Barack Obama

President Obama Scores Victory in US House 2014 Election

gregladen — Sun, 09 Nov 2014 12:43:46 +0000

President Obama Scores Victory in US House 2014 Election

Yes, I know, that headline sounds wrong. But I worded it carefully and I assure you it is far more correct than many other headlines we are seeing, about the "historic loss in Congress" with the 2014 election.

The truth is, the party in the White House tends to lose house seats with every midterm election. Over the last half century there have been only two exceptions to that. Also, the second midterm for an 8 year presidency tends to do a bit worse than the first.

In addition to that for the most part, a president's popularity rating drops from the first day of the first term through the subsequent years in office. George Bush's popularity rating probably had the largest and steepest drop. Bill Clinton managed to increase is popularity rating (and his 1998 midterm was one of the only exceptions to the rule of loss as well).

The following graph shows the relationship between presidential approval rating and House loss (data from Gallup). There are two things to note.

First, despite the misleading headlines, President Obama's approval rating was not abysmal compared to the spread across presidents. On the low side, yes, but not the lowest by any stretch of the imagination. Second, and even more interesting, the number of House seats lost during this midterm is far less than predicted using all the other races as a guide.

By political standards, that's actually a victory.

What about the Senate? See this.

gregladen Sun, 11/09/2014 - 07:43

Tags

Barack Obama

Election 2014

House Race

Obama

Politics

Translated, I got a bloody nose but at least I didn't lose my teeth, so that was a victory. No, I don't think so.

There was a victor, and that was the democratic process. It reflected the will of the people, even if you did not like their will.

You define the right outcome as your side winning. I define the right outcome as the one chosen in a fair electoral process.

Peter, no, actually, I didn't say "my side won." You missed the two points I made her by about five miles each.

Greg, that's probably because I'm wearing worn veldskoene in the dusty Kalahari!

And what about the Senate and the governorships?

Peter: OK, whatever.

Ron, this post is just about the house. The Senate is a potentially different situation, I may post about that later. I haven't personally taken much of a look at the governorships. State politics and national are not that closely linked. Probably not very interesting.

The losses in the house were pretty normal for a midterm, and the Senate was always going to require massive Republican failure to be saved. We got spoiled by Republicans failing just as we needed them to in 2010 and 2012, and I like our odds of retaking the Senate in 2016. The disappointment was in governor races. That said, losses by the president's party in midterms isn't necessarily inevitable, and they can be less or more. We could have done better. Candidates of the president's party always run from him, both parties, and it fails every time. But they never learn. The hidden victory for Democrats is that we nearly ran the table in referenda. Even the midterm voters agree more with Democrats on issues, but they don't know they agree with the Democrats. They actually trust Republicans more on issues where they oppose Republican positions. That's nothing new, as there have always been a chunk of voters who don't connect candidates and positions on issue. At least having a majority with us on issues is a place to start rebuilding.

That does not look like a 'hockey stick', Greg Laden. In fact, it *looks* like a pool cue. I'm not really sure what you're hiding...

Well, at least it is not declining!

Is Obama really a Muslim?

gregladen — Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:14:39 +0000

Is Obama really a Muslim?

Or is he merely .... an atheist?

gregladen Wed, 08/25/2010 - 08:14

Tags

Oh, that is so shrill and militant.

...and hilarious!

Gee Greg, you seem to be able to attract wingnuts (referencing G-2 Pilot here) with the best of them. Scary to think that folks like that exist.

A better question would be: after examining his policies (many of which are continuations of Bush's) and "his" health plan (a re-incarnation of the plan Republicans posed as a counter to Clinton), is the current president middle-of-the-road or slightly to the right of center?

Document. Give names. Evidence. Facts. Or shut. up.

But he hangs out with terrorists which Islam embraces.

Name one. And please, not Bill Ayers. That would make you a double moran, which is a distinct possibility.

Then again, his campaign did accept a $20,000 donation from the islamic terror organization HAMAS.

Triple moran!!! Tripple moran!!! First of all, it's 30K not 20K. Second, it is two guys who live in the Gaza Strip, which happens to be controlled by Hamas. That's like you giving me money and me claiming it is from the Democratic Party because they are in control in the US (much to your chagrin). Third, it is not really true. Some guys in the Levant ordered a zillion Obama tee-shirts to resell them to a tiny percentage of the huge number of people across the world of all religions, political affiliations, and ethnicities who were so excited to see a person with a brain getting elected to run the most powerful, and thus, most dangerous country in the world.

Dean, your post is not a whole lot better, to be frank.

Re-read G2 Pilots last paragraph.
I don't think that was meant to be taken seriously

Well, I certainly don't take his comments seriously, but I don't see how the last paragraph is a signal for that.

In any event, he is a sockpuppet well known to me.

Greg, please get some more entertaining cranks and trolls. The one above is not even trying. Now, Obama being a werewolf- THAT would be a cool accusation!

Obama as werewolf: Ed Brayton quotes a (honest) conservative: About people willing to answer anything on a poll about a politician they dislike âAs long as they're negatively inclined -- e.g., "Is Obama a werewolf?" -- you'll get a certain core percentage willing to say yes.
http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/08/badass_quote_of_the_day_47.p…
Here is the original article. You will notice the toxic comments. How dare this elitist guy tell us we are mistaken! We may not have truth on out side, but we have "truthiness".
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/08/19/pew-poll-18-think-obama-is-a-musl…

@2:

He hangs out with communists and socialists which is the direct opposite of Islam and Christianity.

G-2 Pilot, you need to get your facts straight. I live in Holland and there is a party here called The Christian Socialists. Indeed, in Europe many of the socialist parties have Christian origins, or are directly supported by Christian churches. (Based on Jesus' feeding the poor, render unto Caesar and all that).

It is communists that are irreligious.

see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_socialism

@Ashley Moore (#10)

Actually, G-2 Pilot is correct. If you don't believe me, all the proof you need is these recent remarks by Representative John Fleming (R-LA).

We are either going to go down the socialist road and become like western Europe and create, I guess really a godless society, an atheist society. Or we're going to continue down the other pathway where we believe in freedom of speech, individual liberties and that we remain a Christian nation.

"Dean, your post is not a whole lot better, to be frank."

It was meant to be a statement of two things:

1) My disappointment in his presidency to date. I'm less than thrilled with his continuation of many privacy policies from the previous administration, his lack of clear policy, or even statement, on gay marriage, etc.

2) A statement that, in light of my opinions hinted at in '1' above, the wild-eyed claims that he is a communist/socialist/terrorist bent on destroying the country are foolish.

I'm a little surprised that my comment was judged to be essentially the same order of magnitude of crazy as pilot's, but I guess that's the beauty of the internet.

Well, I was being snarky. Obviously not the same order of magnitude. There is simply no way that an objective analysis of what has happened since Obama has been elected, compared to Bush, comes down any where near what you are suggesting.

Also, as a progressive, you still need to be realistic about the politics. A president has two terms, if re-elected. Everyone is well aware of the fact that certain social changes need to be done in the second term, not the first term. Frankly, health care insurance reform is one of them, and it is shocking that a) it was attepmted and b) it was done. It is interesting to contemplate what this may mean for the second term. Single payer?

A president has ten minutes in the first term to do whatever s/he wants, and may or may not get away with it. Jimmy Carter signed the amnesty order after walking off the podium where he was sworn in, as an example. Then, you wait. For four years.

Demands that one's favorite issue be handled right now even though that simply can't happen is not helpful.

Some of the privacy and other security issues are concerning, but I can think of several reasons for that. One is that he's already got a problem with insubordination because of the illegal, unethical, and treasonous takeover of the military by the Republican party. In addition, there may be other things. You get to be president, they sit you down, and they tell you about the alien space craft they've got in a cave in New Mexico, and explain how three sitting Senators are from another planet, etc. and you have to change your mind about secrecy and security. Not that I know anything about that, I'm just sayin'

" Frankly, health care insurance reform is one of them, and it is shocking that a) it was attepmted and b) it was done"

I agree, and I go daily between thinking that not enough was tried and pushed for vs thinking I'm an idiot for expecting too much.

"Some of the privacy and other security issues are concerning, but I can think of several reasons for that. One is that he's already got a problem with insubordination because of the illegal, unethical, and treasonous takeover of the military by the Republican party. "

Certainly true; I look at this and think "Okay, since going along in the current way isn't making progress, why not try a different, more forceful, tack?" Again, probably naive, certainly generated by impatience on my part.

Am I a little too pessimistic? Possibly. We'll see how it goes. Am I offended or put-off by your initial comments on my post? No, and I hope I didn't give that impression: my apologies if I did.

G-2, since I went to Ayer's school, does that make me also someone who should be killed by your henchmen as well?

@ Greg

No. Just becuase you chose to go to a school that openly hires idiotic commie terrorists does not mean that you are guilty of the same crime. It does, however, make one wonder why anyone would support such a disgusting organization with their money though.

Henchmen? hardly. Your terrorist buddy only tried to kill as many people as he could. Cause and effect says if he tried to bomb the pentagon, why should the pentagon refrain from returning the favor? What comes around goes around. The little turd followers of Saul Alinsky and other fascist dickheads like him should expect that retaliation will follow their methods of "change".

Bill Ayers - simply got away with a crime. He's still guilty, but he got away with it. He is not to be trusted. He's still very much a fascist turd. Maybe he'll fall down and stick a pineapple up his ass. That would be funny. I wish Saul Alinsky would have stuck one up his too. No, make that a hand grenade.

The Free Schools aren't free?

The people who like Obama more are smarter, female, non-white, not-Southern, not 'twix poor and rich, liberal dems godless and unmarried.

gregladen — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:09:51 +0000

The people who like Obama more are smarter, female, non-white, not-Southern, not 'twix poor and rich, liberal dems godless and unmarried.

Modally speaking of course. And those are utterly different modes so the title of this post is of course nonsense. But, we do have some interesting data.

This is from the Gallup Pole of weekly job approval by demographic groups. The main thing this poll shows is that Obama has high job approval ratings, and that his job approval ratings are high in relation to other presidents at this moment in their terms.

George Bush's rankings, for his first term, dropped as all President's ratings seem to do, in an almost identical pattern as Obama's. Then, when Cheney/Bush allowed the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to happen, and totally botched the response, the Bush rating went through the roof, to nearly the level that many popular presidents have coming into office, with the highest numbers for Bush and Obama being about the same. Subsequently, Bush's ratings dropped precipitously except when he would invade something.

Overall, Obama has a better showing than bush because he is maintaining high numbers without killing lots of Americans to do so.

Bill Clinton's ratings started out lower than Obama's and fluctuated considerably throughout his two terms, but mostly trending upwards following the Republican Revolution associated with the midterm elections.

George Bush Senior had ratings that ranged across to board, almost as a chimera of his son's ratings and Obamas, and maintained these reasonable ratings for the first half of his term, the experienced a precipitous drop for the second half of his term.

Regan's pattern of ratings is almost identical to Obama's so far, but Regan's drop was to a lower level and some of his early high rankings were owing to invading dome country or another, IIRC. (above data from here)

The most recent gallop poll breaks down Obama's ratings at four points over his term so far into demographic categories. His overall approval rating changed from 52/3 up until early November to 49 with the onslaught of anti-heath care reform rhetoric, liberal frustration with inaction (which is largely a myth .... stupid liberals) and concerns about the war. This is beyond the margin of error which I assume is 2% for this sort of pol.

Women have always liked Obama more then man and the drop for women is 3 points in contrast with 5 points for me. Younger people like him more than older people and the age-related difference is probably the largest, however, the drop in older folks is minimal and larger with younger folks who, in my opinion, are morel likely to be influenced by anti-health care TV ads.

Obama's ratings in the western part of the country are the same now as in the beginning of the term. the largest drop is in the eastern part of the country, and the south never liked him as much as other parts of the country. Him being an uppity black liberal guy, and all.

And i do not LIE when I say that.

Obama is extraordinarily popular among "black" then "nonwhite" and also "hispanic" with Hispanic foks increasing their amount of approval, blacks not changing, non-whites and whites dropping. I assume the most important drop here is the white-liberal-youth drop.

There is a positive and very strong correlation between education level and approval rating for Obama for those with some college or more, but High School or less is also very high. I assume the white-liberal-professional and not-white-lower SES interactions explain this kinda-U-shaped pattern.

His approval rating stands at 59 percent with the lowest income class, 49 with the next highest class, 44 with the next highest (upper middle class) and 48 with the richest.

The poll also gives data on party affiliation and ideology which are largely as expected.

Church attendance interacts with approval in an interesting way. THe most churchy people collectively score Obama at 41, semi-churchy people at 49, and those of the "Seldom/Never" group at 55.

Married people rank Obama collectively at a 42, not married at 58. This is probably also a metaphenomenon of ethnicity, class, religiosity, and region.

These data are here

gregladen Tue, 11/24/2009 - 05:09

Tags

Barack Obama

Then, when Cheney/Bush allowed the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon to happen, and totally botched the response, the Bush rating went through the roof, to nearly the level that many popular presidents have coming into office, with the highest numbers for Bush and Obama being about the same.

I know this will never pass the filter, but WOW Mr Laden, how trutherliscious of you!

"younger folks who, in my opinion, are morel likely to be influenced by anti-health care TV ads. "
The folks without health care are the most likely to be mad at Obama about health care?
*scratches head*
But then, I never understand why people making less than 250,000 a year like republicans either.

Also, apparently if I were black and living in Seattle I could be more pro-Obama, but that's about it.

"Married people rank Obama collectively at a 42, married at 58."

Wat?

Spiv- it should read "Married people rank Obama collectively at a 42, UNmarried at 58"

{self-edited very inappropriate joke was here}

"he is maintaining high numbers without killing lots of Americans to do so"

This vice never ceases to amaze me. I thought non american lives counted too. More of them die in wars launched by the USA than americans, actually.

And anyway, many people have been killed at war under this administration. The difference is only that we haven't seen a newly launched war with lots of patriotic rethoric to go with it.

This vice never ceases to amaze me. I thought non american lives counted too. More of them die in wars launched by the USA than americans, actually.

No shit.

They count, as in they count, but I specifically chose "American lives" for a reason. Thanks for the opportunity for me to elaborate.

For decades at various times in this country's past we have been engaged in secret and/or unofficial wars that involve very few American casualties, including proxy wars, and lots and lots of non-American people die in them and these numbers to not affect presidential popularity at all. This is not a small piece of our foreign policy. Most countries in Central America. Angola. Afghanistan I, Chad, various earlier versions of the Congo War, etc.

So you need to re-adjust your sanctimony a little in this case. Thank you very much.

I know this will never pass the filter, but WOW Mr Laden, how trutherliscious of you!

Real Truthers know the attack on the WTC was not merely "allowed" to happen, but was a total inside job, and in fact G.W. Bush PERSONALLY depressed the button that triggered the demolition of WTC building 7.
Furthermore, Dick Cheney PERSONALLY depressed the button which TOTALLY ERASED WTC building 13 FROM ALL LIVING MEMORY!

Llewelly... I had to work to not make this argument part of the blog post. Just for fun.

I thought non american lives counted too.

Not if you're an American reporter.
(If non-American lives did affect the popularity of American politicians, we could have gotten rid of many of the worst American politicians. Which is perhaps why those lives don't matter.)

Yeah Mike H., despite being warned by the outgoing Clinton administration that Bin Laden was planning to strike the US and that the FBI was monitoring the to-be hijackers at flying school, the Bush/Cheney machine did a great job preventing the 911 attacks.

Liberal frustration with inaction is a little misleading. Liberal frustration with action in exactly the wrong direction would be more appropriate.
Patriot act, civil liberties, LGBT rights, environmental policy, not leading on...well...much of anything, but especially health care reform, Trickle Down Economics, etc.

What a pity these polls never find a clear way to ask why people feel dissatisfaction with a given president.

People see what they want to see, and they tend to compare in their minds another president's 8 years with this president's 8 months. People also forget that the economic crisis was not supposed to be number one priority but it was. And still is.

I'm not saying that I'm perfectly happy but I really don't see the point in turning a lack of a grasp of the realities of the situation into helpless whining.

Fair weather liberals. Jeesh.

Jeese this guy and the ?Liberal congress has spent more money in ten months than every administration combined since Washinton. Can't make up his mind about anything.
His hand picked general requested 100,000 troops in Afghanistan Obama's crowd told the pentagon to make under 50,000. In order to control the country we need units in ever province to stabilize the nation. He is destroying the foundations of this nation founded on Judeo christain principles. All liberals should be forced to read the constitution, if it is not in there we do not need it. SIASSL

Lightcrosser, reread your first two sentences, each in the context of the other. If you don't laugh, you're useless (or rightfully embarrassed).

Lightcrosser is a Poe.

Either a Poe or an idiot.

The main thing this poll shows is that Obama has high job approval ratings, and that his job approval ratings are high in relation to other presidents at this moment in their terms.

I'm not sure what numbers of past Presidents you were using, but if you look down the right side of this page from Gallup, your statement is flatly contradicted. I'd certainly agree that Bush's numbers were artificially and unjustifiably inflated post 9/11, but only Clinton's numbers for his first November were lower than Obama's have been this month.

Given the poor economy, we can't read too much into the low numbers, though. Presidents' approval ratings go up and down with the economy regardless of whether they deserve praise for the good or blame for the bad. Even so, your statement that I quoted is pretty divorced from reality.

Jason, I used the same data but instead of taking one poll I used the trends across the entire time period. What you have now in Washington is an approval rating that jumped down at the end of three months of Republican screaming, lots of people mad at Obama because he wants to have health care reform, other people mad at Obama because the Senate has been stalled by the Republicans, etc. If you look at the weekly data for all of these presidents you see a lot of variation. There is no reason that a single week (or month) compared across the decades is a valid comparison. Look at the cycle over the entire first year and a half and make the comparison that way.

I gave a link to the data I used.

Even so, your statement that I quoted is pretty divorced from reality.

NO, the statements I made were married to the data I linked to. Telling me that my statements are divorced from reality because you have a different (and in my view not ideal) measure from the data is a little bit over the top and not what you want me to be reading while I'm drinking my first cup of coffee.

Sorry that I didn't get back to this sooner. I also apologize for missing the link you made to historical approval rating trends.

If you look at the weekly data for all of these presidents you see a lot of variation. There is no reason that a single week (or month) compared across the decades is a valid comparison. Look at the cycle over the entire first year and a half and make the comparison that way.

When you said, "at this moment in their terms," I could only interpret that as meaning close to the same time of year in their first term. Given that interpretation, your statement that Obama had approval ratings 'high in relation to other presidents' was contradicted by facts, even the ones you linked. The graphs at that page do show a lot of variation, but Obama's ratings have hovered in the mid to low 50's for months. I don't see how, using either data, you arrive at the conclusion that those results are high in relation to anyone but Clinton among elected presidents in early in their first term.

Influence can be defined as the power exerted over the minds and behavior of others. A power that can affect, persuade and cause changes to someone or something. In order to influence people, you first need to discover what is already influencing them. What makes them tick? What do they care about? We need some leverage to work with when weâre trying to change how people think and behave.

latest trend

As usual, the press gets it all wrong

gregladen — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:11:11 +0000

As usual, the press gets it all wrong

People deride Americans for being politically sloppy thinkers, and for having short memories. This derision may be well deserved, but the flakiness of American citizens in relation to politics is perhaps easily explained.

We are trained by the press to be airheads.

President Barack Obama donned some of the strongest coat tails of any president in modern history, and despite the manufactured dissent that has been rather well executed by the Incredible Shrinking Party of No, his approval ratings stand at higher than usual for any president one year after election. Despite the expenditure of zillions of dollars by the Health Insurance Industry we are paused to refurbish that system. Think about that for a moment. The idea of reforming the US health care insurance industry was considered undoable a year or two ago, partly because the last big attempt to do so was crushed so thoroughly under the jackboot heel of the Right Wing. That it is being done now, robust public option or not, is re-fucking-markable. And pardon my French. Speaking of which, even the French seem to be less in disfavor as a tide of semi-rationality sweeps across the nation and emperors are seen as naked and spades called what they are at a rate much higher than usual.

But a backlash is necessary to keep the ball moving in the kangaroo court of TV and Cable ratings. We have seen a modest effort on the part of the Right Wing to promote the idea that if two unpopular Democratic Governors are defeated and one congressional seat stays in Republican hands that a New Anti Obama Right Wing Pro Republican Revolution has begun!!!! And this modest effort at spoon feeding the press has invoked a giddiness among even respectable journalists that rivals the giddiness of a toddler being spoon fed her first serving of ice cream. And now, we see only partial backpedaling given that the Litmus Test Congressional Seat has been turned over to the Democrats despite vigorous campaigning by all the major Republican Presidential Hopefuls who thought it wise to be helpful in New York's most rural conservative district.

No. The truth is that the not too comfortable but workable marriage of a Progressive Revolution and a Centrist Takeover is going strong despite manufactured rumors to the contrary.

gregladen Wed, 11/04/2009 - 05:11

Tags

provressive revolution

republican revolution

Lawrence O'Donnell agrees with you.

I would call the glass 2/3 full on this post.

Yes, the "MSM" shuffled NY-23 under the rug, for the most part. But, let's see how this plays out.

Beyond that? From the left, I am *not* part of any "centrist-progressive" marriage, so I offer a couple of correctives.

Obama continues to track, IIRC, abouve *average* in polling among post-WWII presidents. Not the worst, no, but not above average, either.

As for what he's done? A health care bill that's a likely sellout to the pharmaceutical industry, and without cost control measures, a federal department of insurance regulation and other things, a sellout to the insurance industry, too.

Bush II on renditions, civil liberties, etc.

A climate bill that's arguably better than nothing, if it passes, but not a lot better.

Socratic: Your comparison is weak. You give us the data for Obama, leaving out the vast majority of what has been done (remember the economy falling apart and shit?) and give no basis for comparison in relation to other presidents. It is hard to see your point other than that you are doing exactly as trained by the press.

Don't be a mere case in point, SocraticGadfly!

Puhleeze, Greg.

For another take on an election that, in hindsight, Dems could have won -- NYC mayor -- but didn't, precisely because Obama himself wouldn't invest in the race, read Greenwald.

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/11/04/anonymity/

Or, is he a "tool," also?

In reference to other things...

Hiring G. Sachs folks left and right has nothing to do with Bush. Continuing to support, perhaps even expand, illegal renditions has nothing to do with Bush. Continuing to support government secrecy and infringements of civil liberties has nothing to do with Bush.

Unfortunately, people who have or have not been trained by the MSM to see "horse races" and such still buy into the two-party duopoly. Would that we had parliamentary government AND public financing of Congressional elections here.

Greg: You wrote: "we are paused to refurbish that system."

Did you mean, "we are poised?"

My occupational hazard as an editor.

As part of the training in idiocy we get from the press, we learn to be filled with gratitude when our overlords make the smallest gesture towards doing something that's good for the public. Why, exactly, are we supposed to approve of Obama and rejoice that the Democrats won some elections?

Barack Obama's great accomplishment is not being George Bush, and that's setting the bar REALLY low. The health insurance industry is indeed spending a fortune on lobbying, because they get their money's worth. Why wouldn't they get on board with a plan that would subsidize and mandate the purchase of their products? The point isn't for Obama to pass a bill called the "Health Care Reform Act" or whatever. The point is for health care to be reformed. It's not going to be, in any way that will have much concrete benefit for non-rich Americans. It's not an accomplishment simply to have Congress do something related to health care. Even Bush added prescription drug coverage to Medicare, and drugs are still unaffordable.

We're supposed to be grateful that Obama's response to the economy falling apart is to give preposterous amounts of our money to his banker friends? Hooray!

Only the agenda of rich people is furthered by either political party. The Republicans appeal to people's baser impulses. The Democrats keep good-intentioned people busy by giving them something to Hope for. The media convinces people that the government cares what they think.

The government will collapse before it sincerely does something for the public good.

Threats Against Obama

gregladen — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:03:31 +0000

Threats Against Obama

Continuing on with our theme of anti-Obama wackaloonery, including the inherent racism involved in that, there is not additional evidence that there are indeed more death threats against our President than usual.

From the Boston Globe:

The unprecedented number of death threats against President Obama, a rise in racist hate groups, and a new wave of antigovernment fervor threaten to overwhelm the US Secret Service, according to government officials and reports, raising new questions about the 144-year-old agency's overall mission.

This is leading some to consider the possibility that the Secret Service drop its financial crime-fighting mission to focus on protection.

The Secret Service, long under the Treasury Department but now part of the Department of Homeland Security, was established in 1865 to thwart counterfeiting, a focus that has expanded to include a host of electronic and financial crimes.

Its mission soon expanded to investigating the Ku Klux Klan and conducting counterespionage operations during the Spanish-American War and World War I.

The job of protecting presidents started in 1894 with Grover Cleveland, who was guarded part time. That role expanded after the assassination of William McKinley in 1901, and it became a crime to threaten the president in 1917.

We could save a lot of money if Republicans would stop telling their constituents to use violence to advance their conservative causes.

gregladen Tue, 10/20/2009 - 10:03

Tags

Barack Obama

Race and Racism

Republicans

We could save a lot of money if Republicans would stop telling their constituents to use violence to advance their conservative causes.

Fat chance of that. Fox ratings would plummet. WorldNutDaily wouldn't have anything to publish and they are both less hate-filled than many others.

So, if threatening the president is a crime, wouldn't stringent enforcement of those laws help ease the burden? You'd think it would shift the burden from the secret service to other services.

Also, I wonder about the nominal data. How many threats are being made? when is something a threat? when is it taken serious?

Also, do people who actually plan assassinations even make threats? It sounds like a pretty stupid move.

Alcari, strict enforcement runs into issues. For one, many of the comments aren't direct threats and so it would be hard to cover them. Moreover, the less direct comments may be covered under the First Amendment. So for example, someone publically praying for Obama's death can't be covered under this sort of statute. Similarly, saying something like "Unless Obama dies, X will happen" where X is their personal pet fear isn't a threat either. Very few of the public individuals making inflammatory remarks have actually crossed that line.

Lots of the threats are anonymous and not considered "credible." The old lady with dementia confined to a nursing home who calls her Senator's office and threatens the President and just about everyone else on a daily basis is left to the intern on phone duty. Most offices have one of those.

The Secret Service also protects other federal officials like Members of Congress and Cabinet Secretaries who have received credible threats. So if the anti-government feelings are increasing, it's not just protecting the president, but everyone else that adds to the workload.

For instance, Senator Wellstone had a Secret Service shadow for about a week when I interned in his office during the mid 1990s because there was a credible threat.

At the tail end of the Bush administration, the Secretary of Commerce showed up to to testify at hearing in the Senate with Secret Service protection. Everyone assumed there must have been some sort of threat, because that wasn't standard operating procedure. Some of us may have spent the hearing speculating on who would threaten him and why.

Plus, visiting foreign heads of state get protection. For instance, when I graduated from Carleton, there was a noticable Secret Service presence in the academic procession because the President of Botswana and a Japanese Supreme Court Justice were speakers. This was a fairly low profile event, I don't think we had much notice of the speakers. It's not that big and Northfield is not exactly crime central. But there still were a handful of agents walking in the academic procession not blending at all with faculty in academic robes and birkenstocks. That was the mid-90s, I don't know what they would do today.

Perhaps this would be a time to have a discusion about fragmentation in federal law enforcement and making all the agencies play nice?

Chis Matthews: Hitchens and Green on Obama's Nobel

gregladen — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 11:21:17 +0000

Chis Matthews: Hitchens and Green on Obama's Nobel

If you don't like Hardball, you won't like this. But Matthews is right.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

gregladen Tue, 10/13/2009 - 07:21

Tags

Barack Obama

This is why I think it's a big mistake to get behind Hitchens - he's as much of a liability as Maher. Hitchens, like Maher, is great to listen to when you agree with him. But he subscribes to nutty ideas that get people killed. Honestly, it's hard to choose between neocons and anti-vaxers. The neocons have caused more death, suffering and destruction so far. But short of the neocons triggering a nuclear war somehow, the anti-vaxers will probably harm more people in the long term.

Mostly I find Chris Matthews' style annoying. But here, with Hitchens, it worked pretty well.

Even if Hitch is wrong I prefer listening to him than I do an Matthew's. I can't stand any interviewer who has to talk over someone when they don't agree in a discussion. Hitch carries some neocon water but he can articulate his position. I would be nice if Matthew's could do the same.

@Ian

This is why I think it's a big mistake to get behind Hitchens - he's as much of a liability as Maher.

I'm going to have to disagree. Forming alliances with people that you disagree with on one issue over the issues where you do agree is part of life. I personally was not in favor of Maher receiving the Richard Dawkins Award from the AAI, but not because of his views on medicine per se--although I do find those views reprehensible. The problem I had with him getting the award was that, in my mind, atheism and skepticism are inseparable--two sides of the same proverbial coin, if I may say. While not all atheists and skeptics see these two attitudes so tightly linked, I most certainly do. For me, atheism without skepticism is little more than a fad or (worse yet) another dogma; skepticism without atheism is sloppy skepticism, skepticism that stops short in order to acquiesce to wishful thinking and confirmation bias. To honor Bill Maher with that award is to denigrate atheism as I see it and have understood it my entire adult life.

I would not have felt the same way if he were being given just about any other award. Let's say, for example, that Religulous had won the Oscar for Best Documentary (pretend for a minute that it was that good). Would that award have been tainted by Maher's ridiculous and dangerous views about vaccines and medicine? I would say no.

Likewise, I don't see how Hitchen's political views in any way detract from his standing as a prominent atheist. Atheists have all sorts of different political views, and it would be asinine for an atheist organization to distance itself from a prominent spokesperson over such disagreements. I personally find Ayaan Hirsi Ali's politics more troubling that Hitchens', but I would likewise have no objection to her winning the RD award; her radical right wing views do nothing to mar her atheist credentials.

I also think that it's a little unfair to paint Hitchens with the neocon label. While his current views on US foreign policy, and Iraq in particular, do fit the mold, I can't bring myself to consider him part of the same gang that includes William Kristol and Dick Cheney. Those guys tend to revere Henry Kissinger, hold nothing but contempt for Leon Trotsky, and preferred John McCain's proposed Pakistan policy to Barack Obama's in the last election. Hitchens is more like somebody who agrees with the neocon positions on certain specific issues, than a member of that clique.

My 2Â¢

I have to defend Hitchens a little bit. Full disclosure, I don't agree with him at all on his neo-con positions, but unlike most neo-con's, I don't think he is attached to those positions because he is blindly following an ideology. I think the main thing that drives his position is his deep understanding and sympathy for the people that are directly effected by a lack of action. In Iraq, for example, he has very strong ties to the Kurd people, and truly sympathizes with their position. That is what drives his support of the Iraq war.

Dare I say, even though I don't agree with him (I think his sympathy blinds him, to an extent) I appreciate hearing his views simply because it is refreshing to hear a voice from the other side that isn't blindly toeing the line of his like-minded demagogues. His rationality might be flawed, but there is actual substance to it.

@Science Pundit

I also think that it's a little unfair to paint Hitchens with the neocon label. While his current views on US foreign policy, and Iraq in particular, do fit the mold, I can't bring myself to consider him part of the same gang that includes William Kristol and Dick Cheney.

@Uncle Bob

I don't agree with him at all on his neo-con positions, but unlike most neo-con's, I don't think he is attached to those positions because he is blindly following an ideology.

I've got to disagree with both of you. Look at what Hitchens has said throughout the war. He was a cheerleader for war in the run-up, and his arguments appear to be pretty much the same as other neocon intellectual.

The core of the neocons (to generalise broadly) are secular Jews who began as leftists but, as they grew older, swung to a particular form of rightwing ideology. Hitchens isn't Jewish, but other than that he fits the mould pretty well. As for "blindly toeing the line of his like-minded demagogues" - again, you need to listen to the argument the neocons made in the run-up to the war. They sounded perfectly sensible, on the surface of it. They sounded very liberal, very internationalist. They made a lot of sense. As long as you didn't pay too much attention to them, as long as you didn't bother to do your homework. IDists and anti-vaxers also sound logical, scientific and sincere if you listen to them without knowing their background, if you listen without knowing the facts. In the same way, Hitchens sounds like he's making sensible, reasoned arguments. But everything he's saying derives from an extremist ideology that he clings to despite all the evidence that it's wrong.

Keeping Obama's Peace Prize in Perspective

gregladen — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:43:19 +0000

Keeping Obama's Peace Prize in Perspective

Hmmm... Do I go along with Rush Limberger and Faux News? Or do I go along with ... Rachel?

Most people don't get what the Nobel Peace Prize is. I tried to tell you. Some of you didn't get it. Maybe if Rachel tells you you'll get it.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

gregladen Mon, 10/12/2009 - 04:43

Tags

Barack Obama

Republicans

It seems to me like this is another demonstration of American Exceptionalism (the complaining about him getting the award part).

Sure sure, Nobel Committee, you may have been giving out this award for about 100 years following your own habit and custom, but we think you're wrong to have given it to this guy because he doesn't fit our criteria for your award. Who cares about your criteria for your award.

Greg -

Hmmm... Do I go along with Rush Limberger and Faux News? Or do I go along with ... Rachel?

I can't watch the video here at school - internets too bogged down, but I don't need to watch it to respond to that logical fallacy. This is a total false equivalence. One needn't choose either. While I haven't heard Rush or the Faux news takes, I doubt very much that I agree with them. On the other hand, I believe that there are very good reasons that Obama doesn't deserve the peace prize.

It is very similar to why Maher didn't deserve the Richard Dawkins award. You have rhetoric on one hand, while on the other you have actions that stand in polar opposition to any reasonable definition of fostering peace. Much like Maher, on the one hand fosters certain ideas that many atheists agree with - on the other, he's an anti-science, anti-reason and rational thinking loon.

I can't watch the video here at school - internets too bogged down, but I don't need to watch it to respond to that logical fallacy.

DuWayne, my comment is in reference to the contents of the video. So, yes, you do need to watch it if you want to criticize my comment.

The video has contents. These contents interact with my metacomment about the video and visa versa. This is not hard.

Greg, the false equivalence is that there are only two perspectives here. There are more than that.

Limbaugh is so fucking stupid that he doesn't realize what a Fucktard he is.

DuWayne, watch the video. That is what my comment is about. It is not about you. Just watch it. Perspective perspective perspective. There are two perspectives in this video. The Limbaugh/Foxy one and Rachel's. I did not see yu giving your perspective in the video.

You are having Greg Derangement Syndrome.

(What do I mean by that? Watch the video!)

Hold it right there Greg! What is this "perspective" you speak of, and is it even allowed in the United States?

DuWayne, perhaps you are experiencing guilt.

Rachel makes the point that Obama gets the prize for changing the previous administration's actions in torture, tone, etc. So, Obama got it for NOT being Bush.

The fact that Obama HASN'T changed his government's policies in many of these areas - hasn't put his money where his mouth is - makes this prize a farce. He closed Guantanamo and expanded Bagram, supporting the same practices that made Guantanamo such a travesty. He continues the practice of indefinite detention of American citizens, and even expands it to include "preventative" detention without oversight - how is that not chilling to every one of us? He's escalated the Afghan war and done almost nothing to draw down the Iraq war.

Part of the confusion might come from the fact that the other Nobel prizes - Physics, etc. - seem to be recognition of life time achievement and actual results (where possible).

The reality that the Nobel Peace prize is given as a political sop based on the ideology of the presenters has never been more evident.

Armenia and Turkey just signed an historic peace deal - who brokered that?

I'd echo Phaedrus (though at significantly less volume).

I think some of the confusion stems from the prize's purpose (thank you wikipedia...)

"During the preceding year [...] shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"

Now, so long as the US is a "hyperpower", arguably if ANY US President makes conciliatory moves, he or she should qualify as "have done the most". And particularly if that President is starting at the tail-end (we hope) of a war, then the differential should be an automatic qualifier. So in that light the "He's not Bush" and "Obama should get the prize" camps are not mutually exclusive.

It's just about in the prize committee's announcement
"Multilateral diplomacy has regained..."

That "regained" is key. How to read that as something other than "Not Bush" being a major justification for Awarding the prize to Obama?

However, I think liberal discomfort with Obama receiving the prize (or at least my liberal discomfort) arises from
the difference between not accomplishing / failing (e.g. Tutu/Suu Kyi) at the time of the prize and actually presiding over war, torture, indefinite detainment.

E.g.,http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-07-voa1.cfm
Guantanamo @ 1 year

Bagram, &c.

And in the end you're probably right- many laureates were rewarded for their efforts to change situations in their countries that they at one time or another, helped create or perpetuated. But to me, that feels like a technical victory.

However, I think failing to see the irony in waking up to accept the Nobel Peace Prize, and then meeting with the NSC over lunch to determine how much to ramp up the war in Afghanistan is being (at least a little) willfully blind.

Of course, that brings us back to the hyperpower issue, and some of us liberals being willfully blind to the 'realism' inherent in being US President. And that rewarding good behavior doesn't need to mean bad behavior doesn't exist. Anyhow all this is just a long way of saying "He ain't no Mother Teresa".

--jt

As an aside, controversial prize awards are fairly common, so the "You ignorant Americans, how dare you second guess the all-knowing Nobel committee" reaction I've seen here is a bit strange. (Yes, yes with the caveat that the right-wing "But he hasn't done anything" reaction has been ridiculous. But then again, you were addressing milquetoast liberals, like myself)

jt: All good points, but I think there isn't any second guessing at all when someone critiques the choice for the NPP on the basis of Obama's domestic policy, or ignores the fact that it is simply not the case that zero has happened in foreign policy in 9 months, or forgets that Obama existed prior to getting elected, and a major part of his activities as a Senator related to the speicfic stated reason that the committee awarded him the NPP. Read their statement, not the wikipedia quote from 100 years ago.

Honestly, no - still don't get it. I think that it is silly to look at Obama from one singular perspective and decide that that outweighs escalating armed conflicts we are engaged in, giving continuing cover to torture and paving the way for future torture and indefinite detentions. He is making those things worse, not better and on that alone really doesn't deserve something called a peace prize.

Irene -

No, I am not experiencing guilt. While Greg is a friend, I am rather annoyed with him right now, to the point that I am occasionally not catching his premise semi-willfully. Not terribly mature, but I am honestly not above such and rather see the reason I am annoyed with Greg as also somewhat less than mature.

I am curious as to exactly what you would think I should feel guilty about though.

In other words, DuWayne, Tom Hanks didn't deserve his Oscar for Philadelphia because he made Joe Versus the Volcano.

Honestly, I really don't think Tom Hanks deserved an Oscar, but not because of that. But that is a very different issue altogether.

We are talking about an international peace prize, not an award for best actor. A better analogy would be giving Castro a humanitarian of the year award, because a lot of Cubans have much better healthcare due to his regime. We'll just ignore the torture and other forms of violent repression, because he's done so much good as well.

I'm sorry but we are talking about rhetoric from someone who has repeatedly lied to the U.S. American people, versus him proactively escalating armed conflicts and fostering policies that will allow for torture and indefinite detentions in the future. This isn't splitting hairs or ignoring past bad behavior - this is swallowing current decisions and actions that are the very antithesis of peace, because he's says things that people want to hear.

Guess what? He said things people wanted to hear to get elected and that hasn't worked out very well for us either.

I agree with those who are basically saying that Obama is getting this prize for essentially not being Bush. For all intents and purposes, the committee is saying that Bush and his administration were such warmongers, had such a terrible, negative impact on the peace of the world, that Obama, simply by being the US president and not being Bush, irrespective of actual actions, achievements, and changes in policy, contributed more quantitatively to the furtherance of world peace than any other candidate for this year.

The only thing is, from where I sit, the Nobel committee has a very valid point. Bush, Cheney and co. really did have such a negative impact on world peace that Obama really could be said to have contributed more than anyone else to the furtherance of world peace this year, simply for being, demonstrably, not Bush. A rock who happens to be U.S. president in the year after Bush would have a reasonable claim to the Nobel Peace Prize. (If rocks were eligible)

Only rocks which possess a valid vault copy long form birth certificate are eligible to server as president, amphiox.

Actually, DuWayne, I know that plenty of people think Hanks shouldn't have won that Oscar. That's part of the reason I picked it. I have no opinion, not having seen the movie, but the nature of the criticisms involved informed my choice too. "Big deal. He only got it for having the 'courage' to play a gay man with AIDS. Lots of independent actors have done that already. The only difference is that Hanks has a career to risk. Does he think this makes him a serious actor now? Look: he's still making fluffy, dumb romantic comedies that rake in the bucks."

Fact is, he took on the challenge and lent his popularity and likability to bringing the discussion into the mainstream. Is he one of America's great actors? Not in my opinion, but that doesn't mean he didn't do something worth rewarding.

Obama is nothing like a messiah (and find me one person who ever thought he was). From the perspective of an American progressive, his two greatest virtues as a candidate were electability and telling the electorate repeatedly that things would not be fixed immediately. We knew well before election day that we'd have to hold his feet to the fire to get what we want.

From the perspective of the rest of the world, declaring multilateral diplomacy and nuclear weapons reduction to be important were far more critical. Does the fact that he's moved forward on these objectives make him the best U.S. president ever? No, but they are worth rewarding. This committee had the power to do that, it was in keeping with their mission and history, and they did.

#16:
Indeed, but what additional documentation is necessary to be valid for a Nobel?

DuWayne? Are you seriously comparing Obama to Castro? Wow. Just wow.

Stephanie says :
"his two greatest virtues as a candidate were electability and telling the electorate repeatedly that things would not be fixed immediately"

Seriously? I seem to remember him condemning torture, indefinite detention, promising to bring the war to an end, transparency in government, end DADT, closing guantanamo...

These promises were major parts of his campaign, and what got my vote, and the vote of everyone else I know that voted for him. That things would change was his tag line - don't know that "things will change eventually and in good time" was really one of the two central pillars of his appeal.

Look, I know that things won't change overnight - I didn't need to be told that - but in order to change at all they need to move in a different direction starting at the top, and so far Obama has walked back almost every promise he ever made about Bush's war on terror.

In other words, DuWayne, Tom Hanks didn't deserve his Oscar for Philadelphia because he made Joe Versus the Volcano.

Ha! Perfect. But of course, it would be better to never bring up Joe vs. the Volcano again on this blog, OK?

Umm, Irene, just as I am pretty sure that Stephanie wasn't actually comparing Obama to Tom Hanks, I wasn't comparing Obama to Castro.

I was making this thing called an analogy. In an analogy, the subjects of said analogy are not being compared, nor are the situations strictly analogous. You can learn about them here.

Phaedrus, because otherwise, you were going to vote for McCain and his promises that it would all work out somehow? Or you were going to withhold a vote and just hope McCain wasn't elected?

Edwards made stronger statements about what he would do in office. He lost to Obama. Clinton didn't call for us to do the work that would lead to change. She lost to Obama. Were there other factors? Sure, but when it comes down to it, we voted for a Democrat who told us our problems wouldn't be solved by magic but that they were solvable with work from us.

Honestly Stephanie, I just think they're wrong - for the reasons I have outlined. Beyond that, I have beaten this to death and given it far more attention than it has deserved. I have pretty much given up on politics, because it just makes me angry and there is virtually nothing I can actually do about it. This whole scenario has just reinforced why I gave up. It makes me sick to my stomach when people (not you - or Greg) act like politics is a sporting event and they just have to root for their team no matter what. And it makes me sick that nothing will change, nothing has changed in very important areas and have in fact gotten worse in some.

As far as Tom Hanks goes - while I have never seen a Tom Hanks movie that I liked (every so often someone ropes me into watching yet another, claiming I will love it), I actually have immense respect for him. He is very good people, who seems to genuinely love to help decent actors become successful actors as well. So I can't complain overmuch about him - I just don't think he deserved an Oscar for what he won it for. But who knows, I don't think they give out Oscars for being good people and helping people with their careers - so maybe...

Did that video make anyone else "choke up"?

I have to admit that Tom Hanks has made some movies I did not like much, but the following are good:

Apollo 13
Saving Private Ryan
Toy Story (if you have a kid the right age, which I did)
The Green Mile
And a couple of others

Cult-wise, the man with one red shoe and Dragnet are good too.

To me, there are two sides to this story. It is certainly âgoodâ for America that Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize â it does reflect a sweeping change in the moral attitude of Americaâs foreign policy, as compared to the previous administration. One the other hand, what facts have been created by Obama? In Latin America he has been uninterested or unwilling to engage with Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia. He has not created any peace initiatives there â as between the Colombian government and FARC. In the Middle East, he has been snubbed by Netanyahu over the illegal settlements and there have been no changes on the ground between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Obama has not even bothered to send a US ambassador to a key nation there â Syria. He has not had any serious, lengthy talks with Iran â as he promised he would. He has not produced one peace initiative for the Kashmir problem so enabling India and Pakistan to resume discussions. Nor has he produced any initiatives to be discussed between the Sri Lankans and the Tamils. Nor has he been willing to having direct talks with the Taliban, and instead, he has, thus far, simply continued the Bush strategy in Afghanistan. I could go on, but the point, I think should be taken: Obama has not done anything viz-a-viz peace in the world, and so apart from producing lofty speeches, there have been no changes. You may well say, that yes, but it is still early days! Why yes, I couldnât agree more with you, but, wait â that would be exactly what I would have said to those wise old men and women in Norway!

Damn it, just when I'd effectively forgotten John Bolton...

Otherwise, thanks for the post--I fully concur with Maddow's sentiments.

IMO, the Nobel committee effectively gave the award to us (those of us who voted for Obama, anyway), in hopes of encouraging us to stay strong--and vigilant. They must have known that, even with Obama's strong mandate, we'd soon return to our egocentric divisiveness.

Didn't President Obama just deploy 13,000 more troops to Afghanistan a few hours ago? Aren't troops still dying there? Has military spending decreased? Has the Administration repealed the Patriot Act and FISA Amendment? In other words, are warrantless wiretaps of the American public a thing of the past?

Has the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act been repealed? Has the Commodity Futures Modernization Act been repealed? Has Glass Steagall been reenacted? Has NAFTA and GATT been renegotiated? Have lobbyists and donors left Washington? Has President Obama disavowed support of the Class Action Reform Act?

But boy, how about that Nobel Peace Prize? The President can go pee-pee on the potty.

Uh, john--did you watch the part of the program where it was mentioned that this award was determined as of last February?

I didn't watch the video, just like I have no interest in hearing Hugo Chavez opine on President Obama's premature Nobel Peace Prize. From what I hear, he isn't all too pleased. I wouldn't even be surprised if Mr. Chavez has far more credibility within the Obama Administration than Ms. Maddow... for whatever that's worth.

I know we got distracted. But let's not forget, nothing has changed.

Well, john, I share your disappointment & downright cynicism with the lack of action so far. I think that has a lot more to do with our Democratic Congressweenies than Obama...but it also does sound like he's listening more to his miltary advisors and less to his electoral mandate...

I think Michael Moore is right in that too many of us are dropping the ball, action-wise, and letting the loud-mouth right-wing idiots control the dialogue. OTOH, as it seems that "the American people," & thus congress, are more swayed by scare rhetoric than reason, where does that leave us? Cursed to adopt the same tactics? Even when we do, it's hard to sound sincere...But it's probably past time for a large anti-war protest in Washington. (Where's the draft when you need it?)

Diane, veteran of the 60's...

BTW--Do watch the vid. Even if you're cynical--especially if you're cynical--it might at least give you another view to think about...

I should know--I've been called "more cynical than it's healthy to be."

Didn't President Obama just deploy 13,000 more troops to Afghanistan a few hours ago? Aren't troops still dying there? Has military spending decreased?

This would be relevant if Afghanistan was a war of aggression, but it was not. It is a just war. Even the UN agrees. Or was FDR wrong for fighting Japan after Pearl Harbor?

Has the Administration repealed the Patriot Act and FISA Amendment? In other words, are warrantless wiretaps of the American public a thing of the past?

Has the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act been repealed? Has the Commodity Futures Modernization Act been repealed? Has Glass Steagall been reenacted? Has NAFTA and GATT been renegotiated? Have lobbyists and donors left Washington? Has President Obama disavowed support of the Class Action Reform Act?

None of those have any relevance to the cause of peace.

The reality that the Nobel Peace prize is given as a political sop based on the ideology of the presenters has never been more evident.

As Greg explained in his "open letter", "The ultimate goal, and perhaps only noble goal, of politics is to find and support peace, within and between nations. Were you thinking there was some other objective, or that politics, ideally and in its most expansive form, was for something else?"

Armenia and Turkey just signed an historic peace deal - who brokered that?

Um, the Obama Administration:

The administration of President Barack Obama had been pressing the parties to reach agreement.

The ceremony was attended by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well as Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and the EU's High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy, Javier Solana.

Mrs Clinton later said the US would build on the "milestone" that had been achieved, but admitted "concerns on both sides" had delayed the signing.

A senior state department official told Associated Press that Mr Obama had called Mrs Clinton "to congratulate her and the team" on their role in the signing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8299712.stm

(Besides, even if the deal had had nothing to do with the US, the deal was done long after the Nobel nominations deadline, so has very very little relevance over who the Nobel Peace Prize 2009 should've gone to)

Enjoy your carrot.

An Open Letter to Americans Who Are Annoyed at Obama's Nobel Prize

gregladen — Fri, 09 Oct 2009 13:28:45 +0000

An Open Letter to Americans Who Are Annoyed at Obama's Nobel Prize

If you are a right wing Republican conservative Yahoo, this letter is NOT for you. If you are a moderate, progressive, liberal, centrist, or anyone associated with the legitimate (i.e., not FOX News) press, this IS for you.

Dear Disgruntled Sisters and Brothers,

Many people are beside themselves, or at least a little annoyed, or in some cases simply bemused, because Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize but he "seems to have not done anything yet." There are so many misconceptions behind that sentiment that I don't know where to start.

If you are one of the people who does not like the fact that Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, please consider the following.

Some people say that this was a political act. Well, duh. In fact, double duh. The ultimate goal, and perhaps only noble goal, of politics is to find and support peace, within and between nations. Were you thinking there was some other objective, or that politics, ideally and in its most expansive form, was for something else?

The committee awarded this prize to Obama because of his efforts to enhance international diplomacy, but especially because of his vision to have a nuclear free world and his efforts to achieve this. In so doing, the Oslo committee has endorsed nuclear disarmament and probably moved us substantially towards that goal. Is this a problem for you?

President Obama had engendered a new international political climate. He has brought multilateral diplomacy back from George Bush's scrap heap as a a viable strategy, and has reemphasized the role of the United Nations and other international institutions. This underscores and gives much needed credibility to the use of dialogue and negotiation to resolve international conflicts. This is a change from previous American policy of unilateral strong-arming, which as so far been singularly ineffective, and even if sometimes effective is over the long term destructive to our position in this world and generally immoral. In just a few moves, over a short amount of time, Obama has reversed (for the better) American foreign policy. Do you not think this is a good thing?

Real nuclear arms control negotiations are finally happening because of Obama's initiative, with the US playing a salient role. Surely, you must think that is worth something.

For the first time in a decade, the US is seriously involved in the international conversation regarding climate change. Is that a problem for you?

While it is true that every single human rights objective we would like to see met has not yet been addressed, for the first time in years the US is actually positioned to realistically be involved in positive advancement of democracy and human rights, instead of just playing a game to provide cronies of the leadership with more defense contracts. Why does this bother you?

Hardly ever does someone come along, as Obama has done, to capture the world's attention and give everyone real hope for a better future. If, as an American, you are having a problem understanding why Obama was awarded this international award, then perhaps you should consider the possibility that you do not have the same large scale and international perspective that the Oslo committee has. As an exercise in self appraisal, try this. Of the following individuals, which ones can you identify as to what country they are affiliated with, what they may have done to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize (they all were), or what job they had?

Adolfo PÃ©rez Esquivel, Albert Lutuli, Albert Schweitzer, Alfonso GarcÃa Robles, Alfred Hermann Fried, Al Gore, Alva Myrdal, Andrei Dmitrievich Sakharov, Aristide Briand, Arthur Henderson, Auguste Marie FranÃ§ois Beernaert, Aung San Suu Kyi, Austen Chamberlain, Bertha von Suttner, Betty Williams, Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, Carlos Saavedra Lamas, Carl von Ossietzky, Cecil of Chelwood, Charles Albert Gobat, Charles Gates Dawes, Christian Lous Lange, Cordell Hull, Dag Hjalmar Agne Carl HammarskjÃ¶ld, David Trimble, Desmond Mpilo Tutu, Eisaku Sato, Ãlie Ducommun, Elie Wiesel, Elihu Root, Emily Greene Balch, Ernesto Teodoro Moneta, Ferdinand Buisson, Frank B. Kellogg, Frederik Willem de Klerk, Fredrik Bajer, Fridtjof Nansen, Friends Service Council, George Catlett Marshall, Georges Pire, Grameen Bank, Gustav Stresemann, Henri La Fontaine, Henry A. Kissinger, Hjalmar Branting, Jane Addams, Jean Henry Dunant, Jimmy Carter, Jody Williams, John Hume, John, Lord Boyd-Orr of Brechin, John Raleigh Mott, Joseph Rotblat, JosÃ© Ramos-Horta, Kim Dae Jung, Klas Pontus Arnoldson, Kofi Annan, Lars Olof Jonathan (Nathan) SÃ¶derblom, League of Red Cross societies, Lech WaÅÄsa, LÃª Ãá»©c Thá», LÃ©on Jouhaux, LÃ©on Victor Auguste Bourgeois, Lester Bowles Pearson, Linus Carl Pauling, Louis Renault, Ludwig Quidde, Mairead Corrigan, Martin Luther King, Jr., Martti Ahtisaari, MÃ©decins Sans FrontiÃ¨res, Menachem Begin, Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, Mohamed Anwar Al-Sadat, Mohamed ElBaradei, Mother Teresa, Muhammad Yunus, Nelson Mandela, Nicholas Murray Butler, Norman E. Borlaug, Ãscar Arias SÃ¡nchez, Paul-Henri-Benjamin d'Estournelles de Constant, Philip J. Noel-Baker, Ralph Bunche, RenÃ© Cassin, Rigoberta MenchÃº Tum, SeÃ¡n MacBride, Shimon Peres, Shirin Ebadi, Sir Norman Angell (Ralph Lane), Tenzin Gyatso, Theodore Roosevelt, Tobias Michael Carel Asser, Wangari Muta Maathai, William Randal Cremer, Willy Brandt, Woodrow Wilson, Yasser Arafat, Yitzhak Rabin.

Seriously. Read through that list. The people who awarded this prize can explain who each of these individuals is and why they were given the Nobel. Chance are, as a moderately to very well educated American, you can barely identify one in ten of these individuals. So please consider the possibility that you have, as many of us do, too narrow a perspective to be shooting your mouth off about what kind of job the Oslo committee did.

Obama understands that diplomacy is effective only if based on the concept of finding shared values. Compared to George Bush, he not only knows how to lead in this regard, but clearly thinks it actually matters that the US president DOES lead in these matters. The Oslo committee is pretty much with the rest of the world in wanting to recognize this. Is there some reason that you are against this?

Obama in his policies and actions well represents 108 years of tradition by the Oslo Nobel Committee, working to enhance and reward these policies and attitudes. Obama is the world's leading spokesman for this new international diplomacy. When the Nobel Committee endorsed Obama's statement that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges." .... why did that not make you feel proud to be an American? For once?

Your Blogger,

Greg

gregladen Fri, 10/09/2009 - 09:28

Tags

Barack Obama

Politics

Categories

Policy

The world: Thank you America! Thanks for Obama, we sure need him!

America responds: Thanks for what? He hasn't done anything!

The world: Addition by subtraction, thank you thank you thank you!

âTo be honest, I do not feel that [Obama] deserve[s] to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who have been honored by this prize, men and women whoâve inspired me and inspired the entire world through their courageous pursuit of peace.â

Was the person who said this disgruntled, a little annoyed or simply bemused? Why don't you ask him? His name is Barack Obama.

Nice post Greg.

I knew 18 names out of 99 on the list but for a few I don't know the connection to the peace prize. Guess I'll spend some time reading up on people.

Robert, I think, "Mine! Mine! All mine!" would be more comment-worthy as a reaction from Obama. What did you expect him to say? What have other Peace Prize winners said except that there was work to be done and others whom the prize should recognize?

This was a prize given for wishful thinking.

Previous presidential winners actually achieved a major accomplishment. Carter had The Carter Center. Wilson had the League Of Nations. Roosevelt helped end the Russo-Japan war.

Also, didn't we just bomb the moon? You call that peace? ;-)

I knew 18 names out of 99 on the list but for a few I don't know the connection to the peace prize.

I recognized 24 individuals (not counting Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, etc.) on that list. I knew they were all Nobel Prize winners (Did you know that Pauling is the only one to win it for both Peace and Physics?) except, strangely enough, I didn't realize that MLK was a NPP winner, and somehow I had managed to forget that Kissinger was.

Was the person who said this disgruntled, a little annoyed or simply bemused?

I'll take modesty for $500. :-P

Thank you, Greg. You said what needs to be said.

Sir, your an Ass

I follow a particular pastor on Twitter who tweeted that Obama was going to give away the prize money to charity -- "hopefully to someone that deserves it!!!!". I replied, "I'm curious -- do you feel Henry Kissinger deserved it?" No response as yet.

ctrl+f+Afghanistan... zero results.

ctrl+f+war... zero results after skipping the few "reward" results.

ctrl+f+Iraq... ctrl+f+Guantanamo... again, nothing.

Curious.

The world: Thank you America! Thanks for Obama, we sure need him!

I voted for him. Do I get a prize? Look, if he accomplished half of what he says he hopes to, I'll happily applaud a Nobel award for him in a few years.

He should decline it like Sartre did.

Sometimes we americans need a swift kick in the head to get us to see beyond our own little world. I was in the bemused/confused camp, but you put the situation very much in perspective.

I had really hoped from the beginning that Obama might be the real deal. It's nice to have my hopes prove true.

I knew 33 names!

I could recognize 24. I've hung out in a seminar room named for Frank B. Kellog and a house named after Dag HammarskjÃ¶ld.

I'm annoyed that any public offical has said anything other than "Yes, we are very proud of him." Even if you think its a little premature having the President of your country win a Nobel Prize should not have a political downside. When the rest of the world honors your president you shut up and smile.

I'm annoyed that any public offical has said anything other than "Yes, we are very proud of him." Even if you think its a little premature having the President of your country win a Nobel Prize should not have a political downside. When the rest of the world honors your president you shut up and smile.

Why do Republicans hate America?

Greg, why the rush? Yes, Obama has said some heartwarming things about diplomacy, nuclear disarmament, climate change, and other important international issues, but these aren't accomplishments, just nice words. Not a single warhead has been dismantled, not a single domestic or international climate change law has been passed, no single major diplomatic endeavour has succeeded (or arguably even been significantly started). If Obama is successful in doing all those things, or even if he makes material gains in those areas, I would have no problem with the Nobel folks giving him the prize in a few years. But at this point, he does not deserve the prize, certainly not more than some others who, though lower profile, have actually accomplished something.

(In the interest of disclosure, I do have American citizenship, but I also hold a Canadian passport and live now in Canada, so I may not be the audience to whom your remarks are directed.)

They probably wanted to give it to the US electorate, but didn't feel we deserved it since we're the ones that put Bush in in the first place.

I wondered what that pop-pop-pop sound was I heard this morning... musta been the Neo-cons of America bursting blood vessels.

This award must be a stinging rebuke to GW Bush, as well. Imagine how it feels if you do a job for 8 years, then your successor spends 9 months undoing much of what you did, and then wins a major award (woth $1Million to boot!)for his efforts.

I cannot think of any other person in the world who is presiding/leading not one, but two wars. You know a peace prize is f***ed up when the guy who wages the most wars gets to win it. Somewhere, Russian President Medvedev is kicking himself for not invading Congo.

Is post 20 another invocation of a time traveling Obama?

Greg,

I think I'd put myself in the 'bemused' camp on this one. While I find his change of course in foreign policy a desperately needed change for the better, the prize award seems to be on the potential his change implies, rather than results.

Of the three other US Presidents who have earned this award, two of them got it while still in office. In Wilson's case he'd been president 6 years. In Roosevelt's case, he'd been in for five. Carter won his many years after leaving office.

Obama hasn't been in a year yet.

I hope his changes pan out and the world becomes a much better place because of his influence. But I am still a little bemused by the award at this early a stage.

When the rest of the world honors your president you shut up and smile.

I will discuss it and express myself on this or any other matter at any time or any place I desire. Capisce?

Man, nothing baffles me more that the "sit down and shut up" drones. Come and make me, sport. :-P

Is post 20 another invocation of a time traveling Obama?

No, that would involve the Nobel Prize in physics. :)

Imagine how it feels if you do a job for 8 years, then your successor spends 9 months undoing much of what you did

Let's see:
PATRIOT Act - Check
US troops in Iraq with no clear plan for withdrawl - Check
US troops in Afghanistan with no clear plan for withdrawl - Check
Indefinite detention of detanees - Check
No serious effort to prosecute torturers - Check
Massive deficits - Check
Scandinavials kissing the president's ass - HOPE AND CHANGE!

I guess Bush would have to imagine what that's like.

can't even read this whole post. it is too long. you are a moron. you should have focused your time on world peace instead of writing this crap.

Thanks Greg! Yes, in this chirotic moment, its a call to action for Obama to lead us to a more peaceful world and for all of us to fully participate. Seriously guys, quit being so self-righteous.

(Did you know that Pauling is the only one to win it for both Peace and Physics?)

Even better is that he is the only person to win two Nobel prizes on his own, (and in two different categories).

William9 are you a public official being interviewed? Then I don't really care what you say, but I do think it's just plain tacky to try and make political hay out of it without acknowledging that our president has been granted an honor.

That should have read tacky for a public official to make hay out of it. John McCain came off much better than Michael Steele for instance. This is why we suck at diplomacy because we ignore the wrong thing and get outraged at the wrong things.

For the science related awards, I though the prize committee typically waited until decades after the discovery in question to make sure it really was significant. I wonder why the peace prize is not held to the same standard since it is even more vulnerable to politicization.

Thank you. I was 'afraid' to read this, but you've done an honorable thing by explaining for the doubters. Me, I Got Hope and won't stop!

Sorry Greg, but I am totally with Matt@24 - he has a hell of a lot of shit to actually do, as apposed to move in the direction of, before he even comes close to earning the Nobel peace prize. If we were actually, I don't know, even seriously discussing getting out of Iraq, Afghanistan and/or Gitmo.

And before anyone yelps about asshats like Kissinger and Arafat getting it, they didn't deserve it either. I suppose it really doesn't matter, as this prize became fairly pointless years ago.

I've been checking the New York Times archives to see the immediate reactions of previous winners of the Nobel Peace Prize upon being informed.

What they all seemed to have in common was a strong emotional reaction: joy and happiness, and gratitude that their work was recognized. Jimmy Carter said "I was thrilled." Martti Ahtisaari was "very pleased and grateful." Muhammad Yunus said "I am so, so happy." The Dalai Lama said "I very much appreciate that kind of recognition about my beliefs." Oscar Arias Sanchez said "I am happy, immeasurably happy, about this news."

Theodore Roosevelt said "I am profoundly moved and touched by the signal honor shown me through your body in conferring on me the Nobel Peace Prize. There is no gift I could appreciate more, and I wish it were in my power to fully express my gratitude."

Obama wasn't just being modest. He actually seemed to be a bit annoyed that he was awakened before 6 am and required to come down and talk to the press. Not even a hint of being happy.

I like Obama. I see no downside to this award. It has to be good for the whole country. All I'm saying is that his reaction was weird, at least so far.

First of all Greg, stop asking us whether we like Obama better than Bush... Who doesn't? The ugly of rhetorical questions is obvious when you get to repeat yourself eight times. The beauty of rhetorical questions is that none of us have to answer them.

Second, you missed the argument entirely. The award is given out to people that have ACCOMPLISHED some sort of peace accord...

So because after eight years of a closed, singled-minded Republican ideology, Obama's charisma and oratory has given the international community a hard on within the first year. C*ckslap to Bush's face.

Honestly, I do believe the new direction our U.S. has taken is a huge step forward, but we're still at least a decade behind foreign and environmental policy. At least he's handling it as appropriately as possible. Accepting the award as a 'call to action' and giving the $1.4 million to charities.

I wonder what Bush would have done with $1.4 million....

Cheers.

@2, Robert

My impression listening to the speech this morning on NPR is that Obama was bemused.

I take the point that I am unqualified to judge who truly deserves the nobel peace prize, but I feel like DuWayne and Matt's point of view sound rather persuasive.

I am currently under the impression the Nobel was awarded not only for Obama's current stance regarding international cooperation, but also with the hope of pressuring Obama to follow through in the next few years.

I was kind of puzzled by Obama's being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm glad he got it though, even if I wonder why. And I'm also glad he recognizes that, however honored he may be as the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, he knows he's not quite in the same league as people like Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela, Lech Walesa, Desmond Tutu, and others I can't think of at the moment, who actually got the prize. That he knows this, and has remarked on it, is very, very courageous of him. And for that reason alone, perhaps, he deserves the award.
Anne G

Peacenik -- It's not as f***ed up as Kissinger winning it.

Empty words mate.

Yours is naught but a series of positioning statements. Like everything Obama is associated with, he's talked about many of the initiatives you discuss in your own post. But, he has yet to actually realize any of them.

If I'm wrong, please come back with clear example, and link to unbiased date that can support your position.

Cork

Nice summary Greg.

The vast majority of folks complaining don't seem to know what the Peace Prize actually is. It isn't about pacifism (though a pacifist could certainly win it). It isn't really about 'achievements' either. It very much is a political statement, and always has been. And it isn't always to someone who 'deservers' it in the balance of their actions (it is often awarded with reference to a specific context).

Obama probably wouldn't be my first choice for the Peace Prize, but awarding it to him isn't insane or some gross debasement of the award. However, if they give the prize in Economics (not official a Nobel) to some damn Efficient Markets Hypothesis fool I'm going to be pissed.

Right the fuck on, Greg. I could hug you. My husband was reading your post and said, "Wow! Greg Laden is saying exactly what you were saying."

All day I've been so pissed by everyone bashing the President for having been chosen. I expect it from the right, but from the progressives, liberals, Democrats, etc. I've been hearing it from. Sheesh. The man cannot win for losing. I'm proud of him and I also appreciate his humility in the face of this honor.

Thanks for writing it out so well. I owe you a hug next time I see you. :)

"This award must be a stinging rebuke to GW Bush, as well. Imagine how it feels if you do a job for 8 years, then your successor spends 9 months undoing much of what you did, and then wins a major award (woth $1Million to boot!)for his efforts."
Posted by: tom coward

That may very well be a big part of their reason, in giving him the prize.

@ #34

You are wrong, and this Nobel Prize has been great for demonstrating what an enormous part of the population has no idea about the history of the Nobel Prize.

The prize is not given out for accomplishments. There is a long history, dating back to the 4th Nobel Peace Prize in 1904 to the Institute for International Law of giving it to people who are attempting to achieve things that the Committee approves of, rather than actually succeeding in those goals. Unlike the other Nobel Prizes, it is very common to give out the Peace prize to people while they are trying to achieve something, rather than after they have achieved it.

Talking about a lack of accomplishments regarding the Nobel Peace prize is merely demonstrative of an ignorance of the award and its history.

Thanks Greg for a fantastic and accurate post.

"In just a few moves, over a short amount of time, Obama has reversed (for the better) American foreign policy. Do you not think this is a good thing?"

While I agree with your sentiment, and have no real objection to Obama getting the prize (he has been very gracious in the way he accepted it)I cannot help feeling, with regard to the above statement, that it is a bit like giving a guy a knighthood just because he did not abuse his wife like the last husband did.

@Kammy: If the man hadn't pissed off a large part of his base by perpetuating the War on Drugs, slapping down gay rights, trying to appease the right wing nutjobs, and not giving much of a damn about civil liberties he'd probably have a lot more support from progressives. No one deserves unquestioning loyalty. You certainly can't expect liberals to blindly support a centrist, no matter what letter comes after his name or how much better he is than the alternative.

So yeah, I thought about curing some diseases one time. I even talked about it a lot and tried to talk other people into doing it. Do I get a Nobel for medicine?

How many days had Obama been in office when he was nominated?

I hope he eventually deserves it, but as far as I can tell he got the award for not being George Bush. That's a good thing, but not all that rare.

@IndieNile "Second, you missed the argument entirely. The award is given out to people that have ACCOMPLISHED some sort of peace accord..."
Since when is getting world leaders to communicate with one another after decades of hatred and violence among them not accomplished? You & the Nobel panel must have very different ideas about what that word means...

And it wasn't your award to give, so your rules and interpretation of the award mean jack.

How many days had Obama been in office when he was nominated?

Eleven. Nominations closed February 1st. To me, that lends a lot of weight to the argument that this is an award for having different rhetoric than Bush.

Folks, you're making far too much of this. Obama was given the Nobel Peace Prize for one simple accomplishment: He, singlehandedly, (well, maybe he had a little help) kept Sarah Palin's finger off the nuclear trigger.

That feat alone is worth the prize.

And the whole world knows it.

When the rest of the world honors your president you shut up and smile.

Technically, it's the 6 members of the committee that are honoring him.

And nobody can legitimately be upset at Obama - it's the committee's decision. However, I do think his initial reaction was probably, "Oh shit." He's obviously embarrassed by the award so soon.

Laden's post sounds like it was written while he was watching Fox News - way too many silly strawmen arguments with 3-inch high opponents that are easily toppled. Winning a debate with the ghost of O'Reilly isn't something to pound your chest over.

And the official intent of the Peace Prize is to go to the person who:

"shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses"

For those who claim that the Peace Prize is just a political statement - the original intent is clearly for *accomplished work* towards peace. I think that's why people are confused.

For crying out loud - we all love Obama. You've got to create a hell of a lot more strawmen before you can pretend that the entire US being "puzzled" over this award somehow is due to anti-Obama bias.

When the Nobel Committee endorsed Obama's statement that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges." .... why did that not make you feel proud to be an American?

It made me embarrassed to be an European. Is "gullible" in the Norwegian dictionary?

Robert [2] do you have a clue as to how much of an ignorant ass your comment makes you sound like? Have you compared what Obama said to what a sampling of other NPP winners have said? Did you not heed my request to expand your contextual knowledge of this event so you sound like less of a moron than you might actually be, given what you've said? And if you are who I think you are I know you are not a moron.

Jeesh...

Right. What Stephanie said.

Zack, I apologize for not including in this here post I wrote what you were thinking I should have included. Your ESP rays were not strong enough, I guess.

RCHughhes[17] That is part of my message, indeed.

Tulse[16] http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/04/122048.htm

Mike[22] the reason I put that list up there was to help Americans understand that this is not the US Presidential Accomplishment Award. Also, I took several paragraphs to explain the reasons Obama was given the award. How come that does not matter or enter into your critique?

qbsmd [30] You are correct about the Nobel for Chemestry, etc. But, what you describe is not a "standard" but a way of doing things by the Swedish committee that decides the various Nobels.

What you do not seem to know is that the Nobel Peace Prize recipient is selected by a different group of people, in an entirely different country, using criteria that is not even closely related to the Swedish committee's prize.

You see, here's the thing. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Don't feel bad. Most Americans don't. A key point of my post and borne out in the comments is that many of those whoa are criticizing Obama getting this award are doing so out of ignorance of what the award even is. This is not the Nobel for Chemistry and it is not the Award to US Presidents for Doing Stuff Americans Want Award.

Anne [36] Well said.

Brian; [38] Aha. Interesting, what you say. Have you read the Nobel Prize committee statement on why Obama won this award, mate?

Go read that and come back and tell me in what ways I did not represent what the committee stated. If you have an argument, it is with the committee, not with me. Feel free to tell us how what has actually happened differs with what the committee laid out it its statement, and tell us how what the committee tell us in its statement differs with the objective and role of the prize, then tell us how well Obama's award fits with the overall history and context of the Nobel Peace Prize. Mate.

travc[39]: Maybe Obama will also win the Economics Prize for saving the economy!!!

Kammy[40]: Obviously, we must get lunch soon...

Tom/Katinkate [41]. Exactly. That is why this is hugely important. A very strong statement has been made here.

Jeremy[42] Thanks for that additional context. Very nice.

Sailor [43] I totally agree. But he knighthood I have in mind when I think of your example is being given to some guy in 1635 who declared that he does not actually own his wife and has no right to physically abuse her and that she has the same exact rights as he has. Then some enlightened noble gives him a knight and all the other knights who are busy abusing their wives and stuff see this an go "huh..."

JThompson: I would read this very differently. What thinking progressive gets pissy about the Nobel Peace Prize because the guy who got it did not act as quickly as desired on a domestic policy issue? This post is not a call for blind support.

That's not actually how we liberals and progressives work. Rather, we think about stuff. Join us. Its rather pleasant.

[47]Trepenwitz: YA example of ignorance = getting it wrong. The nominatoins are not sealed and the nominee pulled from a hat. Wikipedia is your friend. Go read about how it works.

Opus[48]: Someday they will unseal the secret documents leading to this award and we will see if you are correct. You may well be!

NitpickyElf [49] Laden's post sounds like it was written while he was watching Fox News

Ha! My post was written by going systematically through the Oslo Committee's statement about this particular award and including each item. Why don't you go and read the actual statement justifying this award, become a bit more edumicated about it, then your opinion might be worth considering further.

Your quote from Wikipedia is a nice start. Now, again (it is so tiresome to have to repeat the main points of a post to commenter's who are paying half attention) look at the history of the prize . Tell me how many standing armies MLK shut down, or Kissinger.

And, you really TOTALLY missed the point about politics. "Only a political statement." Seriously man, go back and read the post.

That is all. I'm going to shovel the snow off the walk.

The author of post 42 hit it on the spot to me. The Nobel prize for peace has "never" been awarded solely for "achievements", it has been awarded for "attempts". After all if it were actually awarded for "achievements" it would only be needed "one" time and that would the for the person or persons who actually "brought" us World Peace. In that case we would already have it and this discussion would be immaterial. Surely Obama has accomplished little actual peace as of yet, but he has quickly put in place the "means" to a peace, as well as helped unite folks around the world towards that goal. Nelson Mandela for example did not bring peace to S. Africa himself. What he did do though was to act as the catalyst to lower the hate level enough that sane folks could take over the battle on both sides. His refusal to call for "revenge" on his jailers and the ruling White govt. was an example to the others who also suffered. Martin Luther King Jr. did not give the U.S. civil rights. He was only one of many working toward that goal. Like Mandela though he more than any other in his time period managed to unite moral folks behind the movement form all sides. There have been two types of "leaders" throughout history. Those that have led simply by brute force, and those who have led by example. Obama is in the second category because as president he has opened the door to peace, wants to walk through it with him. One might argue whether he was the person "most" deserving of the award, but one cannot truly argue that he is "undeserving" of it.

One of the criteria used in deciding who gets the Nobel Peace Prize is encouragement. In otherwords those who complain Obama has yet to do anything are ignoring the brief the awards committee has been given.

Wow. I mean, WOW!
You, my friend, are a left wing Schmuck.
You refer to Fox as if it were run by the Taliban. Must be making up for your unusually small penis. Got a lot of anger built up inside you?! You need to bang your head against the wall a few times... that should do the trick.

Obama's mama deserves the nobel peace prize more than he.

Wow. I mean, WOW! You, my friend, are a left wing Schmuck. You refer to Fox as if it were run by the Taliban.

@Daveinoc
Allow me to reprint Greg's first paragraph from this post.

If you are a right wing Republican conservative Yahoo, this letter is NOT for you. If you are a moderate, progressive, liberal, centrist, or anyone associated with the legitimate (i.e., not FOX News) press, this IS for you.

In other words, this post isn't for you. Now SHOO!!!

I agree. I assumed Obama would eventually get the prize, was bemused that he did now, and am glad it happened. So bemused -> amused.

February 1st was when these nominations took place. President Obama was inaugurated on January 20th. You'd need to bereft of logic not to see this award as several years premature.

Too bad science itself has too become politicized and diminished by free market capitalists. Great minds protect ideas and spend less with blind idolatry protecting people. Only independent thinkers can attempt to save us from these two separate wings of the same flightless bird. Doth protest too much.

John: A zillion people are nominated for this award. The award process then proceeds for months. Your dates are therefore no more relevant than Obama's Kenyan Birth Certificate.

I don't know what you are talking about, but my science is totally unpolitical.

It's time to roll our eyes into the back of our heads, breathe through the soles of our feet, and divine the wisdom of the consciousness of all consciousness.

You know, like crazed religious zealots, running amok in the new theocracy.

The Social Scientologists are going to get their very visible public 15 minutes of screwing the pooch. No hiding it, it's safe, they think, to come out from the crevices and show us their stuff now. And its really, really funny stuff, too.

This has gone so far beyond 'joke' that it has crossed all political barriers. It is like watching a slow motion circus train wreck, complete with clowns.

Please...don't stop. We are insatiable for this kind of pure mirth. I never dreamed I'd live to see the day, but, here it is, in all of its precious glory. Perfect.

February 1st was when these nominations took place. President Obama was inaugurated on January 20th. You'd need to bereft of logic not to see this award as several years premature.

What part of encouragement being a criteria for awarding the prize do you not understand ?

Like other you think the prize is always awarded for a record of prior achievement. Like others you are simply wrong.

FredianoB, ... Huh?

Daveinoc -

I don't agree with Greg and none of the comments here has convinced me to change my mind. I disagree with Obama receiving this award, because I have seen very little in the way of even attempting to resolve a great many problems that our country is embroiled in and while I can appreciate the difference he has made in foreign relations, I don't see that making up for a complete lack of attempting to get us out of the conflicts in which we're engaged or Gitmo.

However. You sir (and I use that term loosly) are a complete and utter asshole, without a single redeeming quality evinced here. You add nothing the least bit constructive to the conversation and are nothing but a pointless little troll. I hope you are impressed with yourself, because certainly no one else is or should be.

In other words, please show me another Nobel Peace Prize winner who was nominated for ten days worth of work. Or are is anyone trying to tell me the way he ran his political campaign, or short tenure as a US Senator makes him worthy?

OK, so we are seeing the next major Republican winged monkey form before our very eyes, folks. John: are you reading this off the talking points memo form the RNC or one of its affiliates?

Trepenwitz: YA example of ignorance = getting it wrong. The nominatoins are not sealed and the nominee pulled from a hat. Wikipedia is your friend. Go read about how it works.

I don't recall saying anything about the selection process being random, and I don't know why you found it necessary to attribute such a belief to me.

I wasn't entirely correct about the submission deadline, however, as the Nobel Committee may add additional names to the list during their first meeting after the February 1st deadline. What I haven't yet found is when that meeting took place.

Just like Pres. Obama's work isn't (yet) worthy, neither was your ad-hominem to me. The last forty years, or so, have been nothing more than the same deregulations and wars/conflicts with different people. They're just gotten better at selling these things. I'm merely surprised to see science-minded people so willing to suspend dis/belief, while enforcing conclusions before the experiment has even commenced.

BTW, next time don't cast such a wide net with your blog postings, or expect to receive some of the same. Or at least try to defend the somewhat defensible. Have a pleasurable day.

I still think that the prize was premature, however...

I'm sure that the prize committee wasn't sequestered and must have taken into account things after the Feb. 1 date. If not, then then the award was simply for not being GWB. IMHO, he hasn't changed enough Bush policies to deserve the award. It has to be more for attitude than accomplishment [which can be considered as evidence for receiving the NPP].

I would be surprised if the economics award would go to a pure free-marketeer. Hasn't done very well recently, and probably won't be given to another in the near future. Won't have long to wait for the next one.

And Pauling was a Chemistry and Peace Laureate.

And I recognized 44 of the previous laureates, slightly less that 1/2.

But, natural cynic, which of the reasons for giving him the award that I outline in the post did not really happen? So far not one person claiming that Obama has not done anything has addressed even one of these statements on this comment thread.

I really wish the committee hadn't given the prize to Obama, but the award was conceived of as a tool to advance peace, not just an award for past meritorious service.

I think the committee may have miscalculated the reception of their announcement, but I think Greg hits it right on the head: they meant to rebuke Bush, encourage Obama, and congratulate Obama on his one truly great accomplishment: winning the election and reversing the trend toward unilateral idiocy in US foreign policy.

So far not one person claiming that Obama has not done anything has addressed even one of these statements on this comment thread.

Addressed what exactly? A bunch of rhetoric? So far Obama has done a far better job of proving himself spineless, a liar or both. Why exactly am I supposed to be terribly excited about anything that he says? He has fairly consistently contradicted campaign promises with his actions.

He may well turn it around and actually follow through with some of what he claims - that would be grand. But as of this moment, I have a hard time getting excited about any "hope" he is trying to spread anywhere, when he has done an exceptional job of dashing hope for change here in the U.S. - unless that change was just supposed to be some minor tweaking here and there. I see nothing more than a common, petty politician, doing what politicians do. Yeah, he's somewhat better than our last president, but that isn't exactly a very high bar.

There is something seriously wrong when the rest of the world can find hope for change from the U.S. president, while U.S. Americans would be pretty hardpressed to find much to be hopeful about from the same man.

And honestly, if as the Oslo committee seems to be claiming, Obama is managing these marvelous international feats, then our president needs to rethink his bloody priorities. Because there is a whole hell of a lot getting left behind here at home. I am all for improving international relations, but meanwhile we are sitting here with a rising unemployment, nearly as much secrecy as we had with Bush, no restoration of the civil liberties that Bush wiped his ass with, gays still getting booted out of the military, No plans for closing Gitmo in sight, no plans for getting out of Iraq in sight, no plans for getting out of Afghanistan in sight, were still raiding medical cannabis growers in states where it is legal - but hey, his rhetoric looks good to the rest of the world, so fuck the folks back here in the U.S...

That was, btw, just a partial list of things Obama promised and either outright contradicted himself with his actions or simply ignored.

Addressed what exactly? A bunch of rhetoric?

DuWayne, they gave him the award. They listed thier reasons. You've stated that they were wrong, but you refuse to acknowledge or discuss their stated reasons. All you're really doing is spouting disdain for Obama, which is fine (if misguided) but the argument the Oslo Committee has made stand unrebuked. What's the point of your commentary other than that you don't like Obama?

My point is, I don't think much that they listed is much more than the empty rhetoric he has engaged in here. And if I am wrong, then we have a president who is apparently far more interested in the rest of the world, than he is in the country that elected him to pull us out of a huge fucking mess.

DuWayne, now that Obama has taken a major step towards ending don't ask don't tell do you plan to allow him to accept the prize?

There are people who will take any chance to make their own petty or selfish argument, and this is just another such opportunity. Such individuals are not concerned about the damage their own incessant complaining does to the larger causes. They just want to hear their own voices.

Obama is a breath of fresh air. The Nobel Peace Prize is, as the OP says correctly, a political statement. It is in no way under the sun bad that Obama has received the Nobel Peace Prize. Those who keep complaining about this have their own problems to attend to.

Obama has taken a major step towards ending don't ask don't tell

All I'm seeing in the news is that he has repeated the promises he made during the campaign without indicating when those promises would be fulfilled.

This is an excellent post. I feel the same way. Thanks.

Eleven African Americans have won the Nobel Prize. Every time there has been this sort of asinine resentment and hatred, and every time that hatred came along with all the usual excuses. How dare the black man win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Eleven African Americans have won the Nobel Prize. Every time there has been this sort of asinine resentment and hatred, and every time that hatred came along with all the usual excuses. How dare the black man win the Nobel Peace Prize.

You've got to be kidding me. You seriously think that racism is behind all the befuddlement expressed in the various ScienceBlogs threads on this issue?

I don't understand how random people can decide their stupid unconsidered opinion is so much more valuable than the considered opinion of a team of people who have worked on this decision for months. I expected Obama to have a high chance to get the Nobel, eventually, and it is a surprise that this is so soon, but the complaining about it at least on this thread is bullshit. Good for him he got it, good for us, good for the things he's trying to do. The next time Obama chairs a meeting at the UN he'll be nobel laureate Obama. That can only be a good thing.

Treppenwitz, your certainty is itself highly questionable. What give you that certainty? When I see the usual racist commenter making the same usual racist remarks I think racism as the usual possibility.

And what step would that be exactly Richard? More empty rhetoric? And for the record, I honestly don't care that he accepted it or that it was offered - I just don't see him deserving - not yet at least.

AliciaB -

Such individuals are not concerned about the damage their own incessant complaining does to the larger causes.

Selfish? Are you bloody serious? Since when is it selfish, to expect that a politician might - just might actually do what he was elected to do - what he bloody well promised the U.S. American people he would do?

Obama is a breath of fresh air.

Why exactly? Because his lies are particularly grandiose?

Don V. -

Every time there has been this sort of asinine resentment and hatred, and every time that hatred came along with all the usual excuses.

My irritation with our president and his winning this prize have nothing to do with the color of his skin and everything to do with a) he doesn't deserve it and b) he is a lying politician.

I would not be nearly so irritated, but my cynicism failed me with Obama and I actually had an expectation that he might not just be entirely full of hot air. His rhetoric was that good and his background that impressive. Not enough to convince me to vote for him, just enough that I truly thought he would actually at least try to live up to his word.

I accept that there is a slim possibility that he might actually turn it around and do something. Were he to manage to actually make a difference in climate change, nuclear prolif and develop a record of multilateral diplomacy, I would be thrilled to see him receive the Nobel peace prize. But given the amount of lying he has managed thus far, I am not terribly impressed with him getting based on his rhetoric alone.

Treppenwitz: Obama has done a bit more than make promises. Get your story straight.

DuWayne, you are being so typically American. Any one of the promises Obama made (well, many of them) would take anyone months to do, and as usual the new president walks into office with a crisis that loomed only half way during the campaign. Your expectations and judgments are absurd. You did not get what you wanted when you wanted it, and now we all have to listen to you whine.

Or just ignore you, I suppose.

Treppenwitz, your certainty is itself highly questionable. What give you that certainty? When I see the usual racist commenter making the same usual racist remarks I think racism as the usual possibility.

If you want to call out specific individuals with a post history full of racism, go ahead. I apologize if I've misinterpreted your earlier post, but you seemed to be painting with a much broader brush, and I don't appreciate the implication that my doubts about this award are motivated by racism.

Treppenwitz: Obama has done a bit more than make promises. Get your story straight.

What, specifically, has he done regarding DADT?

He has had specific conversations with people in the pentagon and there is legislation in the house that he intends to sign. Pay attention.

I hadn't thought this to be a racist issue.

Then Don mentioned it and it rang true as a possibility.

Then I thought, no, probably not this time. Though one must remain aware of the possibility.

It is worth noting that more than half of the Americans (or about half, anyway) who have won the NPP were African Americans. That is very important and interesting. I suspect the Norwegians have been trying to send us a message for some time. And, of course, they have sent us a message with Obama's award, which many of you are simply not getting to your fault.

But, I don't agree that the commentary on this thread has been in any way racially motivated. But I'm sure there is plenty out there. Personally, other than hearing about one comment by Limberger, I've not paid one bit of attention to the usual right wingers. I'm more concerned with the not very helpful to the greater cause remarks from the left and the center. Obviously.

AliciaB -

Any one of the promises Obama made (well, many of them) would take anyone months to do, and as usual the new president walks into office with a crisis that loomed only half way during the campaign.

First of all, he has had nine months thus far and not a hell of a lot to show for it. Second, he has not only not done a hell of a lot, but has flat out done the opposite of what he promised on several fronts. Not the least being he has not only done absolutely nothing to restore the bill of rights that Bush wiped his ass with or to reverse the secrecy of the Bush admin, he has continued those policies when he has had ample opportunities to change them.

Your expectations and judgments are absurd.

How exactly? Why are the feds still raiding medical cannabis sites in states where it is legal? He promised that would stop. How come we have yet to see an inkling of a plan to shut down Gitmo. MI flat out welcomed bringing prisoners that can't be released to prisons here - we need the jobs. How come we have yet to see an inkling plan for getting out of Iraq - not expecting it to happen over night - but when exactly is that even going to be discussed? Ditto for Afghanistan? How come we have yet to see reversals of the secrecy that he promised would stop? It doesn't take time or the least effort to keep that promise, yet here we are in the dark. When are we going to see him easing up on those presidential powers he said he was going to? Again, just takes a decision - nothing more. When are we going to see a restoration of our bill of rights? A little more challenging, but that was an important promise? Why didn't he - the commander in chief of our military, not put a moratorium on booting gays out of the military until a permanent solution could be managed? Instead we have continued to lose gays, many of whom are in areas we have serious shortages in - such as linguistics.

Why exactly is anyone getting excited about the rhetoric about international relations, when he has lied repeatedly?

Good point. I knew only a dozen or so names.

I'm glad for Obama and I'm glad for the rest of us that he won this.

Now lets get to work on disarming the nukes.

He has had specific conversations with people in the pentagon and there is legislation in the house that he intends to sign. Pay attention.

If some actual progress is being made, that's great news. Would you mind proving a link or two? All I've found so far are reports about his speech today and some talk about the possibility of congressional hearings in the next month or two.

Since it's hard to gauge tone in text, I'd like to make it clear that I did vote for the guy and do recognize that, despite his shortcomings, he is a significant improvement over the last administration.

When Lech Walesa got his Nobel prize in 1983, I was young and I had all those negative thoughts myself. He was nothing more but a puppet, unable to put together a coherent sentence on his own.

Today I believe to be wiser by over 20 years. It does not matter how much Walesa achieved himself. He was nothing more and nothing less then a symbol of change and hope, much needed at the time in eastern Europe. Same goes for Obama. He is a symbol of change and hope much needed in the world now. So be it.

Small thing. IPCC left off the list.

Can we be disgruntled about the fact he got the Nobel PEACE Prize while wagging war on foreign soils?

I must be a glutten for punishment.

Although don't you find it disturbing that a foreign body is attempting to dramatically influence American National Security. Making the world stronger in our own weakness is not a good comprimise. On an even grander scale, don't you find it disturbing that the President has only spoken once to an pivotal man like General McChrystal (Commander ISAF and USFOR-A)in his nine months in office, yet Citibank, JP Morgan Chase, Goldman Sachs etc. have a part of his ear every waking morning?

Better yet, do you honestly believe that President Obama or President Bush, or anyone in Washington (Republican or Democrat) welds more power and influence than Wall Street? Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

Anything that has touched the free market capital system has been corrupted, and that includes the FDA and big pharma (making the latest health care reform initiative laughable,) the profiteering Washington War Machine etc. And for those who cheapen the debate with race, please don't forget the color of money is green.

We need to wake up, examine the big picture; realize, we are being played by both sides. Nothing has changed.... not in this Administration, likely not in the next one either.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/10092009/watch.html

Greg is the preeminent Obama fanboy on science blogs!

I ahve to admit Greg, like a number of the others posting here who are sympathetic to Obama's ostensible policy agenda I initially had mixed feelings about him getting/accepting this award. It did seem too early -- more like a Valentine than anything else. Weren't there others more deserving of recognition -- Aung Sun Syu Kyi for example?

On reflection though I can see how it might make sense. It does put him on notice to press on, or he'll be very embarrassed, as a time when it stands to make a difference. Perhaps it will motivate Americans who are on the fence to get behind him, if only to avoid sharing the embarrassment.

In the end, awards after the fact, though nice, are pretty pointless. People who have done good stuff are remembered but not because of the Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe they should be given to those who are yet to make a difference but might, with the right support.

Here's a quote from further up the thread:

"Yes, Obama has said some heartwarming things about diplomacy, nuclear disarmament, climate change, and other important international issues, but these aren't accomplishments, just nice words"

There are several like this.
They are wrong.

Look, *saying* those things --- just saying them, even before checking things off a to-do list --- IS AN ACCOMPLISHMENT. Not, maybe, when I say them. But when a world leader says them, at the right times and the right places, they have an impact. When the leader of the most powerful nation in the world says them, they are noteworthy.

For some reason, Americans have a hard time realizing this. I wonder why.

Roger: When I made that list, too quickly, my intention was to delete non-humans. I left a few non-humans on by accident. So the small thing is kinda like a meaningless typo.

fhj: If you think that, it is only because you have no better argument to make . I supported Clinton in the primaries, and I've criticized Obama for the same exact things people are criticizing him for in this thread. The difference between me and those who feel compelled to hate criticize him because he has not done everything on their persona list in 9 months is ... well, I'd rather not say.

Now, I've got a relative in ICU all of the sudden so I'm outta here for a while. Play nice, everybody!

Congratulations to the USA for ObamaÂ´s Nobel Prize!

I wonder what weighs more in the consciousness of those Americans who cannot see what a great man they have as a president: the loss of the Olympics 2012 or Barack ObamaÂ´s winning of the Nobel Peace Prize?

Sadly, it seems as though the former received a lot more media attention. Let me assure them that outside of the USA it does not taint the image of the USA (or Barack Obama) that the next games will be held in Brazil.

Thank you very much for that post. What freaks me out most in the answers is that everybody assumes that Obama (should?) got the prize for what he achieved (or not) as an American president. This America-centric perspective is exactly the problem. He got the price for allowing all of us non-americans to feel hope again. He relived international diplomacy. The world could not care less for American internal affairs when international wars are at stake.
I am convinced that Oslo was not very much interested in his achievements in U.S. It's an international price, - not an American price.

I am genuinely interested: Has any previous president ever had such opposition, even among "his own" as Obama has? As I understood it during Bush, it was unamerican not to support the president. Once Bush was elected, the support for him increased, but with Obama it seems (to me) to be the other way around. Can anyone clarify this for me?

Hi Americans,
you can be proud. You all deserve this Nobel Peace Prize, because it was your vote that made it.

Fia, I agree fully about this: "...allowing all of us non-americans to feel hope again". Scepticism aside, we definitely felt this hope here in the Middle East.

My feeling is, that although Al Gore and the IPCC received a Nobel Prize recently for their efforts in combatting climate change, Barack Obama could equally have been awarded in a few years for pulling the steering wheel over and for making many more good decisions for nature including us humans.

While I'm underwhelmed with the committee's choice, I'm completely baffled by those suggesting Obama is undeserving because of his internal policy failures. Short of starting a civil war, how exactly are his internal policies related to world peace?

Another aspect worth noting: Obama was not born (in Kenya or elsewhere) the day before he was inaugurated. While he was a senator (which, I know, was not long, but still) one of his big issues was the nuke problem. Then he gets to be president, and he goes to the UN and gets a more meanigful resolution passed against the usual odds, stirs up all kinds of trouble regarding the nukes, and makes the US a player again in the UN. From the NP committee point of view, this is a very big deal, one that even transcends the whinging and moaning of Americans who have not seen everhy single thing they wanted Obama to do (promosed or not) done right away.

This NPP is not about America, or Obama as president, it's about the movement they see because of Obama on the nuke disarmament issue.

Hey Duwayne: We elected a president, not a fairy prince and not a king. If you don't have the patience for politics, go watch something else--like wrestling maybe. But for God's sake quit whining and do something useful, like electing a Congress that will actually work for your agenda.

Or maybe not, someone as politically naive as you seem to be can only hurt. Wrestling: that's the ticket.

Oran -

Of course I am so terribly naive - obviously you, oh wise one are not. So enlighten me. When pray tell, can we expect our great leader to keep a single motherfucking campaign promise?

This isn't some fucking game to watch. This is our country. A country that went to complete and utter shit. Our president was elected because he told us that he would do certain specific things - things that he has not only not done, but he has done the opposite of.

So explain to me why exactly I shouldn't be a little fucking pissed off about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzMas1bVidw

If anyone still cares, Time magazine seems to have an interesting rebuttal. It seems displaying weakness, not strength, is what starts wars. And I concur.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20091011/us_time/08599192955300

Do people actually still care about reducing nuclear weapons? That seems so... 1970-ish. It's that ideal that we all give lip service to, but nobody actually gives a shit about.

And Greg's comments still seem too defensive - as if he has to prove to us how Obama *deserves* this. I think it's fine to say it's a political statement, the committee wants to use it as an endorsement/pressure, and leave it at that. Why all the effort to squeeze all sorts of halfway rationales into something that's obviously forward-looking, not accomplishment based?

I think the NPP *intended* to have the current public reaction - of puzzlement, and controversy. They want pressure on Obama to fulfill his direction, hence the awkwardly timed award. Why is that so difficult to accept?

Hi,

First of all I really liked your post. Very smart and well-written. But I cannot agree completely though...

I'm not American myself so I'm not really emotionally involved in the Obama-Nobelgate, but I do observe the international political life. Just two days ago I discussed the Nobel topic with my boyfriend and my statement was that Obama had great potential and SHOULD definitely be awarded the prize in the (near?) future. But not now, just after he's started his journey. I don't say he doesn't really deserve the Nobel prize, but I think that now, just at the begnning, when he's still working on establishing his position in the world, the prize is a sort of obstacle. Instead of working hard on improving the international situation with all its complicated aspects, he's collecting prizes. I'm afraid this is how many people can see it. Even though, as I said, I personally like the guy.

For those commenting on the fact that Obama is presiding on two wars on foreign soil, let us not forget who actually started those wars and perpetuated them for the past six years.

While I am a pacifist and do not agree with war, I understand there is not an easy way to end it either. If Bush couldn't (or wouldn't, its debatable) in five years then how do you expect Obama to in nine months. This isn't the wars of our fathers where it was considered "OK" to go in and bomb the every living shit out of people, but pulling out and leaving them to fix the mess we made is not really feasible either . These things are tricky and are scrutinized by the international community so it's very important that he takes his time to find the best solution for everyone.

@ JC Woodward (8)

Sir, your an Ass

To which Mr. Laden answers "My what [is] an ass?" Only morons say "your" when they mean "you're"

To be fare, that is just as likely a slip of the fingers as of the mined.

But Greg, quotes mined are the fare of creationists.

I'm not an American. But I'm educated. I can recognize many of those names. What a shame! America doesn't deserve its leadership that is my honest view. Leadership needs to be earned. Meritocracy. I love that word.

A Trail of Shame: Racism and the Anti-Obama Movement

gregladen — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:45:29 +0000

A Trail of Shame: Racism and the Anti-Obama Movement

A couple of weeks ago, I published a very controversial post titled "Maybe We Should Have Elected a White President After All" about the ongoing, possibly growing racism in connection with Obama's presidency. The idea that a lot of the anti-Obama, including anti-health care reform, rhetoric and action was racially motivated was understood by some and rejected by others who seem to not want to see any significant racism in the mix. This was parallel to the head in the sand reaction to my earlier post on the the arrest of Skip Gates in Cambridge Massachusetts last July.

There are those of us who have been saying all along that racism has played a role in anti-Obama sentiment. Does this mean that we think people who supported Hillary instead were all racists? No. Hell, they were Democrats. The vast majority were not orienting their politics in an overtly racist manner, choosing Clinton over Obama because Obama is black (though some were, as you will see below). Does it mean that we think that every objection to an Obama policy is racist? No. There are many valid objections, depending on one's point of view, to various policies by Obama. Hell, Obama is a smart guy. He probably objects to some of his own policies! Does it mean that we think that every utterly unprecedented outburst of "You Lie!!!!!" in congress by a known racist from South Carolina during a Presidential address to the Joint Session of the House and Senate is a racist act? Well, duh...

Over the last few days the left of center and centrist/moderate wings of the mainstream press have gotten on board with this and have begun to discuss issues of racism in the current health care debate. As usual, the liberal blogosphere leads!!!

Anyway, I thought it would be fun (in a "this whole thing makes me kind of nauseated" kind of way) to compile a random grab bag, ordered in time, of racist bits and pieces from way back before the election up to recent times. Even more recent bits and pieces on this important discussion can be found by just paging back through this blog over the last two days or so.

The reason for doing this is to have a post to point to when people say "Oh yeah? What racism!!!11!!"

Here we go:

March 29th, 2008

North Dakota student skit

The March 18 skit--which ignited complaints of racial insensitivity--involved the NDSU Saddle and Sirloin Club and was performed during the annual Mr. NDSU pageant, which is sponsored by the Alpha Gamma Delta sorority.

The Forum reported on the lip-sync act in which a white student--wearing dark makeup and an Afro wig--portrayed Obama receiving a lap dance. In the background, two male students dressed as cowboys simulated anal sex while holding an Obama sign that one student ripped at the end of the 30-second skit.

May 14th 2008

Obama faces racism in West Virginia -- Finally the truth!!!

MATTHEW PALEVSKY, JOURNALIST, TRNN: I'm in Martinsburg here in West Virginia, one of the poorest and whitest states in the union. Senator Clinton is expected to win today's primary in a landslide, and the white, blue collar workers who make up her base have said they might be unwilling to vote for Senator Obama come general election.

June 15th, 2008

Is the Obama Sock Monkey Racist? - June 15, 2008

July 10th, 2008

August 7th, 2008

Photograph of Obama and rioting black people

September 19th, 2008

The ladies on ABC's The View sound off about Christian organization American Values, and Focus on the Family putting Senator Obama's face on a box of waffles, portrayed him wearing a turban, and had some rap lyrics on the box cover.

October 10th, 2008

A billboard in West Plains:

October 22 2008

October 22, 2008

Birds of a feather poster:

January 26th, 2009

KKK - 'increased and strengthened' since Obama's election

June 3rd, 2009

width="475"
height="356"
flashvars="file=http://www.france24.com/static/observers/video/090617 obama bashing.flv&fullscreen=true&autostart=false&width=480&height=406&stretching=fill&captions=http://www.france24.com/static/observers/subs/090617 obama bashing.flv.xml&autostart=false&plugins=accessibility-1" src="http://www.france24.com/static/observers/player/player.swf"
/>

(more on this video here)

July 24th 2009

"Obama the African witch doctor"

August 7th, 2009

Glenn Beck On Obama's Birthday - Is He Being Racist?
by Young_Turks1

August 13th, 2009

All White Crowd Turns on Black Women at Health Care Town Hall

This is the only video of what actually happened at the event this afternoon. The news only showed the woman being escorted away by the police. What happened was that four women walked in with signs, the crowd booed and yelled at the women. The women rolled up their posters and put them down. A photographer/reporter approached one of the women and wanted to see what the poster was. As the woman went to show the photographer/reporter, a man from the bleachers stood up and snatched the poster from the woman and photographer/reporter. As the woman went to retrieve her poster, the police stepped in and escorted the woman and the man from the building.

The poster was not of Obama, it was not pro-health care. The poster that was taken from the woman and wrinkled up into a ball was of [African-American civil rights campaigner] Rosa Parks.

Watch the videos and read the details here.

September 15th, 2009

gregladen Wed, 09/16/2009 - 08:45

Tags

This is so cool: Brack Obama was born in Kenya!

gregladen — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 19:59:16 +0000

This is so cool: Brack Obama was born in Kenya!

It turns out that our president is totally African. How cool is that? No wonder he's so much less stupid than the average American (as you know, Westerners tend to be dumbed down quite a bit by their stupid culture).

Well, OK, the second part of what I just said is true, but the first part isn't and, in fact, it isn't really all that funny. The "Birther" phenomenon that just won't seem to go away is a truly insidious, and indeed racist, and stupid.

But what is really scary about this is the following: A majority (just over fifty percent) of Republicans, when confronted with the question: "Do ya'll believe that Barack Hussein Obama was borned in the United States of Amerka?" say either "No way" or "Shit, I dunno, Man."

Fifty percent. Holy crap.

gregladen Mon, 08/03/2009 - 15:59

Tags

Barack Obama

Politics

I presume you are referring to the poll referenced here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/7/31/760087/-Birthers-are-mostly… ? The other interesting point is that one gets similar numbers if one just looks at Southerners. I don't see a breakdown by both geography and political party. That might be very interesting to examine.

That might be the poll. I was just watching Rachel Maddow, and she referred to it. I'm made a note to self to post her spot when it comes out tomorrow. It is actually very funny, good theater.

(and her guest makes the point that this is racist)

Yup and it is a birth certificate for a hospital with a wrong name in a city that is identified as in the wrong country in the year he was born. Come on forgers, you can do better. I don't let my students get away with research like that.

And, actually, a country that did not quite exist yet.

It just goes to show, you can expose a Republican to an education but you can't make it learn anything.

Republicants!

That's okay, I don't count Hawaii part of the United States either. It's full of brown people. Hehe, just kidding. Sorry, I thought I was one of them for a moment.

the average American (as you know, Westerners tend to be dumbed down quite a bit by their stupid culture).

Geez, what a bore you can be. I can't find anyone in real life who give a gnat's fart about this stuff. There's so many more interesting and beautiful things in life than wallowing in this piffle. Is it fun? Does it make you feel superior to ridicule mentally retarded people?

Wing: You stepped right in that one! Go clean your shoes now. Oh, and stay tuned.

I don't think the fake birth certificate was meant to be a hoax; I'm pretty sure it was meant to be a joke and the birthers were to dumb to notice. I guess that's a real life example of Poe's law.

(eyeroll)

Cripes, I called the Birthers mentally retarded. What more clue do you want? I know you were snarking, Greg. My point was that I don't understand is how you can stand to wallow in this stuff day in and day out. Honestly, I cannot find real people outside of blogs who even know about this stuff beyond a page 20 article header. It was a telephone poll. Smart people with lives hang up on telephone pollsters. They are polls of people who care about silly things. I'm amazed the Birther percentage wasn't higher, actually.

Funny how people can take or leave polling data depending on convenience. There actually is a science to this, and polls do accurately predict behavior remarkably well. It simply isn't the case that polls can be dismissed as either a) always wrong, or b) wrong when you don't like the results, or the results expose some uncomfortable fact.

Of course, one does have to look into a given poll and evaluate it.