• comment on a post Can You Stand the Rain? over 3 years ago

    once again, you've made another critically flawed argument that even if valid still would present a valid case for dropping Obama in '12. 

    The current 'trajectory of things' certainly does not indicate that Republicans will take the Senate. On the contrary, the small chance of that happening continues to decline. O'Donnell is tanking, despite what you may wish. The generic ballot continues to narrow. California is being taken off the map. Kentucky is narrowing. I can't point to a single race where the current trajectory is as you describe it.

    Then again, perhaps I can understand how you see it that way, considering how you analyze some races. I can't help but laugh out loud at the assertion that Sharon Angle is becoming the Jim Webb of '10. Sure, Angle very well might squeak out a victory. But besides the possibly narrow victory (which I can assure you, has happened before, throughout all of history), there's absolutely nothing similar about the races. Harry Reid is flawed? What candidate isn't? Somehow Harry Reid's flaws are similar to the 'maccaca' incident? Seriously? And Sharon Angle is like Jim Webb? In what world? I don't recall Jim Webb being some crazy liberal with radical beliefs who beat a dumb mainstream Dem in a surprise upset primary.

    Moving on, you once again glorify a right-winger as if he's accomplished something monumental. A crazy Republican rallying his crazy base is not some brilliant strategic maneuver- its just what people like Demint try to do. Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't (See Alan Grayson). 

    And then, once again, you seem to fault Obama for what is happening on the right. The teabaggers are wining the battle of the GOP- I get that. But that alone is not sufficient evidence that they are- by extension- beating Democrats.

    The tea party 'revolution' has yet to do anything more than awaken people who already had this view. They arn't changing anyone's mind. When Obama, who will be renominated in 2012, starts campaigning against whatever teabagger the GOP decides to nominate, he will once again display his skill and have little trouble dispatching the crazy.

    If the tea party wants to win national elections, they will have to become rational, which is, of course, impossible for a group whose entire basis is those crazy ideas that most Americans do not buy into.

     

  • on a comment on People vs Corporations over 3 years ago

    Again, I don't see how any of that signifies that Obama has ulterior motives. Regarding his appointments: Obviously I agree that its stupid to put the people who caused this mess in charge of fixing it. But these are people who, despite their failures, were still considered economic 'experts.' It's like say, if there was a huge oil spill in the gulf of mexico and the company responsible for it was put in charge of fixing it. They may have caused it, but that doesn't necessarily mean they arn't the best ones to fix it. (Again, I'm not agreeing with this idea, but this is just an issue of poor judgement rather than secret plans to make people rich)

    As for "big money," again, unfortunately this is how our country works. If Obama came in with say a plan to "redistribute the wealth," do you think he'd have any chance of getting anything done? Obviously not. He can't just make sweeping changes without experiencing enormous backlash. 

    The idea that "our current economy could be doing a lot better" is a given is ridiculous. Just saying it doesn't make it true. When Obama took office, our economy was in a state it had never been before. There were multiple approaches suggested, but there's absolutely no reason to believe any of the other ones would have had more success. Of course, after the fact, everyone says "my idea would have worked better," but that's just as much an unknown as it was back before any plan was implemented.

    I have no problem with progressives urging Obama to be more partisan, fight for more progressive policies, take a more populist stance, etc. But this idea that Obama is no better than W., that he perpetuated some crazy fraud on America, is absolutely ridiculous. 

  • comment on a post People vs Corporations over 3 years ago

    Again, I don't see how any of that signifies that Obama has ulterior motives. Regarding his appointments: Obviously I agree that its stupid to put the people who caused this mess in charge of fixing it. But these are people who, despite their failures, were still considered economic 'experts.' It's like say, if there was a huge oil spill in the gulf of mexico and the company responsible for it was put in charge of fixing it. They may have caused it, but that doesn't necessarily mean they arn't the best ones to fix it. (Again, I'm not agreeing with this idea, but this is just an issue of poor judgement rather than secret plans to make people rich)

    As for "big money," again, unfortunately this is how our country works. If Obama came in with say a plan to "redistribute the wealth," do you think he'd have any chance of getting anything done? Obviously not. He can't just make sweeping changes without experiencing enormous backlash. 

    The idea that "our current economy could be doing a lot better" is a given is ridiculous. Just saying it doesn't make it true. When Obama took office, our economy was in a state it had never been before. There were multiple approaches suggested, but there's absolutely no reason to believe any of the other ones would have had more success. Of course, after the fact, everyone says "my idea would have worked better," but that's just as much an unknown as it was back before any plan was implemented.

    I have no problem with progressives urging Obama to be more partisan, fight for more progressive policies, take a more populist stance, etc. But this idea that Obama is no better than W., that he perpetuated some crazy fraud on America, is absolutely ridiculous. 

  • on a comment on People vs Corporations over 3 years ago

    So let me get this straight. We should trust YOUR word that Obama's words are all lies? Who are you to "assure" people that Obama will do or not do anything?

    I've watched Obama's actions, and while I am disappointed by many of them, I don't see those actions as revealing what you think is so obvious.

    Permit me, if you will, to present an alternative reason why Obama acts the way he does:

    Instead of being a secret conservative corporatist neocon, I think Obama is actually just as liberal and populist as he presents himself to be. He believes, however, that the best (or only) possible way to achieve his goals is to work through the existing system. He wants to make very small changes, one at a time. 

    Now, I don't agree with this approach. I would prefer a more partisan, more populist Obama, who fights for his core beliefs and fights to enact sweeping changes. I think that while he'd lose many of the battles, he would overall be more successful than his conciliatory approach permits. But that is an issue of strategy. I am unwilling to buy into the conspiracy theory that Obama somehow tricked us into believing he was something he was not just so he could win an election. 

  • on a comment on Obama the neo-con over 3 years ago

    Ok, what point are you making? That Obama has the authority to do this under the laws of way?

    My point was that this really comes down to a question of morals, as the law itself it nothing without its underlying purpose.

    And if Obama is a tyrant for ordering the assassination of an American citizen fighting for the opposing side, merely because of the fact that he is an american citizen, the question is why? 

    Is there such a distinction between an American life and a foreign life that we are to presume one, even with significant evidence he is fighting the US as a terrorist, is innocent until tried by a court while the other is presumed guilty?

  • comment on a post Obama the neo-con over 3 years ago

    Due process rights only extend to U.S. citizens because of the scope of the constitution. Logically speaking, that makes sense. But morally? It does not. No human life should be valued higher than another.

    So, by extension, isn't it wrong to kill any terrorist leader, without giving him a trial? 

    But when one of those terrorist leaders came from America, its not only wrong, but represents a tyrannical action by our government?

    In practice, the government cannot always afford someone the full protection of due process rights. When police officers get in a shootout with a suspect, oftentimes that suspect winds up dead without ever having been tried in court. And, but for a question of facts, no one every cries foul. 

    That's because our rights as Americans often conflicts with the rights of other Americans. Here, this terror suspect may not have been in the process of shooting at us. But perhaps he was causing the death of Americans, and capturing him would cause even more lives lost. 

    I don't mean to excuse these actions completely. I do not know all the facts surrounding this case and I do not submit that this action was justified under the circumstances. But I certainly do not believe that this is a prima facie case of a tyrannical government ignoring our constitution.

    Look back on the precedent set by our judicial branch over the years- due process rights, like first amendment rights, second amendment rights, etc., have been subject to limitations without sacrificing American principles of justice.

  • comment on a post Pray for Mittens over 3 years ago

    First off, let's get this out of the way: Mitt Romney will not win the GOP nomination; or, if he does, he will be their strongest candidate.

    You made a pretty good case for why Mitt isn't exactly a very strong candidate, but those reasons are much, much, stronger evidence for why he would never win the GOP nomination. The GOP base, aka, the Tea Party, will likely choose the next candidate, and there's no way they will choose Romney. Just take "ObamaCare" (by the way, using right-wing framing never helps make your case among Dems). Believe it or not (I'm guessing you choose 'not'), most Americans either support the health care bill or wish it was more progressive. This is not an issue that the GOP will win the 2012 election on. This is much more likely to be an issue in the Republican primaries.

    If Romney somehow emerges the victor, it will mean that he won despite all of his weaknesses. He will have found a way to win over the Republican base, and in doing so, he will have to have emerged a strong candidate. I find this a very, very, unlikely scenario, but if it does happen, Romney is not who I would choose to face.

    Sarah Palin, on the other hand, will be a gift to the Democrats, even if we renominate satan himself. 

    While I was never convinced Sarah Palin hurt John McCain’s electoral prospects in the final analysis

    This says it all. Just like you never thought Obama would win (or at least I think you said that in your last post) and he did, by a big margin. Your analysis of Sarah Palin is completely off. 

    I have always maintained that Sarah Palin is essentially Barack Obama without the benefit of an Ivy League pedigree, a reasonably high IQ, and more talented ghostwriters.

    This makes sense. Sarah Palin is Barack Obama except for the incredibly important and consequential differences. Is this actually a serious argument? Leave aside their very different political beliefs and worldview, their gender, race, background, etc., the fact that one is very intelligent and received a good education (by his own merits, this isn't GWB we're talking about), is not enough of a distinguishing factor that you can still conclude that they are essentially the same? You identified one singular similarity- charisma- and that is enough for them to be the same person?

    Sarah Palin and Barack Obama are charismatic only because of the attractive exuberance they possess. Their cults of personalities are products of modern identity politics. These are tabula rasas whose appeal transcends the normal workings of Politics for the cultural niches they represent. She is the hot, fecund Christian warrior woman; he the postracial black man on a fascinating journey of self-discovery.

    I'm sorry, but throwing out flowery phrases like "attractive exuberance" is not enough to cover the fact that you are saying exactly nothing. What they both have is charisma, a certain charm or magnetism, that drives people to listen to them. You can't break down 'charisma' and make some argument that their charisma isn't real or something. Charisma is the reason why this "hot, fecund Christian warrior woman" is famous and the other one's are not. Charisma is also (part) of the reason why Obama is the "postracial black man on a fascinating journey of self-discovery" who became famous. Filling a certain niche doesn't give someone charisma.

    Anyway, putting all that aside, Sarah Palin is an extremely influence figure in Republican politics. But that's where it stops. She has never cast her spell on the rest of the country, and there's just no reason to believe she could. Republicans have never really care so much for intelligent, logical politicians as much as they have gravitated toward firebrand, cultural warriors like Palin. She stands for positions and policies that are not popular in this country, even in this climate.

    Sarah Palin, if she decides to run, may very well be the GOP nominee. But she will be no different than she was in 2008. Maybe a little more polished, maybe a little more knowledgeable on her pet issues. But she will be destroyed in a debate by Obama. Her campaign will internally struggle with the same issues it did in 2008. She will never tailor her beliefs to the mainstream. And she will continue to mouth off about issues she has no grasp on, only furthering the view most have of her that she is unqualified for high office.

    The electorate has not changed significantly since 2008. Voters are pissed at Democrats because they haven't seen the results they wanted. On certain issues, they may be willing to look for a new idea. But they aren't going to vote for a woman who they find wholly unfit to be president of the united states.

  • I too have tired of this argument. All my criticisms were valid ones and as a front page diarist you should be able to handle them. But you clearly have no place post on the front of this blog. 

    The point I've tried to make, and I believe I've made very well, is that I do not fault you for your opinion, but for the way you've expressed it. This "Meta-critisism" is not only not "silly" but its entirely appropriate. 

    I've been a regular reader of this blog, despite only commenting or posting diaries very rarely. I do not feel a need to "leave" it because there is nothing that binds me to it. But I actually do like reading the differing perspectives, even when some of them (Jerome's usually) infuriate me. But while I entirely disagree with most of his arguments, at least he makes coherent, fact-based arguments.

    The point of my meta criticism was to expose the fact that your diary is nothing more than a rant on several topics under a provocative heading, and does nothing to further any real discussion.

    Your youth is no excuse. I don't know how old you are, but I'm probably not much older if at all. 

    As someone who enjoys coming to MyDD to read real analysis and well-argued opinion, I believe I have every right to criticize diaries which I think are distracting.

    I do not wish to rewrite your diary, because I completely disagree with its premise. But then again, I'm still unclear about what exactly that premise even is.

    And on top of that, I still have no idea why you can't just respond to points without using terms like "weird" "obtuse" "pompous" "flailing" etc. There is a big difference between using these phrases to express your outrage at how hard it is for you to respond to someone as irrational as I am, and calling your argument "thin" and proceeding to explain exactly why it is "thin."

    To be honest, I think you should take some of what I say personally. I think you have been unnecessarily rude in the way you respond, a fact that seems to me to be further evidence you have no business posting on the front page.

    In conclusion, I will not stick my meta-criticisms in my "empty pockets." Your post is not one I merely disagree with substantively, as you wish was the case. Rather, I find your post lacking in the structure, rhetoric, and logical formulation necessary to distinguish a solid argument from a disjointed rant.

  •  

    Before I begin my response, I'm just going to suggest you stop taking everything so personally. There was no "backhanded complement" as there was no complement at all. I was merely evaluating your response- it was more substantive than the original post. Along the same lines, my suggestion that your argument is "thin" was an evaluation of your response and not directed at you as a poster.  Furthermore, your posts all contain hyperbolic, nonsensical language meant to demean my arguments, which seems more than a little inappropriate for a front page diarist. "That's so weird," "so confused that it cannibalizes itself", "pompous obtuseness" ? Are you kidding me? You preface every one of your points with strange phrases you seem to think help your argument, or at least degrade mine. If you want to say my argument is weak and then proceed to explain why, then by all means do so. But "cannibalizes itself"? WTF? Anyway, lets move on to substance: Obama's Second Term Of course there is an argument to be made that he will win, or lose, a second term. But you spoke of it as if it was a foregone conclusion, which it certainly isn't. Obama's poll numbers are not plummeting, and have remained fairly steady this the initial drop-off of support some time ago. The opposition seems to lack a viable candidate, at least at this point. Obama has a long way to go before he is in a position where you can just say "it looks like they both will preside over breathtakingly failed one-term presidencies" without making a plausible argument for why it "looks" that way. The Tea Party Regardless of when the tea party movement sprang up, it is very clearly nothing more than the fringe element of the right wing rearing its head at a time when it became most convenient. Can you honestly tell me that you believe that the members of the tea party would have responded any different to anything Obama did? Especially since you seem to be arguing that Obama was not progressive enough! How can you honestly believe that the tea party members would have embraced MORE progressive policies than Obama's? Furthermore, you are completely wrong about why the Tea party will fail. It has nothing to do with their economic ideas of balancing the budget, but their social extremism, tendency to promote violence, racism, islamophobia, homophobia, etc.  So no, they will not be swept into office only to have their policies fail. People just won't vote for them because they are so turned off by their ideology. The latest Delaware poll? Coons up 55%-39%. People will reject extremism, that's how this works. Fenty Again, just because Fenty is like Obama and Fenty lost doesn't mean Obama has any reason to be worried, unless there is a causal relationship between WHY Fenty lost and WHY Obama should be worried (a point you have failed to address). And since this is about Fenty and not Obama, why is it in this diary? Postracialism Again, I DO understand why you have a problem with this concept, what I DO NOT understand is why you think this issue is a priority when you have the tea party et al. spewing off actual racism. And again, since you arn't faulting Obama for this, why is this in the diary? Carter The fact you mentioned him only once, in the title, is exactly what is so wrong with your post- you don't have a coherent argument. Overall, you seem to be admitting that this diary has little to do with Obama whatsoever. It's about Fenty, its about Postracialism, its about the tea party, its about the media, etc. But its not about how Obama is a "chocolate carter" nor is it about Obama getting his just deserts. I'm sure you will try to insult me some more with your wonderfully strange phrases because I've illustrated how horribly flawed your diary is. But let me point out that while other's have rejected your diary based solely on your title phrase or your hatred of Obama, etc., I have looked at each and every point and tried to understand what you were trying to say. In the end, however, your diary begins with a provocative title and proceeds to make several disjointed and rather inaccurate points. And while I respect your right to share your opinion, doing do without providing any basis or evidence for your points makes the whole exercise rather futile. So those are the reasons why I conclude that this diary is a complete and utter failure. 

    Before I begin my response, I'm just going to suggest you stop taking everything so personally. There was no "backhanded complement" as there was no complement at all. I was merely evaluating your response- it was more substantive than the original post. Along the same lines, my suggestion that your argument is "thin" was an evaluation of your response and not directed at you as a poster. 

    Furthermore, your posts all contain hyperbolic, nonsensical language meant to demean my arguments, which seems more than a little inappropriate for a front page diarist. "That's so weird," "so confused that it cannibalizes itself", "pompous obtuseness" ? Are you kidding me? You preface every one of your points with strange phrases you seem to think help your argument, or at least degrade mine. If you want to say my argument is weak and then proceed to explain why, then by all means do so. But "cannibalizes itself"? WTF?

    Anyway, lets move on to substance:

    Obama's Second Term

    Of course there is an argument to be made that he will win, or lose, a second term. But you spoke of it as if it was a foregone conclusion, which it certainly isn't. Obama's poll numbers are not plummeting, and have remained fairly steady this the initial drop-off of support some time ago. The opposition seems to lack a viable candidate, at least at this point. Obama has a long way to go before he is in a position where you can just say "it looks like they both will preside over breathtakingly failed one-term presidencies" without making a plausible argument for why it "looks" that way.

    The Tea Party

    Regardless of when the tea party movement sprang up, it is very clearly nothing more than the fringe element of the right wing rearing its head at a time when it became most convenient. Can you honestly tell me that you believe that the members of the tea party would have responded any different to anything Obama did? Especially since you seem to be arguing that Obama was not progressive enough! How can you honestly believe that the tea party members would have embraced MORE progressive policies than Obama's?

    Furthermore, you are completely wrong about why the Tea party will fail. It has nothing to do with their economic ideas of balancing the budget, but their social extremism, tendency to promote violence, racism, islamophobia, homophobia, etc. 

    So no, they will not be swept into office only to have their policies fail. People just won't vote for them because they are so turned off by their ideology. The latest Delaware poll? Coons up 55%-39%. People will reject extremism, that's how this works.

    Fenty

    Again, just because Fenty is like Obama and Fenty lost doesn't mean Obama has any reason to be worried, unless there is a causal relationship between WHY Fenty lost and WHY Obama should be worried (a point you have failed to address). And since this is about Fenty and not Obama, why is it in this diary?

    Postracialism

    Again, I DO understand why you have a problem with this concept, what I DO NOT understand is why you think this issue is a priority when you have the tea party et al. spewing off actual racism. And again, since you arn't faulting Obama for this, why is this in the diary?

    Carter

    The fact you mentioned him only once, in the title, is exactly what is so wrong with your post- you don't have a coherent argument.

    Overall, you seem to be admitting that this diary has little to do with Obama whatsoever. It's about Fenty, its about Postracialism, its about the tea party, its about the media, etc. But its not about how Obama is a "chocolate carter" nor is it about Obama getting his just deserts.

    I'm sure you will try to insult me some more with your wonderfully strange phrases because I've illustrated how horribly flawed your diary is. But let me point out that while other's have rejected your diary based solely on your title phrase or your hatred of Obama, etc., I have looked at each and every point and tried to understand what you were trying to say.

    In the end, however, your diary begins with a provocative title and proceeds to make several disjointed and rather inaccurate points. And while I respect your right to share your opinion, doing do without providing any basis or evidence for your points makes the whole exercise rather futile. So those are the reasons why I conclude that this diary is a complete and utter failure. 

     

  • Well, your response at least has a lot more substance than your actual diary. 

    Having said that, your argument is still fairly thin.

    Despite the enormous hope and goodwill that preceded their elevation, it looks like they both will preside over breathtakingly failed one-term presidencies, during which the American people’s trust in government further eroded. Under their watch rose a reinvigorated conservative movement that uprooted every tin-eared presumption of the charmed, smart, “very serious” political establishment in our nation’s capital.

    This seems to be the crux of your Obama/Carter comparison (as the rest of it mostly surrounds a media narrative about Obama's personality). Not only is there no evidence that Obama will not win a second term, but the idea that his presidency is "failed" is obviously laughable. I understand the sentiment that Obama isn't living up to expectations, that his accomplishments were not significant progressive achievements, etc. But there's clearly no failure in passing a health care reform bill, no matter how bad it is. The stimulus, two successful supreme court nominations, the fair pay act, SCHIP, etc. No matter how you slice it, Obama has actually accomplished a hell of a lot. Whether you like what he has done is not an issue of "failure."

    Secondly, this ridiculous idea that the conservative movement has risen as a direct result of Obama's actions is ludicrous. The tea party movement is not a rational one, and has not evaluated Obama's presidency and determined that it was necessary to fight back. They just got angry because they had the opportunity to do so. That's what happens when there's a Democrat in the White House.

    This is a pompous sort of obtuseness. I can’t be responsible for your inability to make simple inferences in some places, and you projecting the worst possible interpretations in others. The first line of this Front Page entry was the acknowledgement of three events that, added up, could have profound implications for the Obama presidency. My point with the O’Donnell bit was to shake liberals out of their complacent tendency to underestimate the teabaggers. I can’t be responsible to every fantastic possible interpretation that pops into your head.

    As a reader of a blog, my job is not to infer an argument where there is only a conclusion. And clearly, there was no way I could have inferred your argument, because its wholly inaccurate. While you may have underestimated the tea party, liberals as a whole sure haven't. A lot of us saw the O'Donnell win coming from a mile away. And we encouraged it. We know that the tea party is a strong part of the GOP, however, we believe it cannot sustain a national campaign. O'Donnell, like Angle, Paul, and Miller, may all win or may all lose. But every indication is that they have a significantly lesser chance than the other candidates who they beat. And even if every single tea party candidate manages to win, they still will not have success on the national stage in a national campaign. And when they get to Washington, they will only continue to embarrass the GOP. The Republicans vote in lock-step anyway, I'd rather have the crazies running through the halls of the senate as Americans look on and say shit, we f*cked up. 

    As for the rest of your points:

    -Even if Obama and Fenty were alike, if Fenty's fail had nothing to do with his Obama-likeness (and you have made no argument to the contrary) you can't just infer a causal relationship because it suits your argument

    -Postracialism, like pretty much every political term, is used in many ways and interpreted differently by many people. So what? You can rant all you want about how Chris Matthews says it, but does that mean Obama is at fault for that? Obviously not. Obama, at least to a lot of people, is post-racial in the way I see it. That is, the history that was made by him being elected was great, but once he took that oath of office, his responsibility was the same no matter what color he was. And most of his supporters see it that way, even if you do not (but then again, you arn't one of his supporters).

    -If you aren't faulting Obama for black support for him, then why is this a relevant point to be made in a diary about how Obama is like Carter and how he is getting what he deserves?

    -I don't really know whether you were sarcastically "commending" me or not, or what the point of that last paragraph was at all. Obviously, I got the pun, as many people did. I'm not particularly offended by it. What was of interest to me in your title, though, was the fact that "just desserts" obviously meant "just deserts" so I was looking for an explanation for why any of this is what Obama deserves. I'm more than happy to join progressives in saying how disappointed I am in many of the decisions (or rather, concessions) he's made, but as far as his "failed" policies go I just don't see it. Surely, there are other actions that could have been taken to help the economy and create jobs. Some of them would have done a better job than Obama's policies, others a worse job. But even if we had conclusive evidence that Obama made the wrong decisions, many of what we fault him on he just could not have gotten through Congress. Faulting Obama for the existence of blue dogs and obstructionists like Landrieu, Nelson, etc. may be popular among progressives, but just isn't a legitimate gripe.

  • comment on a post Just Desserts for Chocolate Carter over 3 years ago

     

    The title of this diary seems to indicate that it would make two points. One, that Obama is like Carter. The other, that Obama is getting his just deserts.  Besides the fact that this diary is wrong about just about everything it does say, neither of these points are backed up by any real arguments. As Charles pointed out, Obama is certainly not like Carter, and such a comparison only advances a right-wing meme. But even if the comparison is accurate, there's absolutely no case made for that in the diary. There's also no argument in the diary for why the tea party victories or bad poll numbers are a result of Obama's 'failure' as president. It's unclear even what point the diarist is trying to make about Christine O'Donnell. Were the Democrats supposed to get involved in this primary and somehow failed? Are we supposed to somehow wish Mike Castle had won, even though he would surely win this seat for the GOP and O'Donnell is far behind Coons?  And Fenty lost because he was like Obama? What? Saying this doesn't make it true.  Again, I'm completely lost on what this post is trying to say, but as far as I can gather, you've ranted about how bad a job Obama is doing at improving the economy without making any case whatsoever for what he should have done, or why his policies haven't work. Then you make some argument about how you are offended by the nature of postracialism, the same tired argument from the primary that never made much sense. Postracialism apparently means we want black people to stop acting black, or something like that. In reality, postracialism is merely a move beyond identity politics. Perhaps black people shouldn't have voted en masse for Obama just because he was black, but that's hardly Obama's fault. Was he supposed to administer some type of test to black people before they voted for him to make sure they had reasons other than his skin color?  Of course, none of that is relevant. What is relevant is that Obama is just the President of the United States. While some people still always think first about him in terms of his race, most others just see him as the president. Which is a good thing. He's not just a token first black president. He's just the president.

    The title of this diary seems to indicate that it would make two points. One, that Obama is like Carter. The other, that Obama is getting his just deserts. 

    Besides the fact that this diary is wrong about just about everything it does say, neither of these points are backed up by any real arguments. As Charles pointed out, Obama is certainly not like Carter, and such a comparison only advances a right-wing meme. But even if the comparison is accurate, there's absolutely no case made for that in the diary.

    There's also no argument in the diary for why the tea party victories or bad poll numbers are a result of Obama's 'failure' as president. It's unclear even what point the diarist is trying to make about Christine O'Donnell. Were the Democrats supposed to get involved in this primary and somehow failed? Are we supposed to somehow wish Mike Castle had won, even though he would surely win this seat for the GOP and O'Donnell is far behind Coons? 

    And Fenty lost because he was like Obama? What? Saying this doesn't make it true. 

    Again, I'm completely lost on what this post is trying to say, but as far as I can gather, you've ranted about how bad a job Obama is doing at improving the economy without making any case whatsoever for what he should have done, or why his policies haven't work.

    Then you make some argument about how you are offended by the nature of postracialism, the same tired argument from the primary that never made much sense. Postracialism apparently means we want black people to stop acting black, or something like that.

    In reality, postracialism is merely a move beyond identity politics. Perhaps black people shouldn't have voted en masse for Obama just because he was black, but that's hardly Obama's fault. Was he supposed to administer some type of test to black people before they voted for him to make sure they had reasons other than his skin color? 

    Of course, none of that is relevant. What is relevant is that Obama is just the President of the United States. While some people still always think first about him in terms of his race, most others just see him as the president. Which is a good thing. He's not just a token first black president. He's just the president.

     

  • comment on a post Latest poll posted by Jerome a good sign for peace? over 5 years ago

    I don't really believe there is anything good about a Netanyahu government, but it very well might mean a slightly better chance at peace (even if that chance is still very unlikely).

    The way I see it, there is not likely to be peace anytime soon without an major changes. I don't think Netanyahu is really interested in peace anytime soon, but if, by some miracle, we actually see him make some peaceful effort, it might just be the only way all of israel would support the same effort.

    Seeing as peace would likely require Israel to be completely behind it (as well as the palestinians), a Netanyahu government may actually be the best chance at peace.

    That said, it still isn't a very good chance, and I'd much prefer he did not win, because there's a much better chance that things could get worse under him as well.

  • on a comment on Why Hamas must be defeated over 5 years ago

    that's true too, but i usually try to avoid that argument. its just as legitimate as the palestinians claim to the land, but i don't believe anyone really has a "claim" to land.

  • on a comment on Why Hamas must be defeated over 5 years ago

    Sorry, but pretty much every country on this planet has been founded by ejecting a people (or just killing them).

    I'm sure you say, well, what we did to the native americans was also wrong blah blah blah, but its meaningless. By your logic, every country should cede its land to its original inhabitants.

    Israelis worked to create the state of Israel, turning desert and swampland into a thriving state. The British owned the land, gave it to the Jews and they made it into a state.

    If the Palestinians would reject terrorism, they could have the west bank and gaza and could work to create a successful state for themselves, just like the Jews did in Israel.

  • on a comment on Why Hamas must be defeated over 5 years ago

    Israel is not occupying another people's land. So your excusing terrorism because of a reason that isn't even true.

    Palestine was never a sovereign nation. Arabs lived there, Jews lived there. Then it became a country. Arabs live there. Jews live there. Israel is a sovereign nation-state.

    The Palestinians who support terrorism want all the land and want to wipe Israel off the map completely. They have no claim to that land any more than any group of people on earth have any claim to any piece of land.

Diaries

Advertise Blogads