I mean by over-exposed. I think he's cut back in public appearances significantly lately. I do think that the guy is a great orator and I've said so repeatedly. It's not how he speaks, but rather, what he says and who he surrounds himself with.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/15/2009 @ 6:50pm
A third of the electorate is quite a base.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/15/2009 @ 6:50pm
.....how Obamanably stupid the average American voter is to have elected and re-elected Ronald Reagan, one of our unbroken line of bad presidents, post WWII.
Posted by goedel at 10/15/2009 @ 5:58pm
With our "unbroken line of bad presidents, post WWII", we managed to become the lone Superpower.....
Let's see, if our leaders were bad and we did really well as a country, unsurpassed by any overall....then maybe.....the "average American voter" votes stupid but are in fact, geniuses?
Imagine where we would be if any of those POTUSes were competent, huh?
Posted by Happy at 10/15/2009 @ 6:56pm
Gad, the doofi of America never cease to amaze.
Why would we not want the smartest guy in the room?
8 years of the frat house dipshit have left us in an abject mess, yet Obama is scary because he's 'too smart for his own good.'
I hate to say this, but we deserved the government we got with the last guy; by extension, we do not deserve the government this guy is capable of evoking.
Posted by skeletonman at 10/15/2009 @ 7:22pm
I take it that you haven't noticed that the more Obama talks, the lower his approval rating goes. That's what I mean by over-exposed. I think he's cut back in public appearances significantly lately. I do think that the guy is a great orator and I've said so repeatedly. It's not how he speaks, but rather, what he says and who he surrounds himself with.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/15/2009 @ 6:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
i take it you understand the concept of erroneously imputing causality. how can you possibly ignore the fact that EVERY president's popularity dips with familiarity and time regardless of any identifiable phenomenon?
your negative opinion of his oratorical skills are probably related to your political opposition to him, but i sort of agree...or is it just the natural contempt of familiarity? or was it the amazing contrast with the last guy, mushmouth?
regardless this silly blabbering about whether he talks too much or too well impresses me as a combination of two phenomena...
1. lunkhead mass media punditocracy silliness. gotta fill those hours and hours of airtime and reams of editorial columns with something...
2. sour grapes from the vanquished. its sadly transparent...
Posted by dexter666 at 10/15/2009 @ 7:32pm
Or:
3. perhaps Obama is over his head as evidenced by his penchant to have voted 'present' so many times while a State Senator. Sorry, but after ten months the magic is gone. There never was any for me to begin with. I'm never persuaded by oratory. I identify with no political party. I always vote on who I consider to be the best possible choice for President. I didn't vote for GWB either time but I did vote for John McCain.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/15/2009 @ 7:51pm
@Citizen_carrier: Your stats may be correct, but they should tell you how Obamanably stupid the average American voter is to have elected and re-elected Ronald Reagan, one of our unbroken line of bad presidents, post WWII.
Posted by goedel at 10/15/2009 @ 5:58pm
I suppose the difference between us is that I have faith that the American People "get it"...or eventually do "get it".
They understood Reagan. Hence, two terms and pretty historical approval ratings at his finish.
Americans did not "get" Obama during the election. On a certain level, they understood that he wasn't Bush and that McCain might be more of Bush. A lot of them were probably excited to have a "historic" inauguration ceremony.
But they are starting to "get" Obama fairly quickly. Hence his quick decline in popularity to largely pedestiran levels.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/15/2009 @ 7:51pm
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/15/2009 @ 5:33pm
Reagan was at 52% after two years in office, so much as I despise Obama, it's too early to make comparisons to Reagan after 8 years.
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1832
Posted by cka2nd at 10/15/2009 @ 10:10pm
Liz Sidoti is a hack who has a long history of pandering to the right (check out the video of her fawning all over McCain for his birthday during the 08 campaign.) Her journalistic integrity should be called into question. Dig deeper. She's got an agenda.
Posted by EmmaPeel123 at 10/15/2009 @ 10:19pm
an extreme case of narcissism
loves to hear himself speak, see and read and re-read his own posts - count 'em!
superficial
emotionally driven
antisocialist - an extreme case of narcissism
Posted by winyahn at 10/15/2009 @ 10:28pm
but I did vote for John McCain.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/15/2009 @ 7:51pm
and sara palin...
sound fundamentals, to be sure.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/15/2009 @ 10:36pm
Obama Anita Dunn
Chairman Mao Tse Tung
"Murderer of Eighty Million"
Set off to Drown
To Poison 'n Pound
But Died 'fore Killing a One
Posted by winyahn at 10/15/2009 @ 10:36pm
I hate to say this, but we deserved the government we got with the last guy; by extension, we do not deserve the government this guy is capable of evoking.
Posted by skeletonman at 10/15/2009 @ 7:22pm
no, you do not!
fire geithner.
fire summers.
fire bernanke.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/15/2009 @ 10:37pm
@Citizen-carrier: Yes, the American people voted twice for a man who violated the Constitution and was saved from impeachment by a lying Col. North and a cowardly Congress. Reagan started the march to financial deregulation, withdrew the welfare safety-net that many Americans sleeping in the streets now need, and began star-wars. Regrettably we have and have had equally bad or worse presidents (Eisenhower, Johnson, Clinton, BushII, Obama). Yes, the American people may get it right in the long run, but in the long run we are all dead.
Posted by goedel at 10/15/2009 @ 10:38pm
"Chairman Mao...was responsible for the murder of eighty million people."
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/15/2009 @ 6:28pm
Mao was a Stalinist scum bag but this myth has been exploded by a number of credible researchers who have found that not only is the overall number of deaths attributed to Mao and Chinese Communism inflated and based on faulty, if not dishonest, demographic assumptions but that the "excess" deaths that can be attributed to Mao and the CCP were largely the result of wrong-headed agricultural and industrial policies undertaken during the Great Leap Forward. This in a country dragging itself up from economic ruin, threatened by the world's first nuclear power, but still able to increase the life expectancy rate by around 80%.
Posted by cka2nd at 10/15/2009 @ 10:50pm
and on the other planet:
"Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has ordered the closing for one week of Mustansiriya University in downtown Baghdad and the banning of partisan political activity on campus. The moves alarmed the PM's critics, who worry that he is gradually abolishing the freedom of speech in the new Iraq and making himself a strongman."
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/15/2009 @ 10:56pm
This is probably the funniest column the nation has run!
1. The Obamanation that makes desolation is to petty and weak to handle criticism which is why he talks ALL THE TIME! ( and lives in fear of FOX news)
2. The empty suited rhetoric so admired by the left and the liberal biased national media is just that, so while the U.S.A. economy crashes, 15,000,000. are unemployed and the real figures are more like 16% unemployed, the Demoncrats and Obamas friends raid what is left of the treasury for themselves!
3. This is the only presidency that has ended in 9 months as an abject failure!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/16/2009 @ 12:24am
Key advisers to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner have been earning millions of dollars from the institutions they are helping to regulate, according to Bloomberg News.
The aides, none of whom faced Senate confirmation for their involvement in the overhaul of the nation's regulatory system, received salary and partnership income from some of Wall Street's top financial benefactors of the economic bailout.
According to Bloomberg, Geithner adviser Gene Sperling pulled in nearly $900,000 from Goldman Sachs last year for advice he gave the company on charitable contributions. Sperling also received $480,051 as a director for the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, and $250,000 for quarterly economic briefings from Brevan Howard Asset Management LLP and Sterling Stamos Capital Management –– two hedge funds. The Council on Foreign Relations paid $116,653 to Sperling for work related to education in developing countries.
The Stanford Group and other financial companies linked to the financial bailout reportedly paid Sperling more than $150,000 for speeches he gave at events. The Stanford Group was run by alleged ponzi scheme fraudster Allen Stanford.
In addition Sperling, Geithner aide Lee Sachs, another close adviser, earned $3 million in salary and partnership income from New York hedge fund Mariner Investment Group. Sachs, who withdrew earlier this year from consideration to be the Treasury Department's top domestic finance official, would have required Senate confirmation to accept that post.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/16/2009 @ 12:34am
Both Sperling and Sachs are in positions of influence behind the scenes at Geithner's Treasury Department, which oversees the $700 billion banking bailout, and all are subject to federal ethics rules, including a pledge to avoid contact with their former firms for at least a year.
"My sole work for Goldman Sachs was as lead consultant on the creation, design, and initial implementation of ‘10,000 Women,' their $100 million philanthropic effort to give business and leadership education to poor women around the world," Sperling told Bloomberg News.
"It's appropriate for Treasury officials to keep in touch with those who work in the markets every day, particularly when the economy and the markets are so fragile," Treasury spokesman Andrew Williams told the Associated Press.
Critics warn the high number of former Wall Street employees working in the administration may affect policy making. The disclosure comes as the latest revenue estimates by the Wall Street Journal show that some of the biggest U.S. banks and securities firms will former employees more than $140 billion in bonuses this year.
Geithner was the subject last week of a report from the Associated Press that disclosed that the treasury secretary takes numerous calls from top Wall Street figures prior to meetings with members of Congress and President Barack Obama.
Records obtained by AP through the Freedom of Information Act show Geithner has had more contact with Citigroup than House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., who is in charge of promoting Geithner's regulatory reform.
Posted by BigPasture at 10/16/2009 @ 12:35am
The Obamanation administration and the Demoncrat congress are robbing the taxpayers blind all while they and their Wall St. and Banking friends profit hansomely and the leftists cheer them on!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/16/2009 @ 12:37am
Greetings All- With all due respect...Whether you like it or not... Pres. Obama has done more in his time in office than the last Pres. of 8 years. "Too Articulate".... That is what people say regarding African Americans when they can speak English well. This is not surprising.. This is the buzz word for he's not one of those "N". As if we were born speaking Ebonics..quite laughable.. The media and some people don't know how to approach Obama... Most times there is always an angle to approach someone. They will try to find anything ie He not a citizen People still believe that...Wow..... Obama is not dumb enough to fall into the race trap like some people. This defies The Good Old boy play book. Just like Tiger Woods changed the game of golf because of his ability. So shall Pres. Obama.. He changed the game in raising money for the election. This is true for African Americans and Pres. Obama..American Culture still perceives African Americans as bufoons needing a father figure to interpret and take care of them....Who is the child now...
Posted by EricRocka at 10/16/2009 @ 01:49am
The problem is not that he is articulate, but that there seems to be a disconnect between his words and reality. So Obama is a great wordsmith, those who have read his books and listened to his speeches can attest to that. Beautiful words in a world consisting of words. Behind this great wordsmith, however, there seems to be a power elite or a cabal who can use these beautiful words to adorn their not so beautiful objectives. That's what we seem to have - a wordsmith and a power elite and a disconnect between the words and reality that is beginning to be - well obnoxious.
Posted by trueleftist at 10/16/2009 @ 05:01am
I've noticed people have attributed this AP criticism to some "right wing media" bent. The reality, if you consider it, is that media criticism of Obama by and large consists of constructive criticism.
When AP lefties bring attention to a fault of Obama's, they are doing it because they see him making what they perceive to be a mistake. Something that could hurt his poll numbers. Another example of "Listen to us and we'll get you through this okay".
Objective journalism marches on...
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/16/2009 @ 07:01am
I've noticed people have attributed this AP criticism to some "right wing media" bent. The reality, if you consider it, is that media criticism of Obama by and large consists of constructive criticism.
When AP lefties bring attention to a fault of Obama's, they are doing it because they see him making what they perceive to be a mistake. Something that could hurt his poll numbers. Another example of "Listen to us and we'll get you through this okay".
Objective journalism marches on...
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/16/2009 @ 07:01am
Greetings All- With all due respect...Whether you like it or not... Pres. Obama has done more in his time in office than the last Pres. of 8 years.
Posted by EricRocka at 10/16/2009 @ 01:49am
Krauthammer's latest column talks about some of Obama's "accomplishments".
By refusing to call much attention to the latest Iranian stolen election and the subsequent and ongoing bloody crackdown, Obama has signaled that freedom and democracy are far less important to him than previous presidents.
By abandoning ABM and bowing to the Russians, Obama signaled to Eastern Europe they were no longer under the American umbrella and subject to the whims of an increasingly belligerent and authoritarian Russia.
And we got nothing for that. When we recently called on Russia to support sanctions against Iran, Russia said no. Great deal.
By support Zelaya in Honduras, Obama has signaled support for a Chavez wannabe at the expense of a true democratic government that acted within the bounds and obligations of it's Constitution.
I'll say this. In the first 9 months of Bush, America NEVER abandoned it's allies, shirked it's responsibilities, or abandoned the concepts of liberty, democracy, and constitutional law as has happened under Obama.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/16/2009 @ 08:16am
Greetings All- With all due respect...Whether you like it or not... Pres. Obama has done more in his time in office than the last Pres. of 8 years.
Posted by EricRocka at 10/16/2009 @ 01:49am
Krauthammer's latest column talks about some of Obama's "accomplishments".
By refusing to call much attention to the latest Iranian stolen election and the subsequent and ongoing bloody crackdown, Obama has signaled that freedom and democracy are far less important to him than previous presidents.
By abandoning ABM and bowing to the Russians, Obama signaled to Eastern Europe they were no longer under the American umbrella and subject to the whims of an increasingly belligerent and authoritarian Russia.
And we got nothing for that. When we recently called on Russia to support sanctions against Iran, Russia said no. Great deal.
By support Zelaya in Honduras, Obama has signaled support for a Chavez wannabe at the expense of a true democratic government that acted within the bounds and obligations of it's Constitution.
I'll say this. In the first 9 months of Bush, America NEVER abandoned it's allies, shirked it's responsibilities, or abandoned the concepts of liberty, democracy, and constitutional law as has happened under Obama.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/16/2009 @ 08:16am
Tea Bagger Blues
I'm a tea bagger, baby I'm gonna tea bag all over you
I'm a tea bagger, baby I'm gonna tea bag all over you
I'm gonna let you make, my inbred sister-mate As I spew my racist Obama hate
I'm a tea bagger, baby I'm gonna tea bag all over you...
Posted by skeletonman at 10/16/2009 @ 10:02am
Man, I never thought of his "articulation" as a loaded word or concept. He's educated,intelligent and much more common sensical and non partisan then most of our current crop of leadership. Naturally because his education and speaking abilities are greater than (a few, many, some?) others of his race, mentioning that fact immediately led to charges of racism. As one might expect. Leadership today has a bad habit of trying to hide hard truths, as if we can fix the problem by waiting for it to go away. Obama demonstrates almost every day he doesn't function like that.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/16/2009 @ 10:11am
Leadership today has a bad habit of trying to hide hard truths, as if we can fix the problem by waiting for it to go away. Obama demonstrates almost every day he doesn't function like that.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/16/2009 @ 10:11am
You mean like delaying a decision on whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan? Only meeting with the general he appointed to run Afghanistan once?
Obama's history of voting "present" as a state and U.S. Senator certainly shows he does function like that.
I don't think being articulate is a bad thing. What is dangerous is when the public starts to perceive there might not be much action behind that articulation. Or that the President is more interested in appearing on Leno and similar venues far more than any of his predecessors did in this short span. Or that this President appears to be running a continuous, non-stop election campaign rather than just settling down to governing.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/16/2009 @ 10:27am
Leadership today has a bad habit of trying to hide hard truths, as if we can fix the problem by waiting for it to go away. Obama demonstrates almost every day he doesn't function like that.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/16/2009 @ 10:11am
You mean like delaying a decision on whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan? Only meeting with the general he appointed to run Afghanistan once?
Obama's history of voting "present" as a state and U.S. Senator certainly shows he does function like that.
I don't think being articulate is a bad thing. What is dangerous is when the public starts to perceive there might not be much action behind that articulation. Or that the President is more interested in appearing on Leno and similar venues far more than any of his predecessors did in this short span. Or that this President appears to be running a continuous, non-stop election campaign rather than just settling down to governing.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/16/2009 @ 10:27am
"You mean like delaying a decision on whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan?"
yeah, seriously, what's up the delay? it's not like it's a difficult decision or anything! get on with it already! i got monday night football watch, buck-o!
Posted by darladoon at 10/16/2009 @ 10:40am
The blather above about Obama's decision making process is so much sound and fury (see Macbeth, Act 5 Scene 5 for the full quote).
We must never forget that it was Bush who flubbed the war in Afghanistan, by going after Iraq.
Had Shrub been in the Oval Office when Pearl Harbor was attacked, we would have invaded Iceland.
Posted by skeletonman at 10/16/2009 @ 10:58am
yeah, seriously, what's up the delay? it's not like it's a difficult decision or anything! get on with it already! i got monday night football watch, buck-o!
Posted by darladoon at 10/16/2009 @ 10:40am
Yes indeed. A tough decision. So much so that he was obviously ruminating over with such intensity that he's only met with the general running Afghanistan exactly once.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/16/2009 @ 11:43am
yeah, seriously, what's up the delay? it's not like it's a difficult decision or anything! get on with it already! i got monday night football watch, buck-o!
Posted by darladoon at 10/16/2009 @ 10:40am
Yes indeed. A tough decision. So much so that he was obviously ruminating over with such intensity that he's only met with the general running Afghanistan exactly once.
Posted by Citizen_Carrier at 10/16/2009 @ 11:43am
This is just a nice way of saying the man is all talk. Which is a nice way of saying he's a neocon out to keep things unchanged. Which is a nice way of saying we're f%^&*d
Posted by DejaVu at 10/16/2009 @ 12:22pm
Posted by skeletonman at 10/16/2009 @ 10:58am
Some contribution there Skel. First of all GWB's initial response was to indeed invade Afghanistan. The strategy to redeploy to Iraq was wrong-headed and I've said so. The outcome was mixed. We got rid of Saddam, who liked to run around Gassing people and setting oil wells afire. But we haven't gotten OBL yet. Al Qaeda and the Taliban thrive and Obama twiddles his thumbs. He knows that the war in Afghanistan will be a long hard one, just like GWB said. The next President, (Palin?), will still be fighting there. So he concentrates instead on his domestic agenda, something he might actually get props for if he passes some form of HC reform. I hope that doesn't make me a racist for pointing that out.
As for WWII, GWB would have gone after Japan. Germany declared war on us and we responded in kind. Did you know that Japan and Germany along with Italy for awhile were allies. But Japan and Germany were only allies on paper. Their forces never fought on the same battlefield as we did with our allies. As for Italy, as soon as the tide turned, they jumped sides, killed Musolini and broke out the vino.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/16/2009 @ 2:43pm
Posted by cka2nd at 10/15/2009 @ 10:50pm
And the Holocaust never happened either, right. Are you defending Chairman Mao?
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/16/2009 @ 2:45pm
Posted by skeletonman at 10/16/2009 @ 10:02am
This post shows that you are completely uninformed about the Tea Party Movement. You probably think you are funny but you come across as juvenile.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/16/2009 @ 2:47pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/16/2009 @ 10:11am
President Obama is a gifted speaker but a after our last President, the Cookie Monster would sound articulate. A large part of Obama's success was realized because he was able to assist moderates in getting over their embarrassment of the last President's lack of oratory skills. That of course and the ground effort of ACORN.
JFK was a good orator. So was Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and Bill Clinton. Barack Obama doesn't hold the bar on being able to speak.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/16/2009 @ 2:51pm
In fact, conservatives absolutely do not rely upon emotion to promote their cause.
Are there hucksters out there on both sides involved in emotionalism? Of course, but they are not actually promoting the values of conservativism.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 11:59am
Because, Larry, the Southern Strategy isn't about emotion, is it? Or Reagan's welfare queen. Or Willie Horton. Or the rightwing smear and fear of the last half century. Nothing about emotion at all, right, Larry? And remember to say that "both sides are guilty", right? Except that they're not. This isn't balanced. But fear and loathing are, in fact, the values of conservatism, and have been so for generations.
Posted by jmusolino at 10/16/2009 @ 3:04pm
And the Holocaust never happened either, right. Are you defending Chairman Mao?
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/16/2009 @ 2:45pm
The Holocaust most certainly did happen. But if someone claimed that 20 million Jews, or 40 million people in total, died in the camps, then I would object in the interest of historical accuracy.
As despicable as Mao was, the 80 million dead figure doesn't hold up, nor does describing all of the deaths that did take place as being murder. The Great Leap Forward exacerbated China's longstanding problems with food sufficiency. It was a huge mistake, but that doesn't mean Mao "murdered" the millions who died because of it.
Posted by cka2nd at 10/16/2009 @ 3:22pm
Posted by cka2nd at 10/16/2009 @ 3:22pm
Yep. That's what I thought. you're defending Mao. Hell, whats a few million either way. Mao was quoted as saying that they're overpopulated anyway.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/16/2009 @ 4:38pm
Especially given that most of liberalism is emotionally driven.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/15/2009 @ 11:18am
Yeah, not like those cerebrally-driven Nuremberg rallies!
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/16/2009 @ 4:38pm
LMAO
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/16/2009 @ 4:39pm
Posted by jmusolino at 10/16/2009 @ 3:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Larry's never seen any of Leni Riefenstahl's works.
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/16/2009 @ 4:41pm
The Obamanation administration and the Demoncrat congress are robbing the taxpayers blind all while they and their Wall St. and Banking friends profit hansomely and the leftists cheer them on!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/16/2009 @ 12:37am | ignore this person | warn this person
Yup, No Wall Street/banking pals among Repubs.
WHATTABUNCHACRAP
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/16/2009 @ 4:44pm
By the way AVG tries to block access claiming this is a site that fosters either viruses or "social engineering"
I am unsure why I am writing. Perhaps one too many brain dead Republicans projecting on Obama the traits belonging to Bush and Reagan.
They have wet dreams of finding an articulate Republican, after al claiming intellectual status for Bush or palin must seem a joke even to their usual double-talking ways.
Republicans not emotional. That's rich. From crying Beck to blabbering Limbaugh, heck, few of them are anything other than emotional.
And since Obama has done very little, they must be racists or why would they protest so much over nothing?
I would exile them somewhere. They would appreciate Myanmar I think, but I would trade them for Pacific Islanders about to drown from rising sea levels. Give the right wingers stilts and their favorite item, guns. They can use the stilts as chopsticks to eat each other as well as stay above the rising ocean.
Call the place Patriotica and play God Bless AMerica on a loop and they'd be happy...well, no, they have no capability for happiness, but they'd be fed.
Posted by luckyshow at 10/16/2009 @ 5:12pm
The Obamanation administration and the Demoncrat congress are robbing the taxpayers blind all while they and their Wall St. and Banking friends profit hansomely and the leftists cheer them on!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/16/2009 @ 12:37am | ignore this person | warn this person
Yup, No Wall Street/banking pals among Repubs.
WHATTABUNCHACRAP
Posted by schnellerheinz at 10/16/2009 @ 4:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Your "projection" does not work very well in the face of FACTS, but kept telling yourself its the republicans and maybe you will feel better!
Posted by BigPasture at 10/17/2009 @ 05:48am
does it matter?. pay attention instead to the support taht Obama is giving to Bloomberg in New york,underminig his own party,babysitting banks and republicans, underminig health reform.
Posted by robert-o at 10/17/2009 @ 08:41am
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/16/2009 @ 2:47pm
Oh.
Snap.
Posted by skeletonman at 10/17/2009 @ 09:03am
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/16/2009 @ 4:38pm
Well, it's obvious that you have problems with reading comprehension. I am defending historical accuracy. It is inaccurate to say that Mao "murdered" 80 million people. Was Mao, like Stalin, a murderer? Yes. But did his murder victims number in the tens of millions? No.
The truth: deal with it.
Posted by cka2nd at 10/17/2009 @ 8:29pm
There was story going around the internet a few years back about some guy who wrote an article about pedagogy. His supervisor fired him for being a pervert so he went to the human resources person and they looked in the dictionary and decided the supervisor didn't know what she was talking about. The supervisor then sent around a message saying that only words found in the local Sunday paper should be used in interoffice memos. The worker than submitted his resignation letter made of words cut from the Sunday paper and pasted on a blank sheet of paper.
I wonder if maybe that supervisor is now working as a reporter for AP. Do you think so?
Posted by danmiller at 10/17/2009 @ 9:31pm