September 28, 2009

"Unless Obama learns to rely less on charm, rhetoric, and good intentions and more on picking his spots and winning in political combat, he's not going to be reelected...."

"The president's problem isn't that he is too visible; it's the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches. They are heavily salted with the words 'I' and 'my.' (He used the former 11 times in the first few paragraphs of his address to the U.N. last week.) Obama is a historic figure, but that is the beginning, not the end, of the story."

The mainstreamers are starting to regret the way they led the poor man on.

192 comments:

Dark Eden said...

Ann said: The mainstreamers are starting to regret the way they led the poor man on.

Really the mainstreamers aren't that mainstream anymore. We (the vast right wing conspiracy) have been searching for a new more accurate term for them. Popular choices are Fringe Media, Palace Guard Media, Pravda, State Controlled Media, Legacy Media, Dinosaur Media.

I wonder if the althouse commentariate has any helpful suggestions.

t-man said...

I think it's the reverse. The mainstreamers are starting to regret the way they were led on by Obama (but it felt so good at the time).

traditionalguy said...

The new slang would call that article: weak news from a fine man.

Scrutineer said...

There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches. They are heavily salted with the words 'I' and 'my.'

Not so fast, Mr. Fineman: "Obama's Imperial 'I': spreading the meme"

traditionalguy said...

Seriously, Newsweek is a little like NPR in that they tend to run a conflicting point of view of articles in most issues. They remind me of a the hospital that hooks up their patients with an IV of poison driping into the right arm and an IV of an antidote dripping into the left arm. Needless to say, their Cover is usually pure poison. Free speech is always a bitch until you get to like it.

downtown said...

Well, INSERT TOPIC HERE Obama's complete lack of knowledge of any pronoun other than the first person singular MAY be problematic, Yet ANN thinks BusHITLER and CheneySATAN should be slathered in butter by geishas for THE WORST TORTURE AND WAR CRIMES IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE. And yes, those War Crimes, for they are guilty, are clearly WORSE than the HOLOCAUST and the DESTRUCTION of ALDERAAN and the United States is party to it all.

Fascist scum.

DownTownLadAsARobot

Original Mike said...

@Dark Eden

Rear Guard: a military detachment to protect the rear of a main force or body

CarmelaMotto said...

I remember Mara Larason (I am sure that's spelled wrong) from NPR getting irritated with the "over exposed," warnings. I thought that was part right, and Fineman nailed it on the head.

It doesn't matter how many shows he's on when the public doesn't believe him and he's repeating the same thing over and over. "It's Bush's fault; the opposition is telling lies and misinformin' folks. Trust me."

psattler said...

Yeesh.

May we at least put the "Obama loves the first-person pronoun" meme to bed?

It's a catchy idea, and one that doesn't require too much thinking on the part of columnists. But you and I both know it's a load.

CarmelaMotto said...

I also agree with Fineman that Obama is still running for President like it's 2008.

chickenlittle said...

Yet ANN thinks BusHITLER and CheneySATAN should be slathered in butter by geishas for THE WORST TORTURE AND WAR CRIMES IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNIVERSE.

They might make nice fajitas

Rialby said...

Fineman turning against Obama? There's something else at play here. Fineman is a staple on the full slate of MSNBC Obama Update shows so he cannot think this will go over well.

El Presidente said...

Obama is quickly approaching a decision point where he can get his act together and have a successful two term presidency (like Clinton) or a failed one term presidency (like Carter).

To this point he looks more like Clinton with his fabulous political and speechifying skills, but he has an awful lot of Carter's moral preening and apparent inability to govern in him as well. Clinton took an early beating in the polls, dusted himself off and went on to be reelected and have what most consider a successful presidency.

Carter did not. No matter how bad Obama is the least he can hope for is "Worst President since Carter." Are there any more canals that Obama can give away?

Darcy said...

That would be an oxymoron, chickenlittle! Fajitas are beef, I learned today. :) Bush/Cheney were beefy, but they are not beef.

Incidentally, some may inquire "where's the beef" with regard to Obama. ;-)

Richard Dolan said...

Another way to look at it is that the 'hope and change' cheerleaders are slowly rejoining the reality-based community. Garry Wills tried to do that in the NYRB recently, but it just came out as a laughable exercise in excuse-making for O (and for a lot of the silly things Wills and O had said about Bush too). Perhaps the reason for the difference is that Fineman isn't an academic and doesn't have quite as colossal an ego as Wills seems to suffer from.

Krauty made the point a while ago, noting that the O has been knocked off his 'messiah' pedestal and is now being seen, even by his leg-tingled fans, as just a politician.

Progress of a sort, I suppose.

ricpic said...

Hey Fineman, you don't get the fuck the Jews rhetoric Obama spouts? Lack of content my ass!

chickenlittle said...

That would be an oxymoron, chickenlittle! Fajitas are beef, I learned today. :) Bush/Cheney were beefy, but they are not beef.

I don't care if fajitas are beef Darcy. See my later comment back on that thread. :)

nrn312 said...

Concern troll acts concerned.

garage mahal said...

I know this may sound crazee, and I'm just thinking off the top of my head here, but now that we've established Obama as the worst President ever, anyone know the legalities of holding a super special election to get Sarah elected President? Maybe that's why she resigned as Gov? She knew all along that Sarah! Eat it libtards!

Palin/O'Keefe 2009!

AJ Lynch said...

Fineman and MSM are among the last to know Obama is self-reverential and over-exposed and he generally says nothing of import? Too funny.

David said...

I reached the same conclusion about mainstream disillusionment when I saw the absolutely devastating Doonsbury cartoon in yesterday's Sunday paper.

Several panels showing Hitler, Nazi flags and storm troopers, war devastation, an amazing panel of a death camp entry and a note that the contemporary parallels (obviously Iran and terrorists) are "understandably disturbing."

Then Obama's voice from inside the White House: "The bill is bogged down. Time for another speech."

Obama has lost Gary Trudeau and maybe Bob Woodward. Even the Yalies are turning on him.

What do Jeremy and Garage have to say about that?

AJ Lynch said...

Garage:

FYI, in the future, please describe it as SARAH'S SUPER SPECIAL election.

Heh.

wv = thrapo

John Lynch said...

If you watch the approval numbers, you can see that the reality of what people think of the President is disconnected from the media. People aren't actually fooled.

If we keep hemorrhaging jobs and the economy doesn't recover, Obama will become very unpopular. Reality matters.

On the other hand, if the economy starts booming and the jobs are replaced then people will like him again.

Media coverage of what he says has very little to do with it.

rdkraus said...

Hey garage

You made me laugh out loud.

Ha.

Thanks, I needed that.

Dudley Do-right said...

It's not that "mainstream" media is or ever was in-the-tank for Obama. It is that they were and are co-conspirators.

They're looking forward to a future where they must only please The One rather than
1)please a fickle public
2)abide with all govt. regulations
3)earn a profit
4)keep shareholders happy
The same point could be made about many of the business interests that have swung to support of Obama. GE is a case in point. The world of capitalism, competition and regulation can be a bitch. It doesn't help that government policies deliberately make it so.

For the media as well as other business interests, Obama and his socialist vision represent the "Easy Button".

avwh said...

It'll have a lot to do with a blatant disconnect, though, if the cheerleading and messiah worship keeps up in the MSM while the reality makes clear he's in way over his head. That disconnect will kill the dinosaur media eventually.

And Obama is toast for re-election if the economy doesn't take off in time to change perceptions, or if his foreign policy blunders come home to roost before 2012.

rhhardin said...

The lying is what always impressed me. It's part of the charm.

daubiere said...

"To this point he looks more like Clinton with his fabulous political and speechifying skills"

i thought clinton was a better speaker. i remember cringing and sighing less when i saw him on television.

i still dont understand this "meme" that obama is a great orator or rhetorician. he just seems like a gasbag droning on in a calculated way, salting everything with a non-threatening dose of black preacher cadence. and his speeches are terrible. ask anyone who loves him to quote two or three lines from any of his orations (excluding the terrifying populist "yes we can" chanting and that "we are the ones weve been waiting for" shit). bet they cant do it.

John Lynch said...

I guess it's all this talk of political tactics rather than reality that bothers me.

Obama needs to do two things:

1. Win the war
2. Fix economy

If he does that he'll be reelected. If he does not, he'll have a very hard time.

I think even just "ending" the war and fixing the economy would work, a la Nixon. But he's got to DO something concrete, not just talk.

daubiere said...

every time i see obama droning on television (every day basically) i think to myself: this is going to go on for at least 3.5 more years. and then i weep a little.

10ksnooker said...

Oba-Mao don't need no stinking content ... He has "as seen on TV" as his new love.

Content, details, that for others to work on, not me. Call me when you get Afghanistan fixed.

garage mahal said...

Obama has lost Gary Trudeau and maybe Bob Woodward. Even the Yalies are turning on him.

What do Jeremy and Garage have to say about that?
.

Truthfully it always worried me villagers liked the guy. Conversely they hated Hillary, which was a big reason I liked her. It's just so laughable that the right thinks these people are part of some liberal conspiracy against them. They're still chasing hippies 40 years later, and every loopy right wing story is chased dutifully, as "news". Matt Drudge is their assignment editor. What should worry the right isn't the media, it's that they still can't win with them.

LarsPorsena said...

"..ask anyone who loves him to quote two or three lines from any of his orations (excluding the terrifying populist "yes we can" chanting and that "we are the ones weve been waiting for" shit). bet they cant do it."'

'heal the earth and roll back the sea'

My personal fav;-)

wv hogist--a boar hagiographer

Christopher said...

John Lynch said, "But he's got to DO something concrete, not just talk."

And there's the rub. He can't do something concrete because he's never had to. I have the feeling he's waiting for one of his advisors to whisper lines in his ear so he can strut out on stage and look presidential. It's a version of the Warren Harding complaint that he can listen to one fellow say one thing and another say another thing, and he has no idea which is the right decision.

And, BTW, to head off the trolls, I don't mean Obama's never done anything in his life - I mean he's never done anything where results mattered. You can still flunk out of Harvard Law and be a success. And his nebulous community organizing and Annenberg Challenge were complete fuck-ups . . .but he "meant well." So no accountability there. Now he's in a different league. Soros and Axelrod can only tell him so much. At some point he has to shit or get off the pot, as Nixon said. He can't be a caretaker president. The last fellow with that luxury was Calvin Coolidge.

- the Other Christopher

tjl said...

O's political skills can't begin to be compared with Clinton's.
Clinton had a faultless ability to sense what people wanted and appear to give it to them. In many cases we knew we were being had, but he did it so brilliantly we didn't care.

O doesn't take people as they are. He so obviously thinks we can be sermonized into becoming what he thinks we should be. It's a repellent trait he shares with Carter and it's likely to take him to a similar place.

miller said...

I feel so sorry for the poor Boy President. I mean, we made him run for that office, and he was forced against his will to stand for election.

I mean, give him a chance. It's barely 6 months and already he's being tested.

Jeremy said...

Much like the disgusting poll Ann (a law professor no less) posted a few days ago:

"We have a president who doesn't even believe we are the good guys. True or false? Did you hesitate? Because you shouldn't even have to hesitate."

Here's what another right wing nutcase (just like Ann) posted on Facebook:

Obama Facebook Poll Asking "Should Obama Be Killed?"

The rest of the free world must be wondering what kind of people we have become.

Mindless and disgusting are two terms that come to mind.

Photog714 said...

"The limits of charisma" (read: "limits of bullshit").

Howard Fineman is far enough left of center to be welcomed and respected among the fashionable PBS gasbags. But in all of his reporting during the campaign and since, he has never been in the tank like Leg-thrill Matthews and the rest of MSM.

Obama's bullshit never fooled the right. It has since lost its effect on the center-right and much of the center. This column by Fineman is a sign that the center-left is now crumbling.

Like Hal in "2001: A Space Odyssey," BHO's voice is fading away.

Jeremy said...

miller - "I mean, give him a chance. It's barely 6 months and already he's being tested."

It's one thing to be "tested," but another to be criticized at every turn after such a short period of time.

The constant whining and bitching and periodic racism exhibited via the far right fringe (along with some of the main stream elected Republicans) in this country is embarrassing and un-American.

No CEO, CFO or President of any major corporation, especially one inheriting such a massive economic mess, would be subjected to such wide ranging complaints in such a short period of time. It's not only unfair to President Obama, it's unfair to the millions of Americans who voted for him.

For conservatives to be preaching free elections and democracy throughout the world, then acting like a bunch of spoiled brats when their candidate loses is intellectually disingenuous and makes them look like fools.

Jeremy said...

Photog714 - "Obama's bullshit never fooled the right."

Really?

Did the WMD and chemical wagons and stockpiles of anthrax fool them?

Maybe you should run it by the families of the fallen and wounded...I'm sure they'll be comforted by the knowledge that you and other wing nuts know how to identify "bullshit" when you hear it.

Cedarford said...

garage mahal said...
I know this may sound crazee, and I'm just thinking off the top of my head here, but now that we've established Obama as the worst President ever, anyone know the legalities of holding a super special election to get Sarah elected President? Maybe that's why she resigned as Gov? She knew all along that Sarah! Eat it libtards!

Palin/O'Keefe 2009!


Garage, I don't know who O'Keefe is, but that was a damn funny parody of a Palin supporter.

===============
As far as The One, goes, news amidst all his Iran, Afghanistan, and Healthcare woes...he is off jetting to Denmark this week for more urgently needed speeches. This time on the urgent matter of Chicago's contending for the Olympics in 2016, 7 years out.

Obama. You can't make this shit up.

Father Martin Fox said...

Oh come on!

Everyone knows Howard Fineman is just another Limbaugh/Beck type, and Newsweek is a right-wing rag--after all, don't they publish George Will?

I mean, there you have it.

wv: "redoa"--what they write if you are revived after arriving at the hospital dead, and then die.

Kirby Olson said...

Obama is to politics what Tiny Tim was to music.

They are both one-hit wonders, tip-toeing through the tulips to the sound of ukeleles.

LarsPorsena said...

"As far as The One, goes, news amidst all his Iran, Afghanistan, and Healthcare woes...he is off jetting to Denmark this week for more urgently needed speeches. This time on the urgent matter of Chicago's contending for the Olympics in 2016, 7 years out.

Obama. You can't make this shit up."

As some one has already pointed out, he would not be making the trip if it was not already in the bag. Chicago gets the Olympics with or without BO

Darcy said...

Uh oh. Is Obama losing Cedarford? :)

Fred4Pres said...

Picking spots and winning political combat also lends it self to compromise, and so far Obama has been very unwilling to compromise.

Which goes back to Rush Limbaugh wishing he would fail. Well, Rush is getting his wish and it is all self inflicted by Team Obama itself.

Slow Joe said...

Jeremy equated Althouse's blog to assassination fantasies?

Wow... that's a weak troll.

'Obama needs to rely less on rhetoric' is a legitimate position. It is not racist, it is not kooky, it is not extreme, and it is not a crime like threatening to harm a politician would be.

Jeremy is the perfect illustration for Obama. nothing but blindness and rage and an attempt to punch back hard, shut them up, etc. Not a second spent wondering about policies or ideas. Just Pro-Obama, like a cult member.

Lem said...

Obama is not arrogant. That charge is a calumny.

Is this the sign of an arrogant man?

Lets be fair.

Slow Joe said...

Jeremy, Operation Iraqi Freedom was about freedom in Iraq... not WMDs. WMDs were a democrat thing, which is why Bill Clinton and his CIA came up with the idea Saddam had them.

Bush had the balls to admit Iraq under Saddam was bad, whether he had WMDs now or later.

The families of the fallen will not be voting for Obama.

Balfegor said...

No CEO, CFO or President of any major corporation, especially one inheriting such a massive economic mess, would be subjected to such wide ranging complaints in such a short period of time.

Uh, really? Geez, don't you even read the news?

Rialby said...

Jeremy is spewing nonsense as per usual. Not worth indulging.

Shanna said...

It's one thing to be "tested," but another to be criticized at every turn after such a short period of time.

Ooh, poor president getting criticized. That’s never happened before in the history of ever.

I feel almost as sorry for him as I feel for poor Roman, not being able to pick up his oscar.

Balfegor said...

Sorry, should have added some news reports about the CFO, who didn't just quit, he committed suicide. Point still stands, though -- CEOs and CFOs who are brought in to turn around companies do get criticised harshly, right off the bat, for everything they do.

Salamandyr said...

For those who haven't skipped over, the languageblog post linked in the comments a couple of times either is an exercise in obfuscation.

It hides the content of the complaint by burying it in the details, by over-focusing on thw word count of the word "I", and not the substance of the complaint, which is that Obama, not only uses "I" a whole lot, but tends to re-cast any situation into a story about himself.

For instance his speech at the UN "For those who hate American, just look how awesome we've been since they elected me!" I paraphrase, of course, but the meaning is the same.

So no, that post doesn't put anything to bed.

jayne_cobb said...

"For conservatives to be preaching free elections and democracy throughout the world, then acting like a bunch of spoiled brats when their candidate loses is intellectually disingenuous and makes them look like fools."



Actually Jeremy has a point.

I mean it's completely hypocritical of us to utilize the right to free speech and complain about a political leader. They are to be followed without question.

After all there is nothing more harmful to democracy than the ability to criticize one's government.

tjl said...

Jeremy says "It's one thing to be "tested," but another to be criticized at every turn after such a short period of time"

Ah yes, how dare anyone be so right-wing as to actually criticize Obama!

Henry said...

I want Obama to go Bob Dole on us and start talking in third person.

Here's a sample:

Obama has been in office for just nine months -- though some days it seems a lot longer. Obama is well aware of the expectations that accompany Obama's presidency around the world. These expectations are not about Obama. Rather, they are rooted, Obama believes, in a discontent with a status quo....

Photog714 said...

Jeremy wrote: "Did the WMD and chemical wagons and stockpiles of anthrax fool them [the right]?"

It fooled a lot of people:

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability.
Robert Byrd, October 2002

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
- Hillary Clinton, October 2002

Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons.
- John Edwards, October 2002

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.
- Ted Kennedy, September 2002

I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
- John Kerry, October 2002

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandates of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
- Carl Levin, September 2002

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years.
- Jay Rockefeller, September 2002

I could go on, Jeremy, but I think you get the message.

MnMark said...

Clinton took an early beating in the polls, dusted himself off and went on to be reelected and have what most consider a successful presidency.

Um, how low are we setting the bar now for a "successful presidency"? Cuz when you call a guy who was actually impeached - though not quite convicted, by a few votes - and who lied through his teeth, was disbarred, and disgraced the office in a way never before seen, a "successful president", I'm kind of curious what exactly you're looking at in his presidency that outweighs those colossal failures.

The fact that the budget deficit was lower than it is now? But that was because of the internet stock boom, which provided huge, one-time capital gains tax revenues. Clinton had nothing to do with that. Welfare reform? That was a Republican idea. He got us stuck in Bosnia, promising we'd be out in no more than a year, and we're still there. He let Bin Laden go when he had a chance to kill him. He failed to make any progress on the Israel/Palestinian thing. I mean really, what about Clinton's term made him a "success"? I'm not seeing it. The electorate certainly considered him enough of a failure to drag Gore down in the 2000 election. Historians gave him the lowest rating of any president in history in terms of moral leadership.

The only thing Clinton has going for him is that he is so shameless that he has never stopped politicking to redeem his reputation, and since the Democrats have the mass media on their side, he's had their help. The man was one of the biggest failures of all presidents.

Christopher said...

"It's one thing to be 'tested,' but another to be criticized at every turn after such a short period of time."

So true, so true. Why I remember the halcyon peace reigning on the left after January 20, 2001. "The Era of Good Feelings," we called it.

wv - imette. A dating service for Apple geeks.

Never was heard a discouraging word. Those were the days.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Matt Drudge is their assignment editor. What should worry the right isn't the media, it's that they still can't win with them.

Heh, maybe we don't have to. Heck garage, your vaunted party holds the White House and has massive majorities in the House and Senate and you guys still can't get a simple piece of vital legislation passed. I mean when you guys have to crawl to a wrinkeled prune like Snowe for support then that says it all.

Maybe when you guys actually elect some real leaders rather than a community organizer maybe you'll get something accomplished.

daubiere said...

"Obama is to politics what Tiny Tim was to music."

thats unfair. tiny tim had an encyclopedic knowledge of early recorded music and early popular song and actually had an amazing voice with a good range. his stage mannerisms and vocal affectations were part of his act and sympathetic to the affected singing style of the period of music he was interested in.

obama has nothing on tiny tim except good looks, though i prefer tiny tims goofy grin and stringy hair to obamas mechanical smile and cold glare any day.

Paddy O. said...

And so we learn that the US is not Venezuela. A caudillo never really lasts long up north.

Jeremy said...

Slow Joe said..."Jeremy, Operation Iraqi Freedom was about freedom in Iraq... not WMDs. WMDs were a democrat thing..."

Well, it's obvious where the "slow" part of your moniker comes from.

At this point in time, you're going to actually try to represent Bush's reasoning for going into Iraq as a "freedom in Iraq" thing...and NOT based on the WMD that he, Cheney and many others said were going to result in nuclear mushroom clouds, massive anthrax poisonings, etc.?

Have you considered reading a fucking book or newspaper before making such inane comments?

What a dummy.

DADvocate said...

Young Narcissus so loves the sound of his own voice he wishes to only listen to his own melodious musings. His speeches teem with self-references. Read his speech to the school children and, although he makes a few short references to others, how he most of all holds himself up as someone to be emulated.

Jeremy said...

Balfegor said..."Uh, really? Geez, don't you even read the news?"

The person you refer to..."resigned" dumbfuck.

Reading comprehension not your forte?

MnMark said...

I still dont understand this "meme" that obama is a great orator or rhetorician.

I agree. I've listened to him, trying to see this great oratorical ability that his supporters keep trumpeting and all I hear is a garden-variety academic spouting left-wing cliches in a slightly grandiose, condescending, even nerdy ("all wee-weed up"??) tone. He's never, to my knowledge, actually come up with much of anything himself - reading stuff his speechwriters wrote off of teleprompters instead. When he speaks extemporaneously, he goes on too long or sticks his foot in his mouth. That's fine, there's no requirement that every president be a Lincoln in the speechifying department. God knows Bush was unbearable to listen to.

But all this liberal adoration of his speaking ability smells to me of the soft bigotry of low expectations. I think what's going on is that you almost never hear black people talk like he does. He is the ultimate fantasy of white liberals...a completely non-threatening, intellectual black man who doesn't sound the least bit black. If he had that "black thang" going on, that Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton rhyming thing, he would have been just another leftwing black politician, another Cynthia McKinney or Maxine Waters, and I don't think we'd ever have heard much of him. Close your eyes next time he talks, and imagine he's a white guy. Bleh. There's nothing there. Just another droning left-wing academic, a dime a dozen.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Well lets see if President Shortpants can do a better job of selling Chi-town for the Olympics than he can his own party on health care.

Cedarford said...

Darcy said...
Uh oh. Is Obama losing Cedarford? :)


Obama never had me I was similar to Althouse..not thrilled at what looked to be a canned MSM product with no experience or accomplishments -- But up against a senior citizen running an awful campaign growing more erratic and incoherent by the day, and backed with his age and major health problems by a new governor who appeared ill-informed & unfit to be President.
In the end, unless you were to negate your vote by not voting for either, or toss it to some 3rd, 4th or 5th Party candidate having no shot...an honest decision required voting either McCain or Obama.
And even now, even at tea party ventings - few are out there saying how great it would be to have John McCain instead of Obama trotting out each week with Nancy Pelosi to announce
a new "bipartisan deal" selaed with 97% of Democrats and 3% of Republicans.

About the only difference might have been McCain having part of the US Navy up in the Black Sea to "show the Russians who's boss!", and a major war with Iran almost ready to start..and the DOW at 4,000.

Jeremy said...

Christopher - Bush, after 8 months in office didn't hear any kind of whining and bitching like we're hearing today.

Oh, and actually 8 months after taking office, and obviously staying right on top of our nation's secrurity, we were attacked on 9/11.

Do you remember the daily briefings that were ignored?

Do some research before posting the same right wing bullshit.

peter hoh said...

El Presidente said...

Obama is quickly approaching a decision point where he can get his act together and have a successful two term presidency (like Clinton) or a failed one term presidency (like Carter).

There's at least one more option. The failed 2-term presidency (like W).

Crimso said...

"Ann (a law professor no less)"

I'm thinking this must be a new Jeremy. The old one (not the Other Jeremy, the old one) would know better. I would hope.

Henry said...

The key graf in Fineman's critique is this:

The president's problem isn't that he is too visible; it's the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube.

When the President says nothing of content, there's nothing except for the story to be about himself.

His health care speech was a case in point. He repeatedly referred to "his plan" when his plan doesn't exist. By failing to acknowledge what was in the actual plans wending their way through Congress -- and what the White House would negotiate for or against -- Obama didn't look like a leader. He looked like a tool.

Jeremy said...

Photog714 - "Obama's bullshit never fooled the right."

Are you equating Bush's "bullshit" regarding WMD to what you describe as Obama's "bullshit?" (And remember, much of what was "believed" by the many...was put forth as "fact" by the Bush administration intelligence people...as much as I hate even using the word "intelligence" in the same statement as the name Bush.

You're just another right wing slug looking for something to bitch about because your heroes John and the Princess were defeated...and of course, because we have a black man in the White House.

Jeremy said...

Crimso - I'm well aware of what Ann is.

I just find it strange for someone who teaches law to be so much of a self-serving right wing narcissist, thriving on the adulation via the regular sycophants here every day of the week.

And what does your comment have to do with her posting such an inane poll about our President?

Jeremy said...

Crimso - I forgot to ask: Is that you in those Geico caveman commercials?

Got any new ones coming out, they're actually pretty funny?

Scott M said...

@Jeremy

Christopher - Bush, after 8 months in office didn't hear any kind of whining and bitching like we're hearing today.

Vitriol aside, I remember this period very, very well. What I recall was the non-stop, incessant choir of the left singing the same "selected, not elected" hymn over and over again. Every minutia of the Bush administration during that span was met with the same ire and apparent loathing.

That "spoiled brat" mentality you mentioned was alive and well during this period.

I have no hatred whatsoever for our president. I was of the mind that he was the only non-Boomer running (I've heard people claim he is one...I disagree) and was genuinely in "wait and see" mode until the cap-and-trade debacle.

Now, I stand back in honest awe of the clown-car this administration seems to be driving.

Crimso said...

Trimmed the beard way back just Saturday. As always, people ask me if I've had my hair cut.

Yeah, I'm thinking new Jeremy, because the old one would know the standing joke of "You! A law professor!" and avoid it quite carefully.

And if it's the old Jeremy, then I want you to know that I really tore you a new asshole a couple of months back right at the end of a comment thread (and so you may not have seen it), and then was made aware that the quote I got so riled over was actually posted by some Axelturfer. So I apologized to you. Wanted you to know I had made a nasty mistake but did apologize. You may not have seen it, so I again apologize to you.

Scott said...

Whenever a cultie-lefty like Jeremy gets decisively pwned by someone like Photog714, he ignores it and pulls an Alinsky #5 by attacking someone different in a really nasty and personal way.

The self-preening cult left is so predictable. It's not about getting at the truth, it's about scoring debating points for your side.

chickenlittle said...

...an honest decision required voting either McCain or Obama.

Your vote for Obama (I'm presuming you did for the sake of argument) was an affirmative embrace of the man and his policies.

I've always rejected the "vote against them to punish them logic" stance as a perversion of politics and utterly passive aggressive.

IMO, and if I recall correctly, your main problem with McCain/Palin was Palin herself- your Sullivanesque loathing of her was well displayed back then-and there are archives to back me on this.

Jeremy said...

Crimso - If I had to feel bad about the kind of critical wing nut drivel I see here every time I stop by, I wouldn't have time to post counter-arguments to the regular crew of anti-American fools who live here.

My basic point is this: American elected President Obama, and to sp[end every day of the week complaining about literally everything the man says or does will not help anybody.

He's only been in office for about 8 months, and as I stated before, no CEO, with the current economic/military, etc. situation, would be under such ridiculous pressure to turn things around in such a short period of time.

Ann posts these silly headlines because she knows full well that it plays right into the mindset of her loyal right wing sycophants.

If the Republicans had done a better job of selecting their candidates, they might not have Obama to kick around...but they didn't.

They picked an old man with no new ideas, and a young "Princess" with no experience to lead...and Americans didn't buy into it.

And no amount of whining and bitching is going to change the way things are.

President Obama deserves a chance to lead...and real Americans know that.

bagoh20 said...

"...,he's not going to be reelected..."

Of course not, his white half is running next time.

Jeremy said...

Scott - The Bush administration lied at every turn and anybody who can read a book or newspaper knows it.

Trying to rehash the bullshit they put out (via their own intelligence agency and hand-picked liars - ever hear of Curveball?) now is a waste of time...and identifies you as just another right wing whiner.

Scott said...

"... identifies you as just another right wing whiner"

Woo! Jeremy hits me with an Alinsky #5 and a #12! I feel so... marginalized!

former law student said...

Howard Fineman just doesn't get it.

Never much of a legislator (and not long a -senator), Obama underestimated the complexity of enacting a major "reform" bill. Letting Congress try to write it on its own was an awful idea. As a balkanized land of microfiefdoms, each loyal to its own lobbyists and consultants, Congress is incapable of being led by its "leadership." It's not like Chicago, where you call a guy who calls a guy who calls Daley, who makes the call. The president himself must make his wishes clear—along with the consequences for those who fail to grant them.

The model is a man whose political effectiveness Obama repeatedly says he admires: Ronald Reagan. There was never doubt about what he wanted. The Gipper made his simple, dramatic tax cuts the centerpiece not only of his campaign but also of the entire first year of his presidency.

The Gipper made his desires for simple, dramatic tax cuts clear, and then Congress delivered. The final bill -- authored by Chicago Machine Democrat Dan Rostenkowski -- was introduced and signed into law within three weeks, but it incorporated some 300 introduced bills -- John Conyers sponsored one of them for Pete's sake.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d097:HR04242:|TOM:/bss/d097query.html|

So Reagan got his tax cut passed using precisely the same methods Fineman decries: the microdomained Congress wrote it on their own, in tiny bits and pieces. The legislative history does not show the imprint of Reagan's arm-twisting, in whatever form it took, however.

Bruce Hayden said...

Scott - The Bush administration lied at every turn and anybody who can read a book or newspaper knows it.

Don't.Feed.The.Troll.

Jeremy sometimes has something of interest to say, but today he apparently does not, and so tries to bring it all back to Bush (43).

Jeremy said...

Right now, with all of the bitching about President Obama's health care plans, we spend about $10 billion a month, enough to handle any health care plan being presented (and that $10 billion doesn't include the what the cost will be for injured soldiers).

We should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and take care of our own.

Jeremy said...

Bruce - If you can refute what I posted, do so.

Whining about "trolls"...because they disagree with you and the other regulars is childish.

I realize you want to be loved by your fellow wing nuts, but it doesn't add anything to the discussion.

Jeremy said...

Scott - You ARE marginalized.

Don't you remember the last election?

Duh.

Bruce Hayden said...

So Reagan got his tax cut passed using precisely the same methods Fineman decries: the microdomained Congress wrote it on their own, in tiny bits and pieces. The legislative history does not show the imprint of Reagan's arm-twisting, in whatever form it took, however.

Yet, somehow, he got all those Democrats on board to trade a whole lot of tax loopholes for lower tax rates all across the board.

It was really monumental, whether you attribute it to the Democrats in Congress or to President Reagan. And, I just don't see the Democrats doing it without a lot of something from Reagan. It is those loopholes that give the power brokers in Congress so much power (and money from lobbyists). And, they gave most of them up for the benefit of the country.

It was truly the biggest tax overhaul of my lifetime, and I am Ann's age (+1). I would love it if we could do it again, and that might be the one thing that Obama could do to get my vote next time (from someone who cannot remember voting for a Democrat).

traditionalguy said...

The amazing Mr Obama relies upon the smile he loves us with. But the romance is fading. Fineman is a Righteous Brother singing to Obama that we have lost that loving feeling. It started the day Palin's facebook spoke out saying that the One's Death Panels had no clothes on. Those that live by their smiles die by a smiles coming from a more powerful smile.

Shanna said...

Vitriol aside, I remember this period very, very well. What I recall was the non-stop, incessant choir of the left singing the same "selected, not elected" hymn over and over again. Every minutia of the Bush administration during that span was met with the same ire and apparent loathing.

Yes. Bush never had a honeymoon period, and then we had a national disaster, where everybody freaked out for a bit, and then went back to being critical. We do not have royalty here, we have elections, and when we don’t like what our politicians do, we tell them. We tell other people. With the internet, we tell the whole world. There is nothing new about any of this.

bagoh20 said...

One man's "right wing whiner" is another man's freedom fighter.

Like many terms being thrown around lately, "right winger" is starting to feel real comfortable. Hell, "racist" doesn't even chafe me anymore. "Genocidal maniac" might still fit a little tight, but I figure by the end of this health care battle, I'll be used to that too.

Scott M said...

@Jeremy

Calling on others to refute your points without doing so yourself seems hypocritical.

I'm with you on our current quagmires, but not to the extent that $10 billion should go to illegals for health care at my and your expense.

At the start, you seem to decry a lot of commentors her for whining, but I wonder how complaining that Obama is being micro-scrutinized isn't whining in and of itself.

I believe the level of scrutiny on this president has far more to do with the widespread use of alternate media then it has to do with a historical comparison of out-of-power complainers. Obama, unlike Bush, is truly the first internet-era new president. Bush was elected when we were all still finding our virtual feet, so to speak.

Every pres from here on out will get the same treatment, I assure you.

Photog714 said...

Jeremy whined: He's only been in office for about 8 months, and as I stated before, no CEO, with the current economic/military, etc. situation, would be under such ridiculous pressure to turn things around in such a short period of time.

Jeremy, son, you seem to have a hard time understanding simple English, so let me show you a picture of the problem.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Jeremy,
"We should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and take care of our own."

Since you seem to be approaching this from a purely economic perspective, how much did 9/11 affect the economy? How much would one or two more "9/11s" affect the economy?

Chip Ahoy said...

Thank you for reminding me why canceling Newsweek was a good decision. Only subscribed in the first place because Time became so intolerably like a poor parody of student-level desk top publishing with an odd affection for unreadable colored lettering inside colored boxes, never mind the obviously biased contend -- it's fine to read biased content sometimes.

Good to see their writers finally catching up. A little distressing that it's taken them so long.

Quayle said...

Does Jeremy actually think he's being pursuasive here?

Or is it that he gets paid by the word.

Revenant said...

The amusing thing about the "why won't you give Obama a honeymoon period" whining is that it implicitly concedes that Obama's fucking up.

Three months ago the boilerplate leftie response to criticism of Obama was "he's doing a good job". Now they've retreated to "you shouldn't be saying mean things about him yet". I guess it got too hard to keep a straight face while defending Administration behavior. :)

miller said...

To you new folks, just remember that "Jeremy" has been here under many names. He changes his identity every so often when people stop responding to his current nom de flume.

He especially gets riled when you refer to him by his old, lucky name. I don't remember exactly what that was, but it was lucky and old for him, someone's son on the internet.

AJ Lynch said...

Chip said:

"unreadable colored lettering inside colored boxes".

That drives me crazy too. Almost grounds for murder in my book. Number two peeve is displaying boxed information randomly around the page with no discernible clue as to the proper order in which I should read the boxes.

wv = whicked

Kensington said...

Trudeau's not turning on Obama; at least, yesterday's strip doesn't support the idea that he is. He's criticizing comparisons of Obama to Hitler. If anything, he's carrying extra water for Obama with that strip.

Trudeau's far too in the tank to ever come out.

David said...

Kensington: Your preconceptions are overwhelming your good sense. The only way that you can read yesterday's Trudeau strip is as a critique of Obama's speechifying. I eat breakfast at a greasy spoon in South Carolina, not exactly a liberal clientele. They all got it immediately.

garage mahal said...

He's criticizing comparisons of Obama to Hitler..

Unbelievable!

David said...

Kensington:

Wow, I followed your link after I left the comment above. The cartoon you link to proves that you are right.

Then again, so was I!

The Doonsbury strip ran in our local paper with the first two panels omitted! That changes the entire meaning radically.

I have no idea why it ran that way. It's a McClatchy (sp?) paper, with local editors who are gauze and warm milk liberal types. I imagine they just took out the panels for space limitation purposes without a thought of the meaning change. This would be typical of their mindlessness.

The paper is the Beaufort Gazette, for those who care.

tjl said...

"President Obama deserves a chance to lead...and real Americans know that"

I though real Americans were supposed to Question Authority! At least that's what the bumper stickers used to say on every Subaru in every college town.

Kensington said...

David, look at it again. He spends five panels depicting the Nazis and listing their legacy. He starts with "creating a brutal, repressive society," continues with "...left half the world in flames," "...methodically murdered millions," and finishes up by pronouncing them "the most evil force in history."

In the final panel, he says that "current parallels are frightening" and uses Obama deciding to make a speech as evidence.

That's pure sarcasm, unless you really believe that Trudeau finds Obama speechifying on par with Nazi atrocities. Come on!

JAL said...

Did I hear today on a fly by listen to one of the talk shows that Obama had done an ad for a new George Lopez talk show?

Nice.

He hasn't got the time of day to talk with General McChrystal, but he can fly to Denmark to make sure his buds in Chicago take home some more cash, do ads for California comedians, go on Leno, release terrorists....

Wow. We are SO lucky to have such a HIP president. Makes me feel warm and happy and safe.

That's so just what America needs while Iran is test firing weapons, looking for high bids for its North Korea based technology, the people of Afghanistan are looking at another 100 years of tribal serfdom.... we could go on.

David said...

Kensington: I assume you did not read my further post before your reply. It's kind of a stunning lesson in how foolish or dishonest editing can change meaning, even in a cartoon.

Kensington said...

David, I didn't see your follow-up before my last comment, or I would have changed it somewhat.

As far as the panel removals, I do think it has to do with space. Doonesbury has always been larger than most of its peers, and as a concession, the first two panels of the Sunday strip are usually throwaway side gags.

I still think the sarcasm of the rest of the strip is pretty clear.

Jeremy said...

Shanna - "Yes. Bush never had a honeymoon period..."

Absolute bullshit.

Bush had, among winning presidential candidates, the biggest losing margin in history(more than half a million votes) yet only one of the last six presidents -- George H.W. Bush -- had a honeymoon that extended beyond his ninth month in office. Bush's "honeymoon" lasted almost 21 months from the day he took office.

Why not read before posting?

Jeremy said...

JAL - He "appeared" on the show.

Duh.

Slow Joe said...

I know, I know, I'm feeding the troll, but I love how Jeremy is pretending that Iraqi Freedom was not among the stated intentions of Operation... Iraqi Freedom.

there were 7 reasons in the AUMF. All of them made sense to me.

Jeremy said...

The Chipper - "unreadable colored lettering inside colored boxes".

WOW!

How, with all of the picture taking (of YOU), do you find the time for such important protests?

Pelalusa said...

It won't be too long before Howard Fineman is accused of racism. In point of fact, this posting's resident troll, Jeremy, has come pretty close to doing just that.

Sad. And pathetic.

JAL said...

And that disssection of the use of the personal pronoun "I" was classic. They did away with any prepared content speeches!!

Hahahahahaha

That's where he is alway "I-ing." Becasue it's not about America. It's about him. And what he is doing to make America what he thinks it should be.

"Remaking America in his image."

a more reasonable explanation is that Bush was more likely to use "I" in Q&A because he was more likely to take responsibility for the kinds of things he was being asked. Or explain his position. Obama is more likely to say "As I have made clear ..." when the whole point of the question was he hasn't made anything clear.

Our current POTUS talks responsibility, but check under that bus.

I distinctly remember a couple times in his campaign when he smoothly ducked any responsibility. Once he was alleging it was a staffer who wrote those unacceptable answers in Obama's own handwriting on the questionnaire.

Keep making ads for George Lopez, Mr. President. In the end, the hispanic vote will not be enough.

Jeremy said...

Slow (and I DO mean s-l-o-w) Joe - We invaded Iraq because Bush sold Americans on the idea that Saddam was about to attack America with his HUGE stash of WMDs. The "freedom" and "democracy" bullshit was a sideshow. Anybody who has taken the time to research such matters knows this.

Maybe if you were to read any of the many books or articles that have been written?

*As for the inane "feeding the troll" drivel: That's just slang for "we've got somebody here who doesn't agree with the local wing nuts...so attack anything he or she has to say.

Jeremy said...

Pelalusa - Right.

All of this Obama bashing has NOTHING to do with race.

Bullshit and you know it, too.

Name ANY other President who has taken such ridiculous criticism, especially after inheriting such a massive American and worldwide economy and two wars, in the first 8 months of their term in office.

Take your time.

AJ Lynch said...

If Obama is making ads for TV shows, it indicates Obama is not receptive to the advice of more experienced and wiser people [of course that would include just about everyone including his barber and secret service agents].

JAL said...

Lopez ad here

As I noted I heard this in passing today. I have now looked it up and see it was a story in July when Lopez did his pilot that had a "cameo" appearance by POTUS. It surfaced again in September as perhaps the show is being produced?

Again. So glad he's hip.

Jeremy said...

JAL - He IS hip.

Nice of you to notice.

Crimso said...

"Name ANY other President who has taken such ridiculous criticism"

That's amazingly easy. Lincoln. You know, the one who was so hated and vilified that states left the union in the wake of his election. The one who was considered an imbecile and caricatured as an ape by his own Cabinet members. The Thin-Skinned, Bird-Flipping Crybaby Messiah and his Apostles haven't come close. And it's still early.

JAL said...

Name ANY other President who has taken such ridiculous criticism, especially after inheriting such a massive American and worldwide economy and two wars, in the first 8 months of their term in office

And he is working overtime to fix it.

("Hey, George! Good to hear from you!"

"Well honey, of course when we get to Copenhagen we'll go out to dinner. Why do you think I had to come with you?"

"McChrystal? McChrystal who?"

"Well, Max, jail time sounds like that would work. That'll teach 'em."

"Next time confiscate the cell phones when the kids sing."

"Make sure there's none of this "Do it in Rio" crap on the Chicago stations, will you guys?? Michelle and I want a nice trip to Denmark.")

JAL said...

Wow. The "depth" is awe inspiring.

"Hip" is what keeps America safe, secure, economically sound!!11!!

HOLLYWOOD is "hip," and those people are decorative entertainment -- at their best.

Vote "hip."

JAL said...

And that's not the George who had the nerve to question Teh One™ using a dictionary of the American language.

Jeremy said...

Crimso - You use Lincoln as your example of a President taking heat like President Obama?

Let's start with the election itself:

Lincoln won almost exclusively because of the voters in the North, and there were a number of states in the South that didn't even have him on the ballot, not exactly the same kind of voting and win associated with President Obama.

Geeee, and why do you think that was the case...and gosh, doesn't it have a rather familiar ring to what we're seeing right now? (All of the bitching and wining from the southern states about "government" and "spending," yet they take in the most federal dollars, and pay in the least amount of taxes...weird, huh? They also have the very worst health care, health and poverty in the nation.)

And of course, it has absolutely NOTHING to do with race...right?

Jeremy said...

JAL said..."'Hip' is what keeps America safe, secure, economically sound!!11!!"

Under whose watch did 9/11 occur?

*And before you get into the "nothing's happened since bullshit, keep in mind that after the 1994 tower bombing (we caught the culprits within weeks), we were not attacked on American soil until George W. Bush took over. A period of...eight years.

And don't forget the 4,300 dead and 31,500 wounded during the period Bush kept us "safe."

Crimso said...

"You know, the one who was so hated and vilified that states left the union in the wake of his election. The one who was considered an imbecile and caricatured as an ape by his own Cabinet members."

This is an indisputable factual statement. Rather than admit that Lincoln was considerably more vilified than Obama (and by Northerners at that), you run off to your "racism" talisman. Your magical incantations of racism will affect me about as much as a curse. Which is to say, not at all. Now, keep your eye on the ball please.

miller said...

Perhaps, dear J, you could explain why poor overworked Prexy has had time for golfing and vacations and a trip to Copenhagen to argue for the Olympics, but hasn't had time to talk to the general overseeing Afghanistan more than one time - ONE TIME! - in 70 days?

Time for golfing, but not time for his commander-in-chief duties?

Yeah.

Revenant said...

The funny thing about that Trudeau cartoon is that he cites the Nazis as "the most evil force in history". Of course, the Communists murderered or enslaved far more people than the Nazis ever did.

Then again, Trudeau spent most of his early career supporting Communism and trying to give it a human face. So maybe he thought it best to let that particular sleeping dog lie. :)

Jeremy said...

Rev - "Of course, the Communists murderered or enslaved far more people than the Nazis ever did."

True, but they had a lot more time to do it.

The Nazis did a pretty good job of it (if you want to call gassing millions, etc...good) over a very short period of time.

Oh, and don't forget those nasty "Christians." They did one hell of a good job, too.

Remember?

Jeremy said...

miller - You actually have the balls to whine about Obama playing golf...after seeing George W. Bush's track record???

He took more than ANY PREVIOUS president before him. He spent 487 Days At Camp David, 490 Days At Texas Ranch...which means he was on vacation for 33% or 1/3 of the time he served as President.

Duh...bya.

rhhardin said...

We are being sold a dead parrot. Fineman is giving advice.

miller said...

So every response to the "poor overworked Prexy" is BUSH DID IT TOO!!!! ELEVENTY!!!!

I see. You admit the President is goofing off. And yet you claim there are multiple crises that demand his attention, so many crises that no man could possibly be expected to to do them.

mtrobertsattorney said...

Is is it possible that what we have here is an unusal instance of the idiot savant syndrome?
Obama's gift is his ability to use language in such a way that what he says seems quite important but, in actuality,it has no real content.  As for any serious grasp of policy issues, domestic or foreign, he hasn't a clue.

Bruce Hayden said...

In Washington, the appearance of uncertainty is taken as weakness—especially on Capitol Hill, where a president is only as revered as he is feared. Being the cool, convivial late-night-guest in chief won't cut it with Congress, an institution impervious to charm (especially the charm of a president with wavering poll numbers). Members of both parties are taking Obama's measure with their defiant and sometimes hostile response to his desires on health care.

I will disagree about the charm. Reagan was apparently able to charm a lot of the Democrats in Congress at the time. There are stories about Tip O'Neil and Reagan putting their feet up together at the end of the day and hoisting one as two (more or less) Irishmen. He used the Bully Pulpit on the one hand to convince the people, and then sweat talked the Democrats in Congress.

Congress may have feared Reagan a bit, but the last President whom they really feared was Johnson. He knew where all the dead bodies were stored, and knew when to sweat talk, when to bribe, when to bend arms, and when to break them. He wasn't a back bencher by any means when he became VP, but rather was an effective Senate Majority Leader. Probably more effective than most since then. And, he got results: Vietnam, the Civil Rights Acts, and all that Great Society legislation.

Kirby Olson said...

Ok, I take back the Tiny Tim comparison. Tiny Tim's way better in his field than the Big O. Maybe O's more like Nilly Manilly (sp?).

El Presidente said...

"There's at least one more option. The failed 2-term presidency (like W)."

Well Peter, Bush's presidency doesn't fit the pattern. At this point Bush was riding high in the polls on the basis of some of the best speeches of his (or any) presidency in the wake of the 911 attacks.

Carter came into office to clean out the Augean stables of the Nixon administration and against perhaps the worst campaign in history. Ford was truly awful. He was very quickly found to be wanting in almost all areas of governance.

Clinton came into office against a poor, but not awful, campaign of Bush Sr. His first priorities were not those of the American people and found that it was politically prudent to conform to the wishes of the populace than to destroy his presidency on the rocks of gays in the military and nationalized healthcare.

Obama came into office against the terrible campaign of McCain (against whom anyone could look good) and has seen his popularity drop like a stone. It's up to Obama to determine which path to take.

Kirby Olson said...

I meant to say that O. was to politics as Milli Vanilli was to music.

There. Is that an improvement over the Tiny Tim comparison?

DavidH said...

@Jeremy

I don't think it's fair to characterized time spend at Camp David as "time off"

El Presidente said...

DavidH,

Please don't feed the trolls.

Eric said...

O's political skills can't begin to be compared with Clinton's.
Clinton had a faultless ability to sense what people wanted and appear to give it to them. In many cases we knew we were being had, but he did it so brilliantly we didn't care.


I didn't think much of Clinton, but you had to admire his political discipline. He has a giant ego, but when the time came to retreat and fight another day (as on Hillarycare) he did what had to be done. The man listened to his political advisers, even when they told him something he didn't want to hear.

So far Obama isn't giving any indication of that kind of flexibility. He wants to do everything at once and he won't back down even when, as with health care, it's clear at this point he's just racking up mid-term losses for his party. He still has time to recover for 2012, but one wonders if he's capable.

former law student said...

Clinton ran on the left, but governed from the center right, putting a two-year time limit on welfare, and opening up low-cost Mexico to American manufacturing. His wife, a former director of anti-union Wal-Mart, left her mark in a law insuring speedy termination of biological parents' rights in their children.

I could never figure why the GOP was out to get him, when he gave them everything they wanted. A giant red herring?

Kensington said...

"I could never figure why the GOP was out to get him, when he gave them everything they wanted. A giant red herring?"

Clinton may have done some good things when the GOP backed him into a corner and forced his hand, but he could never be depended upon to do the right thing. We wanted him out in favor of someone more trustworthy, responsible and reliable.

Now you can argue that Bob Dole wasn't going to fit that bill, either, anymore than George W. Bush did (or John McCain would've), but that's the Stupid Party for you. I still prefer it to the Dangerous Party.

Deb said...

Obama's gift is his ability to use language in such a way that what he says seems quite important but, in actuality,it has no real content.

Kind of like this?

Revenant said...

"Of course, the Communists murderered or enslaved far more people than the Nazis ever did."

True, but they had a lot more time to do it.

The yearly murder rate is higher for Communism than for Nazism, too. Besides, Trudeau was defending Communism during the Mao and Pol Pot periods -- one of the heights of the Communism genocide.

Oh, and don't forget those nasty "Christians." They did one hell of a good job, too. Remember?

It is funny to me that you bring up Communism's long lifespan to downplay its crimes, then mention Christianity, which has been around twenty times as long as Communism without killing anywhere near as many people. But yes, there is lots of blood on Christianity's hands, too.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Clinton came into office against a poor, but not awful, campaign of Bush Sr.

Not to mention that Clinton won because Ross Perot split the conservative vote. If there wasn't such a strong 3rd party movement, Bush Sr. would most likely have been re elected.

This scenario is my nightmare in 2012. That people will push someone like Palin to be an independent or 3rd party. As much as I would like to see us break away from the stranglehold of the two party system, I fear that it would just ensure an Obama (barf) reelection and doom us to more Leftists Democrats being elected.

If the Republicans and especially the Conservatives who are not necessarily Republicans are smart, they will coalesce around a conservative/center right small government campaign and NOT split the ticket.

Pogo said...

According to the Labor Dept., the unemployment rate for Americans age 18-24 is now 52.2%, the highest level since World War II.

I suspect those young people are looking at the President with different eyes now.

Revenant said...

Clinton ran on the left, but governed from the center right, putting a two-year time limit on welfare

Is it accurate to say that a position favored by a large majority of Americans is "center-right"? He bucked his own party, certainly, but he did so because polls showed it was in his own interests to do so.

Kirk Parker said...

Dark Eden, "Dinosaur Media" certainly has right whiff of extinction about it.

Alex said...

Shorter Jeremy - "Leave Barack Alone!"

Rialby said...

And in that spirit... some blues for Jeremy.

montana urban legend said...

Well gosh golly Gee! Where would Obama be if it weren't for all the self-appointed experts and purveyors of conventional wisdom? Frickin' ingrate!

montana urban legend said...

OMG, Pogo suspects he knows what young adults think and want.

Pogo, stick to pontificating upon the whims of the more pediatric subset of those "young people". They're more your own element.

montana urban legend said...

I know so many 18 - 24 year olds who are just dying to don a monkey suit and become the next version of Kevin Spacey's character in American Beauty. They just can't wait to become the next corporate suck-up.

What we need to do is to stop turning the nation's physical infrastructure into dust. I mean, since that would involve government actually doing a thing or two competently, it would piss off a lot of the wingers. But it would also stave off the fiction that allows us to believe everybody and his mother should be a college grad and that plumbers, electricians, and the like are untouchables - too far beneath the capitalist caste to be of any consequence.

I fully expect DBQ or another stand-in to berate me for insinuating that the market for vocational training has been anything other than a smashing success.

JAL said...

DBQ Not to mention that Clinton won because Ross Perot split the conservative vote.

Absolutely.

We were just talking about that tonight.

Selective memory strikes again (not on DBQ's part). Nobody seriously thought Clinton had a chance (least of all the Dems --) but then Perot got in the way. The votes he siphoned off were not Clinton voters, they were unhappy Republicans and independents.

An acquaintance of ours was a Perot person. Gaaahhhh. I'm fairly sure he to this day does not understand what he did.

nystica -- someone likes your heart

JAL said...

Deb -- readingmy thoughts.

Being There.

In this case wishing we weren't There.

JAL said...

MUL --

Uuuhhm. I think you might have it backwards.

While I can't speak for DBQ, I might hazard a guess, that DBQ would not argue that the market for vocational education has been a "smashing success."

Though that may depend on where one lives, I suppose.

I do have the privilege of living in a state which has an extensive 2 post high school educational system which offers excellent alternatives to 4 year degrees, so it's no big whoop to go there and learn a "trade" and get a job -- but yes, it is a problem.

Most of the conservatives I know think people should be free to pursue their own abilities wherever that takes them (within legal and moral limits). Four years of "college" education is not a prerequisite for success for many people.

Shoot, my neighbors graduated from 2 year technical colleges (if that) and they make more money than my husband and I ever did, and at half our age.

The illusion that the left is full of "working" people and the right is full of bankers has unraveled.

But I truly am amazed at how many lefty elites do not really *know* any people who make their living "with their hands."

(When they make the leap on a personal level, they have to write a book about it.)

That's also probably why many of us are just not impressed with Mr. Rhetoric. No hand on life expereince. Just "organizing" people who have less than him, so he can "spread the wealth around."

Seven Machos said...

Some really insightful comments here, and some truly awful ones. Could we please get some serious and less crazed, desperate leftists here? Beth and Peter and Mort, can't you recruit?

Thank you.

Revenant said...

What we need to do is to stop turning the nation's physical infrastructure into dust. I mean, since that would involve government actually doing a thing or two competently, it would piss off a lot of the wingers.

I can't speak for all of the "wingers" of America, of course. But as for me, my reaction to seeing the government "actually do a thing or two competently" would be a combination of shock and pleasant surprise.

I suppose it is possible that I'd get pissed if the government did something competently. But it hasn't come up yet.

Seven Machos said...

What we need to do is to stop turning the nation's physical infrastructure into dust.

Despite the abject falsity of this epic failure of a metaphor, let's suppose it's true for a moment. The party of Big Government holds the presidency and large majorities in the House and Senate. Why can't all this formulation of dust now be prevented?

Democrats are a sad and sorry lot, I guess.

montana urban legend said...

That's also probably why many of us are just not impressed with Mr. Rhetoric. No hand on life expereince. Just "organizing" people who have less than him, so he can "spread the wealth around."

Right. You would have been happier with a plumber in the White House. Or sorry - make that, you would have been happier with someone in the White House who had the experience of running a cit - an Alaskan meth lab - into the ground financially, in order to prop up an ailing, lifelong political organizer, who suddenly took all his political advice and direction from a plumber. That would have been better.

Dude, I think it's wonderful we seem to agree that plumbers should have jobs. One of us thinks they should be fixing plumbing systems and the other is sympathetic to a political party who thinks they should be running countries.

Call me an elite all you want. How many plumbers do you, personally, know? And why are you so prepared to find the work they were actually trained to do (i.e. not subtle political analysis) so unfulfilling?

Seven Machos said...

Call me an elite all you want.

Believe me, pal, no one is calling you that. People are calling you a sad, sophomoric, and probably unemployed ranter.

However, if someone were to call you that, that person would probably use the correct term, elitist.

montana urban legend said...

The party of Big Government holds the presidency and large majorities in the House and Senate. Why can't all this formulation of dust now be prevented?

"Big" is a strange way of looking at things. I say we put a moratorium on using the word "big" in pejorative reference to the Democrats until such time as Obama appoints at least a few more than the 31 czars that Bush had.

And it's apparent that Machos is far too elite and over-educated to realize that it takes more than 9 months for a president to use his influence to rebuild the nation's infrastructure - let alone for Joe Six Pack to put the damn bridges up and reconstruct all the crumbling roads.

Despite the abject falsity of this epic failure of a metaphor, let's suppose it's true for a moment.

Do you spend your spare time munching on Dove Bars while watching some kind of soap opera network for conservatives? I mean, what's up with all the fancy, liberal intensifiers? Is it necessary to say "abject falsity" instead of just "falsity"? What's so abject about a certain sense of falsity that you can't just leave the noun alone? And "epic failure"? My, my. Does everything that comes out of your mealy-mouth have to be damn dramatic?

I guess you must be one sophisticated, little drama queen, lucha libre wanna-be, Machos.

Democrats are a sad and sorry lot, I guess.

Well, guessing is, after all, your primary means of learning about the world. Lord knows thinking and observing aren't. But none of that is necessary for your stupid opinions, which no one cares about anyway. They're just opinions, after all. Like assholes, everybody has one, Little Lucha. No one thinks yours smell better than anyone else's.

So shut your butthole and stop pulling the mask over your mouth. It will be ok to breathe once you stop with the brain-farts. The smell will get better, I promise.

wv: fidalkie

montana urban legend said...

Hey Little Butthole Lucha. Didn't I tell you to STFU? At least wait until you read my 1:13 post before you give in to your compulsive commenting disorder. Or until your unemployment check comes.

In the meantime, indulge me. What's your salary or yearly take-home, Machos?

How many people live with you? Are they dependents or are you a dependent of theirs?

Sophomoric? If you have a job, let me know what level of the organization you work at.

I thought so. Shut the fuck up.

Seven Machos said...

What's your salary or yearly take-home, Machos?

My annual household income is roughly $425,000. I work out of my home. Why does that matter?

montana urban legend said...

Oh, look! Elite can be used as a noun. Who'd have thunk it?

Someone who thinks, for instance, as opposed to someone who merely guesses and shoots off his sarcastic, whiny mouth. (i.e. not Machos).

Machos, follow the advice of your betters and go to bed. They have to do something called "working" in the morning! Even if you don't (which is likely) you should still follow their example because that's what little kids like you do. They follow the examples set by the bigger kids and the adults.

Oh. And don't forget to shut up and curb your ADHD-driven tendency to provide some dumb little wise-ass remark. You're not in middle school anymore, remember? There's no nurse in-house to provide your medication in a cup after lunch.

Seven Machos said...

Good night, Montana. Please don't come back.

montana urban legend said...

My annual household income is roughly $425,000. I work out of my home. Why does that matter?

Oh, so I was right! You do have problems working with others!

It matters because you can't resist making snide comments and speculating into the employment status of others.

First of all, I don't buy it. Second, even if I bought it on some level, I wonder what kind of get-rich-quick scheme was the basis for this alleged work. Third, I wonder what kind of actual training you ever achieved in the furtherance of something useful for society before deciding that the Seven Machos Home Office was the way to go.

Riddle me that, oh rich and talented one.

montana urban legend said...

Well, I do buy the idea that you're at home most of the workday. It explains why you come across as so lonely and insecure with the idea of interacting constructively with others.

Seven Machos said...

I seem to have touched a nerve by proffering my belief that you are currently not employed gainfully.

Because I find this fascinating, I will humor you. I have a law degree but I do not currently use it, though I do remain a theoretically active member of the bar.

I haven't come to my current level of financial security security (such as it may be) in any quick or easy way.

I have a rich social life.

Anyway, Obama seems to be flailing and, if the course of your comments here is any indication of the psychology of his supporters, I think it's fair to say that he is in serious, serious trouble.

bagoh20 said...

MUL, You really know how to decimate somebody. I mean totally scorched Earth owning. Too bad you did it to yourself there.

I'm sorry for what you did to yourself. It was mean and thoughtless of you.

montana urban legend said...

Obama is not up for election until more than three years from now and the Reptiblicans know there won't be anything they'll find to impeach him on in front of chambers that wouldn't convict. Do they teach you in law school, along with how to make an argument while ignoring every piece of context, basic facts concerning American government? Or is that not even a highly recommended prerequisite anymore? I thought this stuff gets covered before graduating high school. But maybe your law degree came from the days when entrance requirements were optional and mail-order degrees were more common.

In any event, I would find it bewitching if this wealth you claim didn't come easily. I really see a half-million dollar a year stay-at-home job as an idea borne of wealthy families who have become bored with the trappings of the sinecures which they create for their kids. What? No office! No title! What's the point of a sinecure if it lacks the prestige associated with such positions?

You may fancy your professional life hard-earned and your social life rich. But your comments and behavior here don't do anything but very strongly betray any impressions that would support those fancy claims.

montana urban legend said...

MUL, You really know how to decimate somebody. I mean totally scorched Earth owning. Too bad you did it to yourself there.

I'm sorry for what you did to yourself. It was mean and thoughtless of you.


It wasn't as mean and thoughtless as coming up with the hundredth meaningless comment here that you've posted.

You really should apologize to yourself.

There is no way for me to verify anything Machos says any more than he has to verify anything I say. So we, like so many here, just go off of impressions. And as long as your definition of "owning" is going to continue to revolve around nothing more profound than impressions, than you might want to take a hint about how he is not doing anything to make the impressions he gives of himself seem very respectable, or even realistic, given what he claims about his own life -- and assuming any of it is true.

Seven Machos said...

I have said nothing about impeachment. That inane idea came from your fertile imagination. I am suggesting that Obama is going to be a failed, powerless president, and that his supporters are growing increasingly desperate.

I have an office in the back of my home.

I grew up in Southeast Missouri, quite poor. I qualified for reduced lunches throughout my formative years.

This is really too easy.

bagoh20 said...

MUL, Your self-loathing is criminal. You simply must stop before you Polanski yourself any deeper. We can't all be superior.

Gary Rosen said...

Why does the phrase "legend in his own mind" suddenly pop into my head?

LarsPorsena said...

Richard Cohen in this morning's Washington Post:
"...The trouble with Obama is that he gets into the moment and means what he says for that moment only. He meant what he said when he called Afghanistan a "war of necessity" -- and now is not necessarily so sure.."

Fineman and Cohen...... two acute observers of the obvious

Kirby Olson said...

Milli Vanilli.

Michael McNeil said...

I have no hatred whatsoever for our president. I was of the mind that he was the only non-Boomer running (I've heard people claim he is one...I disagree) and was genuinely in "wait and see" mode until the cap-and-trade debacle.

This assertion (which I see every now and then) I'll never understand. John McCain was born in 1936, and was nine when World War II ended. Sarah Palin was born in 1964. Obama was born in 1961, while Joe Biden was born in 1942. The Baby Boom, according to Wikipedia, is generally considered to have extended from 1943-46 to 1960-64. The only one of the candidates to even arguably fall within that range is Obama, while even he was marginal — but by no stretch of the imagination is someone born in 1936 a “Boomer.”

Hoosier Daddy said...

Seven Machos!

Beard of the Prophet what in heaven did you do to set MUL off like that? Here I thought him to be unflappable; a man of precise words, so eloquent and concise in his prose and yet has been reduced to flinging fuckbombs and calling you a butthole. What daring! What outrageosness! What insolence!

I salute you.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Oh, and don't forget those nasty "Christians." They did one hell of a good job, too. Remember?


It take a pretty good stretch to start comparing the nazis to the Christians but then again, this is Jeremy we're talking about.

If only those Christians had been like the peaceful Muslims the world would have been a better place.

Michael McNeil said...

The Spanish Inquisition was a creation and tool of the early-modern period Spanish Monarchy, not “Christian” per se.

jr565 said...

Jeremy wrote:
"We should pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan and take care of our own."


So I guess the libs are finally dropping the whole "Iraq was a diversion from the REAL war on terror" talking point they beat to the ground to get their guy elected. As per all lib talking points, that was purely a political calculus designed to get them elected, not an actual declaration of intent.

And by the way, why isn't Obama listening to his generals? is he trying to fight a war on the cheap? Considering Obama just escalated in Afghanisan you'd think he'd actually want to supply the needed troops for the war that the dems say was the true front. But as we all know, that was just a lie. And now Obama is simply trying to find the best way to remove himself from the whole "real war on terror" talking point he beat Bush and republicans about the head with to get elected.

You guys truly are pathetic.

jr565 said...

Lars Porsena wrote:
"Fineman and Cohen...... two acute observers of the obvious"


Or to translate that into democrat/liberal speak... RACISTS!!!!!

jr565 said...

Hey Jeremy,
In regards to people not giving the current president a chance and how wrong all that is, what do you make of this?

http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/imc-nyc/2001-February/002103.html

Hmmm, a rally called Not My President's Day. And note this was before the Iraq War,Katrina and before 9/11 even, all of the things that the dems ruthlessly attacked Bush for. And even here they were questioning his legitimacy and suggesting he wasn't even their president. I guess that ties into the whole "selected, not elected" rigamarole you guys harped on endlessly until the next event came along that you harped on endlessly about.

After hearing you harp about Bush being selected not elected, being Hitler and setting up a practical police state in this country, being the most anti civil rights president in the history of the world, letting black people die in a hurricane because he's racist being personally responsible for 9/11 because he wanted to enrich his buddies at Haliburton etc etc etc it's kind of hard to take your "let's give the president a chance, and you conservatives are mean to go after the president like that" rhetoric seriously.

montana urban legend said...

Of course Hoosiers might be unaccustomed to the idea of using profanity while yet remaining articulate. But don't worry "Daddy". (clever nickname, BTW. However did you come up with something so creative and original?). Yo' Indiana mama won't a com a wash yo mouth out wif soap if she a hear a one cuss word, now. You'se a goin' a be awright, even if one o doze evil devil words a done slip past yo lips.

montana urban legend said...

We can't all be superior.

And of course none of you three stooges are. You're all, actually, pretty easy to rhetorically and argumentatively slam into the ground. Especially you, Bag o'.

montana urban legend said...

I have said nothing about impeachment. That inane idea came from your fertile imagination. I am suggesting that Obama is going to be a failed, powerless president, and that his supporters are growing increasingly desperate.

More brain droppings from a decidedly less gracious incarnation of Jay Gatsby: Seven Machos.

Then define "failed" presidency, O' wise, wealthy and no longer hungry one. I mean, I accept that your obsession with your own self-image is what drives you to post your inane comments here. But we're not talking about your own psychological and economic motivations for posting stupid things about the president. We're talking about what on earth would make those brain droppings of yours true (or if overly opinionated, at least meaningful) statements.

Again, your opinion is as valuable as your own or anyone else's asshole. (Who knows, though? Maybe you find the metaphor appropriate for different reasons than I would). We're talking about statements that should have some sense of validity. And if they're banal and subjective to the point of an inanity (cf: "failed" political adversary), then you're going to have to grow up and do what people who get paid to research the success or failure of presidential administrations (i.e. "historians") do. You're going to have to define your criteria for what makes for a successful presidency versus a failed presidency - absent the phenomenon of impeachment, which, in your own, unpublished, personal rulebook, is apparently just a meaningless abstraction when it comes to the criteria used to define a presidential administration as successful or not.

Money or not, (and I still think not), you're still a bozo who doesn't know what he's talking about. Sorry that the free lunches and education didn't give you a strong enough foundation for anything other than a delusional worldview constructed around your own self-aggrandizement, rather than one constructed around an objective sense of reason.

montana urban legend said...

Obama's supporters might be becoming desperate about how stupid his adversaries have shown themselves to be, and not much else.

Machos translated:

"Me Machos. Me rich! Me own my own business. Me know what makes for successful presidency! Fuck historians. They're liberal! (Even though some are conservative). They know nothing! They're not rich! Machos rich! Machos know whether president successful or not."

Which just goes to show you that some people, no matter how rich, are not only too stupid to occupy the oval office, but they're too stupid to offer a meaningful opinion on the presidency.

Some things aren't as "easy" as the plot line and moral of your own life story, Machos.

Seven Machos said...

I have exposed some sort of resentful, aggrieved monster. I apologize.

Seven Machos said...

I would also add, for people ignorant of their own Constitution, that the standard for impeachment is high crimes and misdemeanors. Obama has perpetrated neither, not has there been any accusation of that, so there are no grounds for impeachment.

I don't need to go into the political impossibility and stupidity of it.