Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditReaders who have followed this writer's commentaries on the political machinations of the 44th president are by now well aware that I never quite bought into the whole Barack Obama thing. He has been and is a fascinating politician to cover. I've enjoyed the interviews I've done with him. I respect Obama's intellect and discipline. I think he has remarkable political skills. I am more skeptical, however, with regard to his governing skills. And I am downright disappointed with his failure to recognize the purpose and the potential of the mandate he was given by the American electorate a year ago.
Obama has not moved quickly enough to end the occupation of Iraq and he has bought into the absurd lie that the occupation of Afghanistan is some kind of "good war" – or, at the least, a necessary one.
Obama has compromised on civil liberties and constitutional questions when this former constitutional law professor should have reintroduced America to the absolute principles of our founding – especially the wisdom of a system of checks and balances that constrains the imperial ambitions of our presidents.
Obama has put the wrong people in charge of the economy and pulled his punches when it comes to reregulating the banks. He supported an auto-industry "bailout" that has the federal government paying multinational corporations to close factories in the United States and open them overseas. And don't get me started on the mangling of health-care reform.
So why not join the chorus of critics on the right and the left who object to the Nobel committee's decision to award a freshman president what remains the most important international recognition of individual accomplishment?
Because, much as I might like to pen a piece with a snappy headline like Guardian writer Michael White's "I Hope Nobel Members Feel Pleased With Themselves, The Smug Idiots," I can't.
It is not that I disagree with the point White makes about giving the award to a president in the 37th week of his tenure: "It is hard to imagine a more effective way to undermine him both at home and abroad."
But, frankly, if accepting a peace prize makes it harder for Obama to wage unnecessary wars, maintain irresponsible occupations or support bloated Pentagon budgets, so be it.
I should add that I certainly do not buy into all this talk about the Nobel Prize being some kind of "aspirational award." By this absurd logic, the prize should go to the crudest dictators – tough call this year, although the thugs in Myanmar are certainly competitive -- on the theory that international accolades might shame them into behaving themselves.
No, the Nobel Peace Prize is and should always be given with the purpose of honoring action not aspiration. The whole point of the award is to recognize bold, presumably courageous, endeavors in pursuit of a more peaceful and functional planet.
It is against this standard that the award to Obama should be measured.
To my view, he measures up.
I may have plenty of complaints about the man and his presidency. But I believe that Barack Obama did something that merits his selection as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize.
I am not talking here about an official act taken since he replaced the lamentable George Bush – although an argument can be made that replacing Bush's reign of error is sufficient accomplishment. What I'm talking about is actually something Obama did before his election – in fact, before his nomination as the Democratic Party's 2008 standard-bearer.
In those cattle-call presidential debates of 2007, Barack Obama staked out a position that was radically at odds with the lingering post-9/11 consensus among the American political and media elites. As a serious contender for the nomination – a candidate who had something to lose -- Obama declared for diplomacy.
In the July, 2007, "YouTube Debate," the Democratic candidates were asked if they would be willing to meet "with leaders of Syria, Iran, Venezuela" during their first term. Obama responded that, yes, he would be willing to do so. He explained that "the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this (Bush) administration -- is ridiculous."
He was right.
But he was immediately attacked for rejecting the "principle" – rooted in the Cold War but renewed in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon – that American foreign policy should continue to be conducted behind the tattered curtain of corruption that has given us unnecessary wars in Vietnam and Iraq, U.S.-sponsored coups from Iran to Chile, trade policies designed to serve multinational corporations and a seeming inability to hold up the banner of human rights or even humanity in Tibet, Darfur, Burma and so many other woefully neglected corners of the world.
Obama was immediately and savagely attacked by those who continued to embrace the Henry Kissinger approach to international relations. Hillary Clinton, at that point still the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination, led the charge.
"There is a clear difference between the two approaches these candidates are taking: Senator Obama has committed to presidential-level meetings with some of the world's worst dictators without precondition during his first year in office," declared Clinton, who made it clear that she did not intend to be go out on any diplomatic limbs. (Ironically, she did not imagine that she might be doing so as Obama's Secretary of State.)
The pundits piled on. Obama, we were told, had revealed his inexperience. He was naïve. He was out-of-touch with "security moms" and other frightened Americans who wanted their leaders to speak loudly and swing big sticks.
In fact, Obama was entirely in touch with the American people, who had grown increasingly wary of the secretive and anti-democratic approach to global affairs that steered the United States out of the global community while telling the American people that foreign policy was the domain only of shadowy Kissingers and Cheneys.
Obama's nomination and election reflected that fact.
But, at the critical stage in the 2008 campaign, Obama did not know that declaring for diplomacy would prove to be politically smart. It required a level of courage that had been missing from American politics at the highest levels for a relatively new, largely untested candidate to take the stand he did. And that courage had an impact, ultimately moving other prominent Democrats – including Clinton – and even some Republicans toward more conciliatory stances.
Elections matter. They are the points at which countries stretch the parameters of their debates and, ideally, reform and renew themselves. But progress is only possible when prominent politicians break the mold, when they take risks that may cost them the political prizes they are so ardently pursuing.
Obama did that in the summer of 2007. And he did it on behalf of diplomacy. He argued that it was better to talk than to heighten tensions until there was no alternative to war.
It was a transformational moment for Obama's party, and ultimately for the politics of the world's dominant military superpower.
How transformational remains to be seen.
But there is more than enough justification in Obama's campaigning for the award of a Nobel Peace Prize. In fact, for those who recognize how very rare it is for prominent politicians to take risks when it comes to national security debates, Obama is an entirely legitimate recipient of the peace prize.
Like most recipients who attain the peace prize while they are still operating on the global stage in an official manner, Obama will call that legitimacy into question.
This is why it would be ridiculous to honor Obama (or any other president or prime minister) for what he might do during the remainder of his term.
Obama is being honored for what he did as a contender for the presidency -- a contender whose winning run changed the political debate in a party and a country that desperately needed to take a new direction. As such, he is not merely worthy. Barack Obama, the candidate, is the right recipient of the Nobel Prize for Peace.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- 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
Hurray for JOHN NICHOLS!
He actually DOES understand!
Posted by Metteyya at 10/10/2009 @ 2:28pm
"Obama's Campaign Merits a Peace Prize"
sss--ttttt-rrrrr-eeeeeeeeeeee-ttttttttttt-cccccccc-hhhhhh
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/10/2009 @ 2:29pm
He hasn't done anything with the concept of peace. What he essentially did was campaign on a bunch of promises that he had no intention of keeping. This entire Obama charade has been one massive abuse of the concept of peace.
Posted by nkurland at 10/10/2009 @ 2:53pm
I think that was the premise of the award, the promise.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/10/2009 @ 3:10pm
Maybe the Nobel should have gone to 'The American People.'
The Astro-Turf Mass Marketers Award would have been more appropriate for Obama.
Obama is a far cry from the symbol of "our aspirations."
The "gasps" in Norway are well deserved.
Posted by OneVote at 10/10/2009 @ 3:11pm
Yes, he deserves it for the mire fact that he had the courage to run for the presidency of what is the most racist country on earth. AND HE WON! BRAVO, Mr.President!
Posted by MASHnews at 10/10/2009 @ 3:41pm
Posted by Denise29 at 10/10/2009 @ 3:10pm
Which he has shown no willingness to follow through on. Take a look at the war spending bill passed in the spring. When, due to a combination of anti-war sentiment among Democratic house members and opposition to the IMF funding by Republicans, the administration instantly went on the attack, threatening both to withhold funds and stating "you'll never hear from us again." This is the one issue on which a progressive president uses leverage and its to ram through funding to continue two illegal wars.
Posted by nkurland at 10/10/2009 @ 4:00pm
I think it was Metteya (sp) that said have patience, I think you (I) have to give him some time, no? We have been on the wrong track for too long and it is going to take time.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/10/2009 @ 4:03pm
Posted by MASHnews at 10/10/2009 @ 3:41pm
By that logic Jesse Jackson should have won in 1988.
Posted by nkurland at 10/10/2009 @ 4:04pm
In that case, Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich are far more deserving of the prize. I guess they don't count, though, since they weren't owned by corporations so they couldn't be heard.
Posted by Mandaliet at 10/10/2009 @ 4:14pm
Posted by MASHnews at 10/10/2009 @ 3:41pm:
Good grief, you must have drank a gallon of the Kool Aid...this "award" was pure political - Obama should hide his head under a rock on this one. The Nobel Peace Prize committee has just shown how corrupt and biased (we hate Bush blindness) they really are. What a bunch of skunks. They will find this will come back to haunt them.
Posted by pyeatte at 10/10/2009 @ 4:22pm
Posted by Denise29 at 10/10/2009 @ 4:03pm
I think it was Metteya who advocated an escalation of Afghanistan.
Posted by nkurland at 10/10/2009 @ 4:29pm
Obama won the award for positive world diplomacy so far. It is a statement that this is a welcome change in tenor from the last president, whom he inherited both wars from -- found a cool site; Balkingpoints ; incredible satellite view of earth
Posted by reg373 at 10/10/2009 @ 4:36pm
Posted by reg373 at 10/10/2009 @ 4:36pm
His diplomacy is not what you think it is. His administration's recent negotiations on climate change were particularly destructive. Your right, he's inherited two wars, what has he done? In Iraq, meaningful troop reduction (based on an incredibly limited proposal) has yet to take place. In fact, the recent influx of contractors has amounted to an escalation and increase of the size of the total force. Afghanistan? 21,000 sent so far, and another 40,000 (at least) soon to come now that McChrystal has insisted this would be the absolute minimum necessary to win.
Posted by nkurland at 10/10/2009 @ 4:52pm
Obama? The Peace Prize? Excuse me while I get gut wrenchingly sick....
Posted by chaoszen at 10/10/2009 @ 5:53pm
I find Mr. Nichols's equivocation, BO the candidate, merited the Nobel PP unacceptable. Nichols's summation of BOs presidential record is on the mark. I find unacceptable the idea that he can be an excellent politician as candidate and a poor one as president. What is my conclusion?
BO is a great deceiver. He courted the Left as candidate, because they have the activists, the youthful volunteers to work the phones, hand out literature and attend the rallies. When the nomination was close at hand, he began to shift gears towards the center: he voted for the FISA revision and belied his promises, he courted Hillary Clinton with the promise of Sec'y of State. When the nominee, BO went for the big money, leaving behind his volunteers and public financing for the hundreds of millions that the financial industry gave him.
This president is not an honest man. He has lied repeatedly. He has betrayed the Constitution he professed. He has chosen the military-imperial path in Central Asia. He did not seize the moments of power to re-regulate corporate finance; he did not seize the moment to push single-payer. He obligingly let our corrupted Congress work its will. How nice for his big funders that he has so uncontentious a personality!
BO is 48 yo. If he gets eight years in the W-H, he will emerge at age 56, still young. He wants a future on corporate boards, on the high-fee golf-resort circuit, maybe as a media pundit. He is buttering his bread now.
Well, he may not get eight years. His bread may fall butter-side down on the dust he is spreading over human bodies and villages in Asia; on the dust that is covering towns are dying in the US. BO, you may fool a few in Norway and the US, but you don't fool me!
Posted by goedel at 10/10/2009 @ 6:36pm
Posted by goedel at 10/10/2009 @ 6:36pm
Good post. He won't get 8 years if my vote means anything.
My Mantra is now "No Incumbents". It's Green Party or PSL from now on.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/10/2009 @ 6:45pm
Posted by MASHnews at 10/10/2009 @ 3:41pm
I have been enlightened.
Obama and I are the same. We are both racists. We both make our decisions by first asking, "What is the most racist thing to do?"
Although I hate him for being black, I love him for hating Pashtuns.
There is a deep abiding hatred in him! It must of been the plan of his white mother to sleep with the filthy African, so that the hatred she instilled in him would not be detected. She would say to young Barry, "Barry, don't worry about that little bitta black in ya, the real ni**** of the world is those goddamn Pashtuns."
And so he and his mother devised their evil scheme, to become the liberals' manchurian candidate, elected by the very people who tirelessly fight against racism while drinking in bars, he would use his position to enact his ruthless campaign against the hated Pashtun.
All hail Obama! Long live racism!
Posted by gangpapist at 10/10/2009 @ 7:06pm
Waaay to soon. It is as Bob Schieffer said, they gave him the award for not being George Bush.
How about giving it posthumously to murdered humanitarian aid workers?
Posted by missionunaccomplished at 10/10/2009 @ 7:08pm
And just how do they explain his support for a group whose founder loved the German Nazis in the 1920s and 1930s and early 1940s? This group that Obama has openly supported was founded by Margaret Sanger, and the group now is Planned Parenthood. All hail Adolf????
A Jewish woman, former Illinois Democrat (now conservative Independent)
Posted by cafrench at 10/10/2009 @ 7:13pm
@ cafrench Madam: I was not aware of the founder's affections as you describe them. This was in the interwar period, you wrote. There were many Americans in that period who were German-philes: e.g. Lindberg. Is there anything about Planned Parenthood, today, that makes you feel they are anti-Semitic?
Posted by goedel at 10/10/2009 @ 7:25pm
And just how do they explain his support for a group whose founder loved the German Nazis in the 1920s and 1930s and early 1940s? This group that Obama has openly supported was founded by Margaret Sanger, and the group now is Planned Parenthood. All hail Adolf????
A Jewish woman, former Illinois Democrat (now conservative Independent)
Posted by cafrench
A new breed? What kind of warped shit was that? Is the irrelevant right busy cloning perverse anti-semitic right to life anti-choice zombies?
Or did I just eat a bit of bad meat?
Posted by chaoszen at 10/10/2009 @ 7:28pm
Talk about strange brew.
Ever heard of:
American Association of Political Consultants?
Check out their 2009 Awards, cutely named the "Pollie Awards."
Their annual awards ceremony carries the slogan:
"Recognizing The Best In Political and Public Affairs Communications"
Best at what again?
http://www.theaapc.org/conferences/pollies/2009/gallery/
check out the photo gallery for 2009 awards.
These are awards for running the "slickest" advertising and media strategy. They are not awards for truth, but rather for effectiveness.
also check out:
http://akpdmedia.com/
This Axelrod's astro-turf organization.
These are the folks behind the curtain - as in Wizard of Oz.
"Change You Can Believe In" - "Yes We Can"
Slick slogans designed to appeal to a downtrodden electorate.
Get to know your prez by getting to know who the folks behind him are.
Posted by OneVote at 10/10/2009 @ 7:29pm
Obama Campaign Wins Titanium and Integrated Prizes at Cannes Adweek
"The marketing campaign that took Barack Obama, a little-known African American senator with only two years of experience in Washington, to the U.S. presidency was honored with the top prizes -- the Titanium and Integrated Grand Prix -- at the International Advertising Festival in Cannes '
http://akpdmedia.com/newsroom/
Goodness...I hear the Viagara theme song in the background.
And further note other self congratulatory success in Agentina. Sound familiar? We will see.
July 8, 2009 AKPD Congratulates Francisco de Narváez and the Union-PRO list for Stunning Victory
AKPD Message and Media congratulates Francisco de Narváez and the Union-Pro list for an historic victory in last week's parliamentary elections in Argentina. AKPD worked with Francisco de Narváez to create message and media strategies that helped defeat the long-standing majority in Parliament, headed by former president Nestor Kirchner. Neither Nestor or current president Cristina Kirchner have ever lost a major election, prompting the Associated Press to call the results "stunning" and the New York Times referred to it as a "crushing defeat" for the incumbents. Larry Grisolano, AKPD's managing partner, said: "The people of the province of Buenos Aires have chosen reform -- putting an end to politics-as-usual, and rejecting those who put the interests of powerful insiders before the economic and security needs of ordinary people. De Narváez is an inspirational symbol of hope for people across the world who are using the power of their votes to hold governments accountable to their every day needs. " AKPD has a long history as media and message consultants to successful campaigns at every level of government.
Posted by OneVote at 10/10/2009 @ 7:45pm
"But he was immediately attacked for rejecting the "principle" – rooted in the Cold War but renewed in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon – that American foreign policy should continue to be conducted behind the tattered curtain of corruption that has given us unnecessary wars in Vietnam and Iraq, U.S.-sponsored coups from Iran to Chile, trade policies designed to serve multinational corporations and a seeming inability to hold up the banner of human rights or even humanity in Tibet, Darfur, Burma and so many other woefully neglected corners of the world."
Why, Nichols, do you favor war on the genocidal Sudanese dictatorship?!?!? Its ONLY killed 3 million people!
You're not a man of peace, like President Obama! President Obama's special envoy to Darfur, retired Air Force Maj. Gen. J. Scott Gration, who has signaled support for easing sanctions against the Khartoum regime, recently returned from a five-day trip to the country. Despite warnings from the people most affected by the situation, news reports quoted General Gration commenting upon his return from the region: "We've got to think about giving out cookies. Kids, countries -- they react to gold stars, smiley faces, handshakes, agreements, talk, engagement."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/10/2009 @ 8:16pm
As far as humanitarian intervention goes, do you realize that the war in Afghanistan has saved 40,000 Afghan babies every year since and including 2006 and 7,500 pregnant Afghan women through improved healthcare annually, that Saddam would have killed 145,000 Iraqis by 2010 based on his average rate of killing if he was still in power, that by 2016 improved healthcare resulting from the war will have saved upwards of 60,000 Iraqis from premature death, and that if Bush had invaded Sudan the left would have said he was only motivated to do so in order to steal yet more oil from Islamic countries?
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/10/2009 @ 8:25pm
"a seeming inability to hold up the banner of human rights or even humanity in Tibet, Darfur, Burma and so many other woefully neglected corners of the world."
What's your comment on Burma about? The US has done everything short of invading Burma possible to stop its brutal repression, so I take it you favor an outright US-led unilateral invasion of Burma? Imperialist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Under the Dalai Lama it seems clear that an ostensively "free" Tibet would be Marxist and if that's true, that horror would be far worse than anything the Chinese could hope to unleash.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/10/2009 @ 8:54pm
An award is only as valuable as the accomplishment or sacrifice that it proposes to honor. Lowering the threshold qualifications from achievement to intention devalues the award and diminishes the prestige of all other recipients, past and future.
Posted by Incoming at 10/10/2009 @ 9:08pm
"In fact, Obama was entirely in touch with the American people...."
The imperial trajectory of our "nation" went into warp speed with the advent of Wilson's public relations cabal, i.e., the Creel Committee. The outcome of that dubious "think tank" was the realization that "influencing" the opinions, beliefs, and "politics" of the masses--what was referred to as "the bewildered herd"--was a simple matter of creative media management.
It worked flawlessly in 1917--German-Americans got their heads handed to them, with the connivance of the State--and it works today.
To address the perennial all-American concern, "Why Johnny Can't Read" check with Johnny's dopey, gullible, TV-watching parents. Obama got the award because "they" knew that Johnny's parents would not only approve--they'd be thrilled!
(continued...)
http://empireglassdarkly.wordpress.com
Posted by Stonewhite at 10/10/2009 @ 9:50pm
Does the anti-war movement really encourage peace?
http://tinyurl.com/yf8qza2
"Account of the jihadis in Guantanamo by a U.S. Army male nurse who worked with them. They believe they will win this war. The nurse says: "Their leaders consistently stress that jihad is working and our culture is a hollow shell. They point to VietNam, Somalia, 9/11, Madrid (both the bombings and the elections immediately following), and the anti-war propagandists here in the United States. ... The jihadists are constantly told that America is weak-willed and will turn and run if they can be inflicted with enough damage and peace can be delayed long enough." "
people.rwj.harvard.edu/~riyengar/insurgency.pdf
"Are insurgents affected by new information about the United States' sensitivity to costs? Using data on attacks and variation in access to international news across Iraqi provinces, we identify an "emboldenment" effect by comparing the rate of insurgent attacks in areas with higher and lower access to information about U.S news after public statements critical of the war. We find that in periods after a spike in war-critical statements, insurgent attacks increases by 7-10 percent, but that this effect dissipates within a month."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/10/2009 @ 11:18pm
Osama Bin Laden reads the left: The butcher Osama Bin Laden praised the US leftist Noam Chomsky The butcher Osama Bin Laden praised the UK leftist Robert Fisk The butcher Osama Bin Laden quoted the US leftist Michael Moore
The butcher Osama Bin Laden quoted the US leftist William Blum And William Blum is happy that his book is inspiring fascist killers. "This is almost as good as being an Oprah book. I'm glad. ... I was not turned off by such an endorsement. I'm not repulsed, and I'm not going to pretend I am. ... I think bin Laden shares that view" [Blum's view of geopolitics] "and that is why I'm not repulsed by his embrace of my book, because that is one of my major themes."
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/10/2009 @ 11:19pm
Jihadi instructions for using the Web to foster Anti-War sentiment among Americans, March 20, 2007
"There is no doubt, my brothers, that raiding American [web] forums is among the most important means of obtaining victory in the fierce media war ... and of influencing the views of the weak-minded American" (That's you, lefties. You're the kind of westerner they love. If only we were all like you, they think.) "Obviously, you should post your contribution ... as an American ... You should invent stories about American soldiers you have [allegedly] personally known ... who were drafted to Iraq and then committed suicide while in service by hanging or shooting themselves ... Also, write using a sad tone, and tell them that you feel sorry for your [female] neighbor or co-worker who became addicted to alcohol or drugs ... because her poor fiancé, a former soldier in Iraq, was paralyzed or [because] his legs were amputated ... [Use any story] which will break their spirits, oh brave fighter for the sake of God ... Your concern should [only] be introducing topics which ... will cause [them to feel] frustration and anger towards their government ..., which will ... render them hostile to Bush ... and his Republican Party and make them feel they must vote to bring the troops back from Iraq as soon as possible" The jihadis clearly want the Democrats to win.
Posted by rightwingnutcase at 10/10/2009 @ 11:21pm
I think that was the premise of the award, the promise.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/10/2009 @ 3:10pm
Sounds like pre-marital sex...
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/11/2009 @ 01:03am
An award is only as valuable as the accomplishment or sacrifice that it proposes to honor. Lowering the threshold qualifications from achievement to intention devalues the award and diminishes the prestige of all other recipients, past and future.
Posted by Incoming at 10/10/2009 @ 9:08pm
Hold your cards!!!!!
We have a BINGO here.
This the best definition of Affirmative Action I have ever read.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/11/2009 @ 01:05am
God - you superliberals are spinning so hard you are buried up to your knees. I don't blame Obama, he thinks this is stupid too, and he knows the problems this "award" create for him. With friends like these ......
Posted by wredner at 10/11/2009 @ 07:41am
I saw this tagline and really wanted to mock the premise...but it seems people from both ends of the spectrum have done that pretty well for me. I'll just add this:
To justify Obama's Peace Prize, you have to do so both (1) comparatively and (2) absolutely. That is, you have to both say that he has done something to deserve it, AND that he deserves it more than other people who would also be on the short list.
At best, the article shows (1) (and I don't think it does). It says nothing about (2). Tell me why his campaign makes Obama deserve this more than people who have been out there risking their lives for human rights.
Posted by Thrawn at 10/11/2009 @ 08:01am
Posted by Thrawn at 10/11/2009 @ 08:01am | ignore this person | warn this person
he has the biggest soapbox in the world, and the biggest stick.
we have seen what that goddamn Bush did with those attributes. Obama has steered the ship of state in a new direction. it takes time to turn a ship this size around, but a new direction has been set. that is why Obama deserves this award.
there is an even bigger reward on the horizon: reelection to the office he holds.
did that goddamn Bush deserve the renewal of his contract?
the bar there is set absurdly low. we will hear the same chorus of nay sayers in 2012 when Obama is re-elected, but don't worry, it's just a yapping dog chasing a car that goes by.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/11/2009 @ 09:44am
obama, ¿re-elected?
with 11% unemployment (well 23% really)?
don't think so.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/11/2009 @ 10:12am
we have seen what that goddamn Bush did with those attributes. Obama has steered the ship of state in a new direction. it takes time to turn a ship this size around, but a new direction has been set. that is why Obama deserves this award.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/11/2009 @ 10:12am
This is what he says he's going to do. But when it times to make the move in that direction, whether its expansion of the Marines, enlarging our military presence in Afghanistan and South America, or just blocking any possibility of prosecution for Israeli war crimes, he never takes the steps.
Posted by nkurland at 10/11/2009 @ 10:25am
Jommama, HA!
Posted by Denise29 at 10/11/2009 @ 10:31am
Posted by rightwingnutcase
maybe if you'd stop kicking people in the balls..
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/11/2009 @ 10:42am
What a gift that God could gi'e us...
To see ourselves as others see us.
-Robert Burns
The shift from Authoritarianism to Democracy is a tough one... especially because of the difficulty with which the quasi-fascist has in ascertaining his/her own predicament.
Obama has done far more than most of you realize.
...but you will!;^)
Posted by ttr at 10/11/2009 @ 10:51am
If the one poster above actually believes that America is very racist, much less "the most", he has no experience elsewhere. I would nominate Japan, where Koreans and even Okinawa Japanese are held in contempt and little kids often run away from whites and blacks on the street.
More importantly, I am appalled by the greatly mistaken idea that the world would be more secure without nuclear weapons. They have kept a lid on it so that there have been no major conflicts in the world since WW2. If the lid is removed, I predict that the missing large-scale wars will return with a vengence!
Posted by balataf at 10/11/2009 @ 10:54am
ttr:
america is run by oligarchs.
nothing has changed.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/11/2009 @ 11:34am
here, ttr:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/ongoing-plight-us-nightcrawler-part-2
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/11/2009 @ 11:41am
frosty zoom, what you say is true but disheartening, way do we even vote? If what you say is true, then there is no reason to even have an opinion, as it will make no difference in what happens to the good ole usofa , I really don't want to live with no hope. Sigh... .
Posted by Denise29 at 10/11/2009 @ 11:53am
Giving obama the nobel prize is realy a sick joke but then again this so called "perstigious" award has been given to kissinger,the fraudster al gore and other war criminals.next year probably it will be netanyahu that will be the receipient.
Ever since obamas, election the situation in the world has actually deteriorated.2 million more muslims have been added to the ranks of refugees and countless 1000,s of civillian have been butchered by drones and other destructive devices.iraq is still suffering from occupation and land theft and terrorism by the criminal zionist jews has increased.
Most american people do not give a shit about this prize.these hard working people are asking for a decent health care, education and affordable housing.
If mr obama is realy serious about peace then he needs to end the occupation of iraq and make an honourable comeback from afghanistan and stop threatening iran on behalf of the zionist murderers.
Posted by excalibur999 at 10/11/2009 @ 12:03pm
"Lowering the threshold qualifications from achievement to intention devalues the award and diminishes the prestige of all other recipients, past and future."
did you bother to read what the qualifications are for nobel recipients? and did you bother to listen to the committee chair's explanation for giving obama the award?
as a matter of fact, did anyone bother? i did.
and after doing so, it makes a lot more sense that i thought. though i still don't agree. in fact, i don't agree with the most of the choices since they began.
but that's not the point.
Posted by darladoon at 10/11/2009 @ 12:04pm
--nothing has changed.
by frosty zoom at 10/11/2009 @ 11:34am...
You are not usually this ridiculous... so... something has changed...:^)
I think your analysis of Obama is self righteous, short sighted, and... wrong.
Obama is dealing with several sophisticated attempts to sabotage his presidency... and you are on the 'back side' of every one of them. I'd say you are stuck on the 'flip side' of authoritarianism... and it is a shameful waste of your talent.
C'mon, Frosty... we need you to be your best!
Posted by ttr at 10/11/2009 @ 12:59pm
<i>Posted by emile duBois at 10/11/2009 @ 09:44am </i>
I don't think that's nearly enough, though. I mean, if you're talking about a transition between, say, P.W. Botha and Nelson Mandela, that's one thing. In that kind of circumstance, I think it'd be solid.
That's not we have here, though. Yes, he has a somewhat different approach from Bush, but I don't think that change + lots of power should = Nobel Peace Prize. I just don't think any of what he's done is even remotely comparable to the vast sacrifices people have made for human rights, particularly when their lives were threatened.
Posted by Thrawn at 10/11/2009 @ 2:24pm
Posted by nkurland at 10/10/2009 @ 4:29pm
WRONG!
Did NOT say I favor escalation in Afghanistan.
I said that politically Obama has to stay in Afghanistan until there is some truly "international" force that is capable of preventing the country from becoming a haven for terrorists that want to harm America.
I also said that Obama will be a one-term president if he allows another attack on America - especially one orchestrated from Afghanistan. Obama understands this, but I don't think some on the left really understand the pendulum swinging opportunity presented to the progressive movement through an Obama presidency, and why ensuring this president's success will do more to help the progressive movement than insisting on a withdrawal from Afghanistan at this point.
I think we need 16 years - 8 years of Obama, and another 8 years of someone else who is also committed to extending the progressive era.
4 years of Obama followed by Sarah Palin because Obama couldn't keep America safe would be absolutely disastrous to the progressive cause.
And even in Afghanistan, I think we will eventually withdraw. It is probably safer to do it in the second term, and set the stage and conditions (i.e., establish international rapid response force, develop economic alternatives to illegal opium trade, establish government structures to provide badly needed social services to Afghanis, etc.) for this withdrawal in the first term.
Yes, patience really is a virtue this time, and I think we need to be far more patient with this president than we have been since he really is on our side, and needs to move on a "wide range" of progressive initiatives that require our support.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/11/2009 @ 2:38pm
Posted by balataf at 10/11/2009 @ 10:54am
One should travel to the rest of Asia...India has a caste system, (color), the lighter the more power you have in business and govt, in general...in Thailand, the same holds true with the indigenous people of the hills are treated as trash..the young come into Bangkok from the tribal areas looking for work and end up in brothels...the darker the skin, the worst the treatment...the whole area is racist...and the ethnic Chinese run almost every business for 500 years in these countrys...and are the worst.
Racism? in Hawaii the Hawaiians hate the Samoans, who hate the Japenese,, who hate the Koreans, who hate the Chinese, who hate the Vietnamese....and this is 1000's of years of racism.
I met some black Americans in China last year from a deligation from Michigan and had dinner with them,,a great couple...they told me they couldn't get a cab or waited on in many restaurants...in Shenzen...they told me the locals thought they were from Africa and Africans have no money and don't tip...this is what the cab driver actualy told them...and they were anxious to get back to that terroble racists dump...the US of A...
Go figure.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/11/2009 @ 3:55pm
Posted by Metteyya at 10/11/2009 @ 2:38pm
I'll bet anything you'll hail Obama's inevitable escalation as part of a sound strategy. It's not merely "some on the left" who are against the war. 57% of Americans no longer see the war as worth fighting. The only 'interests' the U.S. has in Afghanistan is to build a pipeline.
Posted by nkurland at 10/11/2009 @ 4:04pm
maasch,
just because racism is far worse in asia does not necessarily mean that racism doesn't exist here, or that there isn't room for improvement here.
it's like arguing that, because there are extremely poor and desperate people in asia and africa, poverty doesn't really exist in the united states.
this is obviously false.
we are the richest, most powerful, and most privileged country on the planet. and that we have so many homeless, so many undernourished, so many uneducated, so many without health insurance, should be enough of a concern to change things.
Posted by darladoon at 10/11/2009 @ 4:11pm
9.8% UNEMPLOYMENT - a 30 year high, $9 Trillion in additional debt and still shooting up, Iran within months of getting nuclear weapons, Neda bleeding to death on the streets of Teheran while Obama says he doesn't want to meddle, Troops dying in Afghanistan without the support their Generals say the need while Obama dithers. These are Obama's accomplishments....oh yes, not to forget a "A Nobel Peace Prize". I wish I could win one. I wish and pray for World Peace. So it seems like I meet the qualificiations for winning. There's a substantial cash prize you know! I'll even just take the money. If I want a prize that means something I'll buy a box of Cracker Jacks!
Posted by valwayne at 10/11/2009 @ 4:11pm
Most american people do not give a shit about this prize.these hard working people are asking for a decent health care, education and affordable housing.
If mr obama is realy serious about peace then he needs to end the occupation of iraq and make an honourable comeback from afghanistan and stop threatening iran on behalf of the zionist murderers.
Posted by excalibur999 at 10/11/2009 @ 12:03pm
I saw a Gallop poll on the news this past week where the overall continued economic collapse was the biggest concern of the American people, followed by lack of job creation....health care was less than 12%...housing never made the list.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/11/2009 @ 4:13pm
"health care was less than 12%...housing never made the list"
you'd really have to be pretty darned stupid not to understand that the economy is inextricable from healthcare and housing. i mean, seriously, you'd have to be less than stupid. you'd have to be dead.
Posted by darladoon at 10/11/2009 @ 4:43pm
YJ-So you think the housing mess is a small concern. Because we make nothing in this country any more the home builders are extremely important to the economy. It kept the economy moving for quite awhile. Now with new home construction at a near standstill it has a major impact on our stumbling economy. Maybe you were talking about foreclosures which keep dragging along. Don't they go hand in hand with the downturn? Health care where is thy health care?People are scared they are next to lose their job and health care.
Posted by whatozz at 10/11/2009 @ 5:14pm
Whazz.
"YJ-So you think the housing mess is a small concern."
Where did you find that?
I mentioned a Gallop poll I saw in passing the TV screen...how the hell do you come up with your conclusion?
You been hangin' with Darlaloon in her garden? Your cognative thinking is paralleing hers...
I never bought health care until I reached 55. Until then the odds of having a large medical bill is slim(the insurance companies bank on it) and you are better off paying cash out of pocket and negoiating your bill, since you will never ever spend as much on your health care for the first 30 or more years to equal the premiums and deductable you and your employer pay.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/11/2009 @ 5:26pm
I see, do you normally comment on passing the TV screen. My comment was simply that both parts of the"housing debacle" have made a huge impact on the economy and the country. You stated housing did not make it into a Gallup poll. It is a two headed monster in our tottering economy. I will give your wise speech to my son's friend who had medical problems that he wasn't insured for. He filed for personal bankruptcy. Perhaps that's badge of honor today. How many times has Donny Trump filed? He is a respected pig.
Posted by whatozz at 10/11/2009 @ 6:24pm
there have been no major conflicts in the world since WW2.
tell it to the Koreans and the Vietnamese. they will be surprised to hear it.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/11/2009 @ 6:33pm
frosty zoom
easy for him, he's got gov't health insurance.
I would take his comments with a grain of salt. he does not have a dog in the hunt.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/11/2009 @ 6:35pm
Trying to Understand Obama
I have perused "Dreams of my Father" for an understanding of what drives Barack Obama. Taking his own words at face value, it would seem that his goal out of Columbia College was to work within community service in black neighborhoods in order to empower their dwellers. Interpreting a bit, I believe he sought to empower himself as a political representative as well but came to the conclusion that he needed law school and the contacts he might make thereby. He pursued his goal further in Chicago and used his lectureship at UofC as a platform for entry into Illinois politics.
My view is that his dominant concerns have been, in order, his own driving ambition for power and fighting anti-black racism. He is not a fighter in the class struggle. He is not a fighter at all. He thinks of himself as a conciliator. That is a fine cover for not taking arms against major power centers (financial, imperial), as we have seen. Needing their support for his political advancement (running for the W-H), Obama made the necesssary deals and, consequently, brought us to our present impasses, economically and militarily.
His absorption with his own political advancement did not entirely bury his passion against anti-black racism, as we have seen in his loss of calm over the Gates-cop incident.
To borrow a phrase, make no mistake, Barack Obama is a 1st class narcissist: his yearning for self-glorification and power is primary. Once this is understood, all of his other behavior becomes clear.
Posted by goedel at 10/11/2009 @ 6:57pm
. He filed for personal bankruptcy. Perhaps that's badge of honor today. How many times has Donny Trump filed? He is a respected pig.
Posted by whatozz at 10/11/2009 @ 6:24pm
Who respects trump? I don't. I think he is an ass.
Your friend should not be ashamed, and should be helped, that has never been the issue for me in the reform debate...Trump is a pig, and should not be allowed to play in the big games again unless he goes completely broke...people who declare bankruptcy the way Trump did are unethical.
To me bankrupt is flat broke and more...not where your millions are safe here, but you screw the vendors and other agents over on the other hand.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/11/2009 @ 7:13pm
Once again, a few posts above, we face the demented idea that American manufacturing declined over the pst few decades.
The peak year was 2007, with a value around 273 percent of 1980. The SAD ILLUSION of decline comes because the 2007 figure was done with around ONE THIRD as many workers. The difference is the incredible advances in robotics and computers, and partly in miniaturization and advanced materials.
Certainly, some fields of manufacturing hve fallen during the general advance, such as note stationery being replaced by e-mail, but the geneeral trend remains strongly upward.
The process is identical to that of agriculture, which was about 90 percent of the labor force in 1800, about 40 percent in 1900, and only about 1 percent in 2000. Yet the total of crops produced did not fall.
We are headed into a different type of economy and society, with better advances coming.
John D. Froelich
Posted by balataf at 10/11/2009 @ 7:41pm
A Nobel for operating a crackerjack political campaign. I guess that's one way to assuage your disappointment in the man.
I prefer deeds to words.
Posted by khacha at 10/11/2009 @ 7:56pm
In this case the young man lost his health and his money. He got to move back home a t26 because he couldn't get credit. Personal bankruptcy is much worse than a business onein a lot of cases.
Posted by whatozz at 10/11/2009 @ 8:13pm
I never bought health care until I reached 55.
mmh, two kids? no health insurance? who paid for that?
my son was born Caesarian, cost $20,000 plus. did I have that kind of money? of course not. I had health insurance. still it took me years to pay off the excellent surgeon.
not to have health insurance is just irresponsible under such circumstances. I wouldn't brag about it.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/11/2009 @ 8:23pm
@ balataf (John D. Froelich) Interesting post, but nothing to be fröhlich (happy) about. Pardon my German!)
For one, we do not see how much of that manufacturing was for war-related goods. For another, even if all were usable (consumer) production for us or for export, the earnings therefrom are very poorly distributed among the workers, whether many or few. The few who get most of the earnings are the 1% who rule our country, the corporate-imperial elite.
The large migration, after WWI in the US from our farms to our cities, was not a time of advancement for most of those people. The changes you cite as a general trend "up" is upside down for most of us, and the deceiver in the W-H does not give a damn.
Posted by goedel at 10/11/2009 @ 8:29pm
Metteya is a really sane progressive! I don't want to see her 16 years of progressivism, and I'm sure we won't, but wow, you have to love the realism.
(Sorry for tainting you with my praise.)
Posted by gangpapist at 10/11/2009 @ 8:52pm
Well gangpapist, I agree with you on something, I do not believe you have tainted anything, I agree with you on Metteya.
Posted by Denise29 at 10/11/2009 @ 9:05pm
I never bought health care until I reached 55.
mmh, two kids? no health insurance? who paid for that?
my son was born Caesarian, cost $20,000 plus. did I have that kind of money? of course not. I had health insurance. still it took me years to pay off the excellent surgeon.
not to have health insurance is just irresponsible under such circumstances. I wouldn't brag about it.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/11/2009 @ 8:23pm
My kids were born in a hospital in Indianapolis, Indiana..My youngest is now 17..She cost $2500 and the middle cost $ 2300. I didn't have the money either since they were 16 months apart. I made monthly payments..My premium at the time was $550 a month and a deductable of $2500.....maternity insurance only took affect after you paid in for 9 months...funny how the math worked that way...
Irresponsible to you, calculated on my part..I read the odds and the statistics that the insurance company worked off of...and I took the same risk they did...
The money earned by insurance companies comes from the young who do not ,in a great majority, ever make a claim..it is the older who cost the most in pay outs...
any way, to answer your question as to who paid?
I did.
what a novel idea...I pay for my own health costs..including an appedicitis(sp)...negoliated laproscopic surgury down.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/11/2009 @ 9:26pm
Anyone who thinks this is the most racist country in the world is about as deluded as a person can be.
Europe is way more racist than we are. Are there lots of Christian Churches in Saudi Arabia?
Slavery was the greatest blot on our history and I would conclude the following about the election of Obama:
There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that a white senator with Obama's total lack of ability and experience could have been elected. Many people I know voted for him SOLELY because he was African American. I think the purpose of our vote was to redeem ourselves from the terrible sin of slavery.
It is tragic that someone like Colin Powell refused to run when he could and it is a tragedy that our first black president no matter how absurdly he is protected by the media is incompetent.
Chip
Posted by xchipsterx at 10/12/2009 @ 04:36am
Come on, Nichols. Did Katrina give you an early Christmas bonus for this?
You are one of the best, well researched, and thoughtful critics of this administration. You've always exposed his vacuous rhetoric. You know that the diplomacy thing was calculated and sinister marketing. It's exactly what people wanted to hear-- after 8 years of Bush's unilateralism (and his struggle to formulate coherent sentences). But it was clear from the beginning that it was disingenuous (at best).
Posted by freekick at 10/12/2009 @ 05:39am
It is tragic that someone like Colin Powell refused to run when he could and it is a tragedy that our first black president no matter how absurdly he is protected by the media is incompetent.
Chip
Incompetent at governing?
He obviously is a highly intelligent person. I think you Americans were spoiled by GW Bush who was pretty sparse with the words and probably not a great thinker but a person of action who as much as any president has, has by his foreign policy initiatives, changed the face of the world. Whether one thinks that is for better or worse is likely to be dependent on one's political and ideological perspective. The next few decades should give us a more objective answer about the consequences of those initiatives.
Lawyers, who are pretty good at evaluating arguments, generally, all other things being equal, make reasonable politicians. Obama despite being a lawyer doesn't seem to have the necessary gut instinct to govern decisively or effectively. Intellectuals very rarely make it as political leaders. Early days yet but the signs don't look good.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/12/2009 @ 06:45am
Interesting admission (belatedly) from our Aussie neo-con friend--
"....by GW Bush who was pretty sparse with the words and probably not a great thinker but a person of action who as much as any president has, has by his foreign policy initiatives, changed the face of the world. "----Posted by lrjones4 at 10/12/2009 @ 06:45am |
So as long as a President is a "person of action"...you don't care if they're "not a great thinker"?!???!?
Really the sort of thing you want in a person in charge of a multi-hecto-billion dollar military?!?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 07:35am
'I woke up, read the .. website and thought I had come to the Onion instead. I hit refresh. Still there...' -- Richard Kim -- The Nation -- http:// www.thenation. com/blogs/notion/ 482445/the_aspirational_nobel
'Obama's Campaign Merits a Peace Prize' -- John Nichols
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/12/2009 @ 07:51am
'Obama's Campaign Merits a Peace Prize' -- John Nichols
'Maybe Kanye West will show up and grab the mic in protest.' -- Melissa Harris-Lacewell -- The Nation -- http://www.thenation .com/blogs/notion/482879/ did_obama_deserve_the_nobel _peace_prize
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/12/2009 @ 08:02am
John, It is about time Barack gets back to his campaign promise of "Change". I can see and hear and I must have missed the changes so far. Take charge vof your Administration,your party,and get change going. The time for assessing potential is over. Quit posturing and start doing.
Posted by whatozz at 10/12/2009 @ 08:20am
So as long as a President is a "person of action"...you don't care if they're "not a great thinker"?!???!?
Really the sort of thing you want in a person in charge of a multi-hecto-billion dollar military?!?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 07:35am |
I don't think too many, anywhere, have ever considered that Bush was an intellectual. That's what I meant by "great thinker". However one does not need that capacity or status to make wise choices.
I'm not saying Obama is a genuine fully fledged intellectual, they are a pretty rare species in a world of specialists but he is much further along that path than Bush was or is ever likely to be.
My comments were prompted by my observation of our own political milieu where we have had "intellectuals" who were conscripted into our political parties as potential leaders but none that I'm aware of ever made it past a junior portfolio.
Gut instinct is probably short hand for a leader having a pretty well developed and held sense not only of how things work but also of moral values.
That means one doesn't examine every opinion on every policy issue from every "expert", to make up one's mind what course should be taken. That approach generally leads to inertia.
It seems to me that some Americans, perhaps you are one of them, would be fulfilled if their president mouthed high sounding inspirational phrases. However in your political system it is not you, the citizen, that needs inspiring but the president, who alone is endowed with enormous powers to act. It seems that many Americans would like him to start exercising those powers.
In the Aussie vernacular he has shown that he is a consummate arselicker on the international stage but I would have thought Americans, of all peoples, would have liked a little more action.
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/12/2009 @ 08:29am
This was humorous: *************************************************************
LONDON (MarketWatch) -- In a decision as shocking as Friday's surprise peace prize win, President Obama failed to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences Monday.
While few observers think Obama has done anything for world peace in the nearly nine months he's been in office, the same clearly can't be said for economics.
The president has worked tirelessly since even before his inauguration to wrest control of the U.S. economy from failed free markets, and the evil CEOs who profit from them, and to turn it over to wise, fair and benevolent bureaucrats. ...
Other surprise losers include celebrity non-economist filmmaker Michael Moore, U.S. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and Larry Summers, head of the U.S. national economic council.
It is unclear whether the president will now refuse his peace prize in protest against the obvious slight to his real achievements this year.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/obama-fails- to-win-nobel-prize-in-economics-2009-10-12
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/12/2009 @ 08:30am
This is also interesting. It is from the BBC. They are every bit as Liberal as the NYT, WaPo, Time, etc.
What happened to global warming?
This headline may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might that fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998.
But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures.
And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. ...
"Warming in the last 20 to 40 years can't have been caused by solar activity," said Dr Piers Forster from Leeds University, a leading contributor to this year's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
But one solar scientist Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting, disagrees.
He claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures. ...
According to research conducted by Professor Don Easterbrook from Western Washington University last November, the oceans and global temperatures are correlated.
The oceans, he says, have a cycle in which they warm and cool cyclically. The most important one is the Pacific decadal oscillation (PDO).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8299079.stm
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/12/2009 @ 08:36am
Does anyone know if this is true or false? **********************************************************
Now it's clear, as one example, that longevity is only partially connected to health care in the first place and that when you subtract homicides and accidents, we in America live longer than anyone,
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/10/12/ world_should_catch_up_with_our_health_care_98673.html **********************************************************
It makes sense to correct for non-medical causes of death when examining the healthcare efficiency of a society.
I may have to study this further.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/12/2009 @ 09:58am
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/12/2009 @ 08:29am
Wouldn't "gut instincts" and "wisdom" have presented themselves BEFORE 9/11?....
and thus said person would NOT have been campaigning on "no nation building" in 2000 and then totally reversing itself a year later?
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 10:02am
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 10/12/2009 @ 08:36am
Darin in full "Drudge Decides, Darin Reports" mode, I see.
Point is, DTT....the GOP candidate in 2012 will NOT say that GW is "not man-made" or "a hoax".
So really?...Who cares what you Deniers think?
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 10:03am
Point is, DTT....the GOP candidate in 2012 will NOT say that GW is "not man-made" or "a hoax".
So really?...Who cares what you Deniers think?
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 10:03am
I am not so sure...
example.... Sholuld the cooling trend that apparenlty started in 1998 continue, and more scientists finaly are allowed to voice in a PUBLIC debate what has never been allowed, more of the microphone shut offs as in ALGORES Q and A period in Wisconsin, and as more and more average guys look at the increase in cost for cap and trade, taxes, enviroloons commanding poilicy, the candidate may be able to say.."I dunno, what do YOU think?"...and the average voter may say it himself.
The candidate then points out thatALGORE received a NPP without any science back ground, but for narrating others flawed data, and the money he makes selling indulgences, the Obama NPP, the carbon tax...as the home owner see the temp drop and his heating bill rise, not because of shortages, but because of "activists"....
And the slogan becomes, I see the thermometer...what do you see?
Anyway, it can be done.
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 10:54am
<i>we are the richest, most powerful, and most privileged country on the planet. and that we have so many homeless, so many undernourished, so many uneducated, so many without health insurance, should be enough of a concern to change things.
Posted by darladoon at 10/11/2009 @ 4:11pm </i>
We may disagree on some specific policy questions, but as to this point I say...
Hear hear
That so many people lack food, shelter, education, etc. should simply be unacceptable, and that this gets so little attention during political campaigns is shameful.
Posted by Thrawn at 10/12/2009 @ 10:55am
darin, i will flag you if you change the subject again.
so, please stop.
thank you.
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 10:58am
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/11/2009 @ 9:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
my friend's baby was three month premature. any idea what that cost? a quarter of a million surely. no insurance? absurd. you took a big chance.
your post actually makes the best case for single payer. the young and healthy should pay into the system, for they inevitably will become old and sick.
what we have now is the insurance companies cherry picking the people they wish to cover. they have it made, the gov't takes the old and sick off their hands.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/12/2009 @ 11:10am
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 10:54am
John, you like a good "prediction" bet, don't you?
How about $1000 that the eventual 2012 Repub nominee says NEITHER that GW is "not man-made" or "a hoax"?
They do, you get a grand...they don't before the morning of Election Day...you pay me.
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 11:36am
I like John Nichols, generally, but this is ridicolous. Surely there are two meaningful criteria for the Peace Prize (if the Peace Prize is itself to remain meaningful): some sort of concrete accomplishment, however ambiguous (e.g., TR in the Russo-Japanese War); or perseverance at great personal risk, whatever the concrete accomplishments (e.g., Aug San Suu Kyi). Occasionally, someone manages to swing both (e.g., MLK). Obama has neither. I wish him well as President, and certainly his being awarded the prize is not his fault. But it remains an absurd choice - and the idea that it is merited for his campaigning is ludicrous.
Posted by iamcfar at 10/12/2009 @ 11:52am
what we have now is the insurance companies cherry picking the people they wish to cover. they have it made, the gov't takes the old and sick off their hands.
Posted by emile duBois at 10/12/2009 @ 11:10am
I agree here...I am just not interested in having the govt run the program..enough Post Office and TSA..we need real professionals...not life time appointments from the union pool of perpetual democratic voters with NO CHANCE of being fired...merit pay, not bureaucrats...
Posted by YourJomamma at 10/12/2009 @ 11:56am
"I agree here...I am just not interested in having the govt run the program..enough Post Office and TSA..we need real professionals"
maasch displaying yet even MORE ignorance about a single-payer system.
maasch, listen carefully, OK???
the doctors, hospitals, nurses, etc, ALREADY EXIST.
OK?
the government wouldn't "run" the system, they would merely run the biz of paying the doctors, hospitals, etc.....and providing insurance for people.
can you PLEASE just acknowledge that? please?
Posted by darladoon at 10/12/2009 @ 11:59am
A few points:
If we are going to start giving out NPP awards based on political campaigns, shouldn't Dennis Kucinich, or Jesse Jackson have gotten one? How about Steve Forbes or Bill Bradley for economics?
Did anyone watch 60 Minutes last night?
The worst thing any President can do is to send any one of our young men or women into combat and then not give them the tools to win. Try looking at it from their point of view for a change. At a young age, you decide that you want to serve your country in it's defense of whatever enemies we have at the time. America will always have enemies. So you graduate high school tell your parents, (some only have one), that you intend to join up.
Your parents feel incredible pride and incredible fear at the same time, pride at their child's honor and courage and fear of the enemy but sometimes of their own politicians. Their officers will train them well and look out for their safety but their officer's civilian bosses won't give them the tools to get the job done.
So there you are in some third world country where people still look like a scene from The Ten Commandments and you watch as your buddies get blow up, all the while wondering what the hell your CIC is doing to help you out. You're told that you can't shoot back because you might hit some innocent civilian. Hell, they're all civilians and they all blend in. How do you fight a war when you can't shoot back?
And at the same time, people on blogs like this one, (Darladoon?), say they don't support the war, the troops or America. Yes, she admitted that. Maybe the guy sitting in the blazing sun, waiting for his turn to get blown up, reads those comments and begins to question what the hell he signed up for.
I don't think he should. He's a hero.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 12:36pm
Also, the Afghan people live in fear that our guys will leave then to the mercy of the Taliban. Afghanis are paid ten dollars every time they bury and IED that will kill an American. So while they live in fear that we will leave them, they are taking money to kill our guys, who are protecting them. Does our President understand this?
I say that if Barack Obama cannot summon the courage that our troops have, to pull them out altogether and live with the consequences. Because what he is doing now by his inability to make a decision is unconscionable. Our military deserves much better leadership. He can fire his Generals but we can't fire him until 2012. By then it will be way too late.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 12:46pm
'the government wouldn't "run" the system, they would merely run the biz of paying the doctors, hospitals, etc...' -- darladoon
If you pay somebody's salary, you have a great deal of control over them. Isn't the controversy over the insurance companies' involvement with healthcare due to the way they are "running" it, although they 'only' pay the doctors, hospitals, etc.?
Posted by HonestLiberal at 10/12/2009 @ 1:00pm
Stupid, stupid headline, Mr. Nichols.
A political campaign should NEVER make one eligible for the Nobel Peace Prize, nor should it be considered. It was a CAMPAIGN, and we all know that in campaigns, candidates will say ANYTHING to get elected. I was as shocked as everyone else when Obama won it, primarily because he has yet to do anything deserving of it. How has he actually forwarded the process of PEACE? He has forwarded the process of negotiation, but he has yet to bring PEACE to anyone in the world.
The past few Peace Prizes have been given primarily to people or organizations who haven't been geaorge W, Bush, or have actively been against his policies regarding unlimited (preemptive) war.
In my opinion, the single worst thing W did was install the idea of "preemptive war" into the minds of the American people. Up until Iraq, we had (mostly) been a nation that finished wars, not started them. Now, we've occupied two nations, neither of which attacked us. Now, Afghanistan was home to AQ when it started, but there are about 100 AQ in Afghanistan now - they've all moved to Pakistan. Iraq was an illegal war, plain and simple.
So, while I do not think Obama has yet to earn the Nobel, he's certainly done more for peace than the last President, who I hope will always be remembered with shame by the people of our great nation. For we should feel ashamed for having allowed him to govern in our name.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 1:03pm
So, while I do not think Obama has yet to earn the Nobel, he's certainly done more for peace than the last President, who I hope will always be remembered with shame by the people of our great nation. For we should feel ashamed for having allowed him to govern in our name.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 10/12/2009 @ 1:03pm
I think you've got George W. Bush confused with Bill Clinton.
As for peace, have you ever heard the phrases, 'Might makes right', or 'Peace through strength'? I know it's a hard concept for peacenik liberals to understand but we are a free superpower because we fought and died for everything we have. Other countries tried it over the ages but their will was similar to your own and they did not have the resources that America has always enjoyed. Peace comes at a very steep price. You just can't run around singing 'Give peace a chance' and not expect the bad guys to look at you as a sissy and want to kick your sorry ass even more. If you cannot understand America's source of strength, you should not condemn it. Another phrase for you, 'Better to be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.'
9/11 changed everything. Those who have a pre 9/11 mentalitie are asking for trouble. It will come again.
BTW, I've mentioned more than once here that the scale of the Iraq invasion at the beginning might have been impressive and overdone but it was the wrong plan because there weren't enough troops deployed to secure the peace. The whole aircraft carrier and flightsuit thing was ridiculous. That's where GWB failed but he did end up winning that war and made it possible for Johnny-come-lately, Barack Obama to look like the conquering hero and announce his troop withdrawal. Who would fall for such a political calculation?
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 1:36pm
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 1:36pm
See, gunny, you say all that...and I can make you backpedal on 90% of it with one question-
"So, gunslinger, we'll be at war forever, won't we?"
Then you either say "No, as soon as we defeat terrorism, we'll have won" and then try to explain how that happens exactly...in detail...and you'll collapse.
Or you say "No, as soon as we win in Afghanistan/Pakistan, it'll be 'mostly' over!" and again explain in detail how that'll work.
Or you could try honesty and say "Yes, given terrorism is a TACTIC not a national affiliation, we'll be at war with it for decades and decades to come and anybody questioning that 'hates the troops'!"
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 1:46pm
We are headed into a different type of economy and society, with better advances coming.
John D. Froelich
Posted by balataf at 10/11/2009 @ 7:41pm
John, you are absolutely correct and echo a position I've tried to explain here numerous times.
With today's technology, I can set up a semi-automated manufacturing shop in my garage using just myself or 1-2 people. I can out perform a mfg shop of 20 years ago that employed 15 people.
What many do not understand today is that technology has undergone a paradigm shift in manufacturing that no longer is labor intensive for most types of manufacturing and assembly.
This has allowed our actual mfg capacity to remain fairly stable even though it means fewer mfg workers.
Ironic, because that was one of the supposed goals of socialism; freeing people from labor intensive jobs.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 1:47pm
Interesting admission (belatedly) from our Aussie neo-con friend-- "....by GW Bush who was pretty sparse with the words and probably not a great thinker but a person of action who as much as any president has, has by his foreign policy initiatives, changed the face of the world. "----
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/12/2009 @ 06:45am
So as long as a President is a "person of action"...you don't care if they're "not a great thinker"?!???!? Really the sort of thing you want in a person in charge of a multi-hecto-billion dollar military?!?!??!?
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 07:35am
Posted by lrjones4 at 10/12/2009 @ 08:29am
Lrjones captured my sentiments.
Liberals are enthralled with "thinkers". You can employ all the "thinkers" you need. What makes both business and nations operate properly are decision makers. Obama is demonstrating that like many in the legal profession, they are great at thinking, but take little real action.
I use to make my living by companies hiring me to replace a thinker who would not make the necessary decisions to satisfy both the customers and the company bottom line. I have fired numerous people with advanced degrees who were very bright but could not manage people or make decisions.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 1:50pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 1:50pm
But of course Larry. You're happy to let the bombs fly as long as it's a "gut decision" and not "thought out too long".
It's not like you're going to be killed, is it?
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 3:21pm
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 1:50pm
But of course Larry. You're happy to let the bombs fly as long as it's a "gut decision" and not "thought out too long".
It's not like you're going to be killed, is it?
Posted by Mask at 10/12/2009 @ 3:21pm |
Another example of why I had you on ignore for awhile.
That statement is totally made up by you and doesn't reflect anything I have posted or thought.
Posted by antisocialist at 10/12/2009 @ 3:45pm
I don't get what you're driving at. America has fought wars since it's inception for different reasons, alliances or defensive purposes. That's why we've built such a strong military. It didn't happen by accident you know. All you have to do is visit Arlington and reflect awhile and maybe you'll feel a little pride, and more than a little sadness.
As long as there are people who will want to attack us and our way of life, we will be using our military and brave people will be dying so that others can diss them. Some of the things I read here and on other leftwing sites make me sick to my stomach. Tell me something, why it is that only those on the left constantly put our military down or withold their support. All they did was take an oath. they don't make policy. Surely there are just as many democrats and children of democrats doing the fighting as there are republicans.
I'll say this. As long as our guys are wearing the uniform of the U.S. serving their country and they're over there under orders, fulfilling their oath, I couldn't even begin to think about not offering my full support of them. Are there bad apples? Of course but that's not the norm. So when people come here and badmouth an ex-President who was faced with the first devastating since Pearl Harbor, (which by the way was out in the Pacific and not even a state at the time), I can discuss the politics but I won't take sides against anyone in uniform, from the top down. As I've said, 9/11 changed everything. The next attack will be nuclear or worse. Better to take the offensive.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 5:54pm
That last post was an answer to Mask.
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 5:54pm
As long as our service personnel / commanders / civilian command / CIC is fulfilling their oath of office, I couldn't even begin to think about not offering my full support of them .?;,...
Posted by winyahn at 10/12/2009 @ 6:53pm
Posted by winyahn at 10/12/2009 @ 6:53pm
What's your point?
Posted by gunslinger1 at 10/12/2009 @ 11:02pm