Blame it on Rio
It’s official: Rio in 2016 for the Olympic Games.
When I first heard the news that President Obama was flying to Copenhagen to plead that Chicago be tapped as the venue for the 2016 Summer Games, I was flabbergasted. Despite having come to a low opinion of his sagacity, I hadn’t thought he’d spend time, money, and energy on something so relatively minor as well as uncertain.
It’s that last bit that made the jaunt especially disturbing but especially telling: the poor judgment reflected in the fact that he was doing this with no assurance (and no reason to even expect, as far as we know) that it would bear any fruit. Just a quick look at who the main competition was, the city of Rio de Janeiro—told me that Chicago had virtually no chance.
I mean, really, which would you choose? Chicago or Rio? C’mon, give me a break.
Nothing against Chicago (well, actually, something against Chicago—its weather is pretty awful both in winter and in summer), but it’s no contest with the glamorous, sultry, exceptionally beautiful Brazilian metropolis. Add to that the fact that the US has hosted the Olympics countless times, and no country in South America ever has done so, and you’ve got what amounts to a no-brainer.
Obama’s participation in this fool’s errand wouldn’t be important except that it is emblematic of three things: his poor judgment, his boundless egotism, and the disrespect he’s quickly gaining around the world with his far more vital errors on the international stage.
[NOTE: The title of this post came to me quickly when I heard the news that Rio had won and Chicago lost; it seemed appropriate since Obama so likes to blame his failures on others. But since I didn’t quite remember what “Blame It On Rio” referred to, I had to look it up. Much to my surprise I discovered that it was a 1984 movie with a theme that resonates with another topic that’s been hot this week: older men and teenagers having sex. Odd. Here’s a clip (embedding disabled, so I couldn’t post it here). It seems even more offensive now than it might have before the Polanski case came back into the news.]
[ADDEMDUM: Ben Smith agrees.]
Fool’s errand says it all. I confess I was cynical enough to believe that Obama had achieved a backroom deal and was showing up to collect the spoils.
BLame it on Rio? Blame it on Neo! It’s obvious. Foxnews, talk radio and the blogs wrecked it for the President.
Or Bush.
Or racism.
Or maybe because the US lags the world in healthcare.
This would not have happened had ACORN been around for the IOC vote count.
I have to say I think this is one of the sillier criticisms of Obama I’ve seen; it seems to be along the lines of “anything Obama does must be bad, because Obama is doing it”. Tony Blair made a personal effort to lobby the IOC to get the Olympics in London, Vladimir Putin did the same thing for the Winter Olympics. Furthermore Obama was there for only 5 hours. Contrast this to Bush, who spent huge amounts of time clearing brush on his ranch in Texas… Bush spent 1/3rd of his presidency on vacation in Texas or at Camp David.
Mitsu,
It just is … that the office of POTUS has greater gravitas than that of the British Prime Minister or the Russian President.
An individual office holder can decrease the gravitas of the office of POTUS, and this is happening now.
Further, Pres. Obama is acting to derease the gravitas of England’s Prime Minister AND to increase the gravitas of the Russian President AND of Vladimir Putin.
OT: I made a poster which it tangentially related to this issue
Winged “Solve the Problem”
Mitsu: So shoot the messenger already.
This is one of your silliest criticisms of those of us who oppose Obama.
What other American president has done this? And how does this address all the other crucial issues — Iran, Afghanistan, and healthcare — hanging fire in Obama’s presidency?
Worse yet, Obama is gathering even more question about his effectiveness and judgment that he should rush off on this fool’s errand and lose the bid.
Obama is at a crossroads, more than ever. He has been publicly mocked by Sarkozy and even liberal pundits are beginning to wonder whether Obama has a clue.
Everyone knows that Bush was working on those “vacations” just as everyone knows that Obama was working at Martha’s Vineyard.
mitsu: reading comprehension, please! My objection wasn’t so much that he did it, but that it was stupid of him because the outcome (Rio winning) was practically a foregone conclusion. Bad judgment on Obama’s part. Is that clear enough for you?
Silly or not (and I don’t believe the criticism is silly), this was a devastating unforced error. This failure will stick to Obama like no other. It will become a shorthand for his inadequacies, like Ford’s stumble or Carter’s killer rabbit.
And it was very revealing as well. I’ve written before about Obama’s tendency to shrink and expand like Alice in Alice and Wonderland. This is Obama in his shrink phase: when he isn’t swollen with vague grandiosity, he sees himself as a cog in the machine of Chicago politics. For him, that’s the default position.
I mean Alice IN Wonderland!
On the surface it is a silly criticism of Obama. Underneath however, it provides insight into Obama’s mindset and therein lies its value.
According to reports, Obama’s presentation wasn’t a sales pitch for Chicago at all. It was all about him, self-reverential and completely divorced from reality.
Just as Michelle talked about the ‘sacrifice’ she made traveling in a private jet and going on exclusive shopping trips.
I too thought that “Obama had achieved a backroom deal and was showing up to collect the spoils” but as that is clearly not the case, either he believed that his charm alone could sell the deal OR he was engaged in ‘payback’ for former Chicago patrons. I vote for both explanations.
Thus we are left with either arrogant self-importance and/or sleazy back-room deals. Nothing new there but then, we were promised by him to an end to such.
Guess he lied, huh?
Lying is bad enough but can we afford self-delusion in a President? A rhetorical question and the answer of course is that, no, we can’t. I predict we’re going to pay a heavy price for it.
I wonder if liberals will accept responsibility and reexamine their premises when the bill comes due?
But then, that would require intellectual honesty and that’s an obsolete belief in the concept of objectivity, isn’t it?
Any leader with an ounce of sense does not make a grandstand public plea for a cause where he could be made too look powerless if he is rejected without having the outcome wired.
Video of street thugs killing a boy with 2 by 4’s in Chicago would certainly influence my vote. As for The Golden Child wasting time trying to get the Olympics means he has less time to do something stupid in Afganistan.
Did you all see the Drudge headline: THE EGO HAS LANDED.
I wasn’t really referring to your post, Neo, but the general brouhaha about how Obama is wasting precious time lobbying for this when there’s so much else of import going on, etc. If he’d spent days or weeks on it, I could see the point, but it was just 5 hours in Copenhagen, and he got in a meeting with General McChrystal as well while he was there.
As for the journey being stupid because Rio was a foregone conclusion… that seems a bit 20-20 hindsight. The conventional wisdom before the vote was Chicago was a front runner; I doubt many at the USOC thought our bid was a total waste of time. One could always argue, why bother even trying to host the Olympics because the IOC is bound to choose (some other city that seems better)… one can come up with arguments why the IOC is going to choose this or that city, I personally don’t have a clue how or why the IOC votes and I don’t really plan to spend much time thinking about it. It seems to me, Obama spending a day lobbying for the US to get the Olympics is hardly a huge investment of time for something that is symbolically nice, other heads of state have done it, etc.
I happen to agree that perhaps it was not a great idea to do this, but I also don’t think it’s a big deal one way or the other. The extent of glee on the part of some conservatives that we lost does seem to me to be a bit unseemly, however. Just because Obama is president now we’re celebrating losing?
Mitsu,
As usual. Factually false.
Lying doesn’t persuade. It makes you look bad…. or maybe you look 1/3rd bad 😉
Any thoughts on Valarie Jarrett’s future real estate plans around Chicago???
Funniest comment I saw following the announcement:
“Well it’s hard to say why Chicago lost, but Rio DOES have that giant statue of Obama over the city…”
Well Mitsu, I’m not celebrating. And even though I didn’t write about this issue beforehand, I thought Obama stupid to do what he did because I was almost sure Rio would win (can’t prove that I thought that because I didn’t go on record, but it’s true).
And if you weren’t talking about my post, you should have made that clear.
>Factually false
What about my post was factually false?
>you should have made that clear
You’re right.
Funny how when there was a time when the international community rejected Bush for reals, that was a sign of “strength” or “resolve”.
Hey, not even Carter got rolled by the IOC! Hahahaha!
This subject brings Mitsu out to spin for The Bama? Really? Not getting rolled by Iran? Getting rolled by Russia? Getting rolled by France? Getting rolled by the Taliban?
Mitsu comes out to defend Obama from the IOC and the critics of his fruitless and unseemly begging.
Shit, this musta really wounded the Obama-fetishists….
Is there any nation or organization, aside from the fawning democrats, who haven’t sent him packing since he was coronated?
Funny how when there was a time when the international community rejected Bush for reals, that was a sign of “strength” or “resolve”.
‘Cuz it was. Getting rolled by the IOC isn’t.
French=don’t want to go to war; Chicago=last place.
Conceptually, “Obama to Copenhagen” will serve as the opposite of “Nixon to China” because the ‘international community’ is supposed to love this President.
Well Mitsu, I’m not celebrating.
I’m celebrating: Chicago sucks. Michelle sucks. Obama sucks. The IOC sucks. They all deserve each other.
It wasn’t even close. What happened to the loving, lemming throngs of Europe?
The Euroweenie lefties loved Obama ‘cuz they hate the US. I’m happy to see them kicking Obama in the nuts….
Some of us are just cynical enough to be 100% convinced that if it was a city like Seattle or Houston or Denver in the running, the Obamas would not have flown two separate jumbo jets with their entourages (and Oprah “it’s not rape rape” too) over to Copenhagen. To “take no prisoners,” as Michelle put it.
Snort. If anyone thinks this was “for America,” I’ve got some real nice land down here in Florida to sell you. It’s nice and dry and never swampy; trust me.
The opportunity for Obama’s buddies, supporters and associates to have made MILLIONS via the inevitable graft, payola, real estate holdings or rentals suddenly increasing in value, was huge.
Not a good day for Mayor Daily, the union thugocracy in Chi-Town, Rezko, Ayers, Wright, Rahm, and Jarett. Somebody is going to have to get knee-capped over this.
Perhaps after trotting around the globe telling everyone who would listen how flawed the USA is, people started to believe him.
And so he just got WAXED by the Brazilians. 🙂
Ah well, at least he got to spend 25 whole minutes talking to his general about Afghanistan.
“I’m asking you to choose Chicago. I’m asking you to choose America,” Michelle Obama told committee members.
Her husband said, “If you do, if we walk this path together, then I promise you this: The city of Chicago and the United States of America will make the world proud.”
“There has been a growing narrative taking hold about Barack Obama’s presidency in recent weeks: that he is loved by many, but feared by none; that he is full of lofty vision, but is actually achieving nothing with his grandiloquence.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6859031.ece#
Stupid statement. How will the Chicago “make the world proud,” by it hosting the Olympics. Was there an outbreak of “world pride” when those cheesy all chrome pick-up trucks came into the arena in Atlanta, in 1996? (that’s about all I can remember from that embarassment of an opening ceremony).
Did the world love us all that much more, when during the opening ceremonies of the 84 LA games, street dance groups did a cheesy “break dance” routine?
Did the world swoon with worldly pride over Carl Lewis running around the track with the Flag?
It’s not eloquence that comes out of that charlatan’s mouth. It’s verbal diarrhea.
Yet somehow, some way, apparently some people are still amazingly charmed by it. And he and Michelle must have thought that included the IOC folks too.
“‘Cuz it was. Getting rolled by the IOC isn’t.
Uh huh, rooting for your country to lose an Olympic bid is PATRIOTISM times eleventy!!11!!1!
It seems that wingnuttia has to superimpose liberal smackdown scenarios (“And a 3rd world city wins! Obama’s feeling the snub.” Wait, what?) onto any event before they can relax and enjoy. But at least, in an an emotionaly crippled way, they’re having fun.
It must be so awful, not being able to appreciate something unless you can shoehorn it into your own belief systems.
Oh the sudden outbreaking of pro-American flag waving Patriotism for the Good Old USA coming from Liberals is making me get all choked up here. I think I feel a little tear forming in my eye. Yes, I do believe that pigs can fly, after all. Who’d a thunk it! LOL.
I’d rather root for Chicago’s political machine members to NOT get rich and the Illinois taxpayers to NOT get totally hosed by the money-losing pit (what recent olympics have MADE money – has Atlanta paid off its debts YET?) the Olympics would have been, and be called unpatriotic for enjoying the side bonus of also seeing President I Won make a fool of himself (again), than root for American troops to DIE in the Middle East and for our military to LOSE, just so that Bush would look bad, like all too many leftist assholes did during the past eight years.
I think the comments are on to something in the claim that, for M. & B. Obama, “it’s all about me”.
I am concerned about Obama’s coming actions. Another proverb comes to mind, “A wounded lion is the most dangerous.” What will he do (or try to do) to show that he’s still the boss. Who will he take it out on?
Or will he let it go? Who knows?
neo, I agree Rio was the natural choice. When I heard the four cities, my bet was on Rio for the same reasons you gave.
When I heard that the Prez was going over as Pitchman-in-Chief, my first thought was, “He doesn’t understand what his job is.”
In particular, I found Michelle Obama’s soundbites and speech ridiculous, inappropriate, self-centered, immature, illogical and lacking perspective on what is actually important. Lately they both strike me as people who have been praised, promoted and feted beyond their abilities and achievements actually merit. Like Hollywood celebrities.
Mitsu and Paul_D, nobody with any sense is “rooting for” or celebrating our President’s increasing success, most recently illustrated by the Olympics embarrassment, at communicating to the world that he is feckless, trivial, empty, unpersuasive, and weak — and that therefore, so is our country. Further, nobody with any sense should have as much trouble as you two do in seeing just how reckless and dopey it was to risk his Presidential prestige, and therefore our national prestige, on the Olympics — the Olympics! — at this particular moment in history. (What’s more, it gave Michele a rare opportunity to remind the rest of us what a hopeless ditz she is — just who did she think would sympathize with the awful “sacrifice” of having to zip off to Copenhagen with the hubby in Air Force 1? Has she no sense at all? Can’t they muzzle her again, the way they did during the campaign after she complained about the inordinate expense of organic food and having to pay back her student loans?)
As for Bush clearing brush on the ranch — I know it’s hard for you to accept the legitimacy of the 2008 elections and to face the fact that your handy excuse for perpetual outrage has gone away — but you’re going to have to swallow hard and try to manage it. Here’s the inconvenient truth: Bush is not president any more. Obama is. Bush is not accountable for what Obama does or doesn’t do as President; Obama is. Bush cannot determine whether Obama succeeds or fails; only Obama can do that. I know that the our-guy-isn’t-Bush argument worked nicely when he was running, but although many of his supporters as well as Obama himself don’t quite seem to realize it yet, the campaign ended almost a year ago. These days, the more you and his other supporters try to use Bush to deflect criticism of Obama, the more you look as if you can’t think of any other way to do it –that is, that the only good thing you can think of to say about Obama is that he isn’t Bush. I respectfully suggest that this argument is getting both threadbare and more than a little counterproductive, that constantly reminding Americans of what Bush was like as President may not be such a good idea given how Obama’s turning out so far, and that you try your best to come up with something else.
I think Obama has been tired out by opposition to his glorious plans, the failure of his socialist (or Marxist?) spread-the-wealth “stimulus” economics, the continuing failure of General Motors after a giant public investment, and the tough choice of how to abandon Afghanistan without being blamed for doing a pacifist flip-flop.
A president occasionally needs a break. Representing Chicago to the Olympic Committee was just that. It was a chance to use his skill set to do something within his real experience, expertly asking an organization for a favor or grant.
Obama didn’t succeed, but I think it was fun and relaxing for him. You win some and lose some in the “community organizer” business. Why all the fuss?
A president occasionally needs a break. Representing Chicago to the Olympic Committee was just that. It was a chance to use his skill set to do something within his real experience, expertly asking an organization for a favor or grant.
Obama didn’t succeed, but I think it was fun and relaxing for him. You win some and lose some in the “community organizer” business. Why all the fuss?
Hahahaha! You win the Gold in the 200m Snark-off!
It must be so awful, not being able to appreciate something unless you can shoehorn it into your own belief systems.
Me: “Don’t vote for him. He’s a total lightweight. Untrustworthy. He’ll even get rolled by the Euroweenies”
Dirty Lefties: “No, he’s the messiah. The world will love us and know that I am good if I vote for him.
Olympic Fail
Me: Told ya.
Dirty Lefty: “Why do you hate your country? Why do you hafta shoehorn everything into your own belief system?”
Tony Blair made a personal effort to lobby the IOC to get the Olympics in London, Vladimir Putin did the same thing for the Winter Olympics.
Yes. And? come on, connect the dots. Here, I’ll give a hint:
Final score:
Blair – 1
Putin – 1
Obama – 0
Expect similar “sucess” in talks with Iran, North Korea and pretty much anyone else willing to say “no” to The Won.
The Obamas are beginning to remind me of the Duvaliers (sp) when they were forced out of Haiti. They had sacrificed so much for the people of Haiti?
Perhaps because my downstate Illinois grandfather instilled in me a loathing for Chicago’s political culture and its politicians, I feel a certain amount of glee for Chicago’s loss at the Olympics. That much less for Chicago pols to stuff themselves with at the trough. (Rezko, Blago, Big Dan… and the beat goes on.)
Regarding ∅bama’s trip to pitch for Chicago: it’s not as if he doesn’t have higher current priorities. Perhaps one can see the Olympic pitch as a procrastination from more onerous decisions. As ∅bama’ has not shown any proclivity for making great decisions, I can understand his procrastination.
N∅lympics 🙂
AC∅RN
Van J∅nes
BTW, ∅bama’s rhetoric in Copenhagen was repulsive Mitsu.
His inability to make a speech without taking slaps at America’s past is gross.
∅bamacare
S∅cialism
Inexperience, incurious, closed minded, racist….
Let me give some advice to ∅bama. Read history, economic books, and science books. N∅W Please !!!
This is really all about how da O and Rhambo run the White House. Never occurred to them that intell on the IOC would be helpful (intell is bad, remember) before deciding whether or not to board AF 1 for Copenhagen. It is the height of political stupidity to think that one’s mere presence and eloquence with a teleprompter will win the day regardless of the views of the IOC members.
It’s like this, Obonga, you legal beagle, you: In the courtroom, never ask a witness a question for which you don’t know the answer; NEVER. Never make a play if you don’t already have it in the bag.
Mitsu notwithstanding, this will be the milestone that marks the direction of his Presidency. Despite kicking and squealling, it’s all downhill from here. The Obamas will be wrapped in self-pity.
THE EGO HAS LANDED says it so beautifully!
Some of us were looking forward to seeing President Palin attend the Chicago Olympics.
.. soundbites and speech ridiculous, inappropriate, self-centered, immature, illogical and lacking perspective on what is actually important.
Kinda sounds like the State of the Union for the prior eight years. And Foreign Policy. Also.
Dirty Lefties: “No, he’s the messiah. The world will love us and know that I am good if I vote for him.
Olympic Fail
Detente- there is no gold medal in Low-tooth Family Pentathlon.
Oh yeah, “Whatsit” -Concision. get some.
“Lately they both strike me as people who have been praised, promoted and feted beyond their abilities and achievements actually merit. Like Hollywood celebrities.”
That sums it up for me Amy.
Mitsu – the issue is prioritization. He devoted 25 minutes of his scheule to discuss the possibility of 40,000 more Americans being asked to put their lives on the line. Whether the cause is something you agree with or not, those people, and the people who were ordered there, and the families of those who have died – they deserve his full attention. The economy is in the tank, the stability of the Middle East is seriously threatened, the FBI is arresting terrorists with alarming regulatiry on our soil, and so on.
While Rome burns, Nero fiddles.
As Neo points out, his judgement is in serious question, not just by us right wing kooks, but by the very people whom he holds in high esteem — the European liberals, who increasingly see him for be what he is — a narcissistic man with an adolescent view of international relations.
I love the Olympics, but they don’t rise to the level of presidential intervention. He went there believing he was special; believing his I’m-not -like-the-rest- of-those-cretins act he’s been playing on the world stage would show his critics he knew something about international relations. All wasted on a trivial matter. Vanity is a cruel master.
I disagree with neo-neocon about this:
Nothing against Chicago (well, actually, something against Chicago–its weather is pretty awful both in winter and in summer),
Chicago is wonderful in the summer, just gorgeous from June-mid October. In September, you cannot ask for better weather. There are big outdoor music festivals going on every other weekend in Chicago and Milwaukee all during this time. Next summer come out here and see for yourself. The Lakefront is absolutely spectacular, as is the architecture. Go for a boat ride on the Chicago River and you will see. The hinterlands and beyond are also lovely, especially if you can appreciate the sheer amount of food being produced.
On the other hand, sales taxes, hotel and entertainment taxes, the parking meter mess, toll roads for out of state drivers, and so on, are pretty brutal on everybody but a very unpleasant surprise for visitors and our neighbors from Indiana and Wisconsin.
I agree with an earlier commenter who said that this might be Obama’s “killer rabbit” moment. Although I still believe that our situation is very perilous, it gives me hope that maybe some of Obama’s supporters will realize that he doesn’t walk on water.
Some of us were looking forward to seeing President Palin attend the Chicago Olympics.
Sure but it might take a few extra tax dollars to clear a city block to facilitate an Olympic torch-lighting via TOW-Missile.
Sure but it might take a few extra tax dollars to clear a city block to facilitate an Olympic torch-lighting via TOW-Missile.
Excellent suggestion and here I thought you were just another leftist dolt….
Barack Hussein Obama! Mmmm, mmmm, mmmm!
southerjames is 100% correct. Obama never makes decisions based on what is good for America. He makes decisions based on what is good for Obama. FULL STOP.
So yes, Mitsu and others, I am one of those who is laughing at Obama right now. I am celebrating Obama’s failure. I have no problem telling you that and I don’t care what you think about it and I hope that he continues to fail.
Want to know what my reaction was when I read the headlines this morning? Here is what happened:
Aaaaaahahahahahahahahahahah{gasp for breath}hahahahahahahahah. But, but, but Michelle sacrificed soooo much! Aaaaaaahahahahahahahah.
I love how Obama made this all about him. AND FAILED! It was never about America.
All of you liberals who think that because I am celebrating his failure I am somehow denigrating the USA can suck it! Obama is not America. If I criticize him, I am not critizing America. If you didn’t want America to look bad on the world stage then why did you elect this moronic Jimmy Carter wanna-be?
Finally, I would just like to say to Mitsu and other liberals, HAHA!
See you in November, 2010.
Man, that expiration date on that carton of Obama sure came up fast.
I stand by my the statement I’ve made in a few threads here: He has f’ed up everything he has ever tried to do.
“America sucks! My daddy has Multiple Sclerosis. Gimme Olympics.”
Fail.
Detente- there is no gold medal in Low-tooth Family Pentathlon.
Wait, wouldn’t that be a “Dentathlon”?
Barack Hussein Obama! Mmmmm, mmmm, mmm!
Welcome back, Mitsu. It’s been awhile.
I assume you have been watching your man Obama very carefully. I recall that you had a very high opinion of his intelligence and expected good things from him in his new executive role.
So, how’s he doing? Is he meeting your expectations? Is he a disappointment to you? Is the administration he leads a disappointment? If yes, how so? If not, why not?
The consensus around here is that Obama has had a pretty disastrous foreign policy run in which he has managed to make himself appear to be both self-aggrandizing and feckless; in two words, weak and contemptible in handling missile defense, Russia, and Iran. He seems to be dangerous to our allies and harmless to our enemies. He can’t seem to make gestures of opposition to tyranny in Iran or to support republican government in Honduras. We have seen wall-to-wall coverage in which the man talks and talks, but accomplishes nothing. He manages to vote “present” when leadership is required in Afghanistan and to drop everything for a dramatic trip to make an appeal to the IOC.
I’m sure you must not have been reading neo, because you would surely have set us straight on how this pattern of behavior isn’t what it appears to be, but instead reflects some deep and subtle stratagem worthy of the 3-D chess grandmaster.
Welcome back, Mitsu. It’s been awhile.
If it wasn’t personal for Obama and didn’t reflect his incompetence and naivete, then how come this of all things brought Mitsu out to defend him?
Obama is supposed to be smart enough to know that when you play the lead in a farce, you necessarily become ridiculous.
Hello Oblio and Gray,
As you surmised, Oblio, I simply haven’t stopped by this blog for quite a while, and it occurred to me to check in here and see what Neo was writing and this topic was her first post, so I wrote a comment. There’s nothing particularly pressing about this particular issue in my mind; it’s pretty trivial as issues go. I do think the reaction from some on the right to this is quite, yes, silly; he made a pitch, it failed, but so what?
As for Obama’s performance in general; since I haven’t been reading what you folks have been writing for several months I don’t really know what specifically to argue about. My general view is that he handled the fiscal crisis reasonably well, the bailouts were absolutely necessary despite opposition from both the left and the right (and believe me I have heard a huge earful about how terrible the bailouts were from my liberal friends — I utterly disagree. Without the bailouts we would have faced another Great Depression, easily). I think Geithner has been too soft, however, in pressing for new regulations of the financial services industry, which I believe is too large a proportion of the economy. Yes, of course you need banks to provide financing for business ventures, but derivatives trading has become essentially legalized gambling in which the house siphons off a take from the productive economy, and I believe it ought to be regulated to a greater degree than it has been for the last couple of decades. One area where I think too much regulation would be counterproductive would be venture capital, however, which stimulates the growth of real productive businesses; as opposed to, say, high velocity trading which I think is really providing practically zero real value.
On foreign policy, I have a variety of different opinions, depending on the specific situation. There’s no question that Obama’s level of depth and intelligence is far greater than Bush’s, in terms of his grasp of the details of the issues, both in terms of operational military matters and strategic matters; I’ve seen much evidence of this from many accounts of his discussions not only with foreign leaders but with others within our government in the military and in the civilian branches. I am strongly in favor of his increasing the focus on Afghanistan, the troop buildup there, and the focus on capturing and neutralizing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan — I think that’s the single most important strategic goal we ought to be focused on right now. I believe that despite the varying opinions within the Administration, Obama will eventually order more troops in. I believe that will be the right move, despite opposition from some on the left who I believe are misguided in wanting to wind down our involvement there now.
Regarding Iran, I have been following the situation there very closely. It’s a very tricky situation involving many factions, including the far-right IRGC, the office of the Supreme leader, the Ahmadinejad crowd, the pragmatic conservatives such as Rafsanjani, the progressives such as Mousavi, the students, and many others. It’s a very complicated internal situation. At present it appears that Obama is following a multi-pronged approach, both offering negotiations and pressing for additional sanctions. I am not sure to what extent the Administration is following the complicated internal situation there in depth; some of their comments indicate they have some awareness of it, but I am not sure.
Time will tell whether Obama’s approach will work with Russia, with China, with the Israeli-Palestinian situation, etc. There are encouraging signs; Medvedev has indicated that he has found Obama far more prepared to discuss details than Bush was. In the other situations I think it’s certainly premature to react to this or that minor incident; these things take time.
Shorter Mitsu: “Well, at least he’s not George Bush. Anyhow, people like him so what if he couldn’t get the Olympics?”
There’s some of that incredible, piercing, cogent leftist political analysis.
There’s no question that Obama’s level of depth and intelligence is far greater than Bush’s, in terms of his grasp of the details of the issues, both in terms of operational military matters and strategic matters; I’ve seen much evidence of this from many accounts of his discussions not only with foreign leaders but with others within our government in the military and in the civilian branches.
Huh? No question? If there is so much evidence, please provide some.
I am strongly in favor of his increasing the focus on Afghanistan
Obama is strongly opposed to that. He is pulling out.
Obama will eventually order more troops in
McChrystal asked for more. Obama turned him down. Told him to revise his plan.
Medvedev has indicated that he has found Obama far more prepared to discuss details than Bush was
But Medvedev is not in control of Russia. And China will veto any additional sanctions on Iran no matter what Russia does.
the focus on capturing and neutralizing Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan – I think that’s the single most important strategic goal we ought to be focused on right now.
That’s a tactical goal.
You didn’t mention any strategic goals. You don’t know the difference; neither does Obama. Obama doesn’t even have a strategy. “Send more troops” isn’t a strategy either; it’s a tactic.
Oh, dear God…. These are our brightest? Our most educated? We’re humped.
>That’s a tactical goal
Oh, please. A strategic goal is a desired end state of a war or campaign. One can define a strategic goal at many different levels; in this case, soundly and permanently defeating Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan should be the strategic goal of the war in Afghanistan, combined with our policy towards Pakistan.
>McChrystal asked for more. Obama turned him down.
>Told him to revise his plan.
No he didn’t. The decision is coming in a few weeks, and I for one am hoping he accepts McChrystal’s recommendations despite pressure from the left. I’ve stated many times before that I consider myself a pragmatist before I am “left” or “right” — I often disagree with the left though I sympathize more with the left than the right. In this case, I am stating, for the record, yet another instance where I disagree with the views of some on the left and advocating a different approach. I predict that Obama will go along with a troop increase and if he doesn’t, I certainly think that will be a mistake.
I disagree with the views of some on the left and advocating a different approach. I predict that Obama will go along with a troop increase and if he doesn’t, I certainly think that will be a mistake
I hope you are right. But I don’t see any reason to think Obama will follow this course.
I hope you are right. But I don’t see any reason to think Obama will follow this course.
Nah. He’ll half-ass it sending just enough troops to increase the misery as a pretense to cut-and-run.
He’s f’ed up everything he’s ever done.
I wondered where everyone was, actually last night I stayed up late and caught their pitch live, before I had to turn it off, as they were showing the scenes of the kids and folks in Chicago stating what a wonderful existence they had in such a great city, I saw a flashback of 2x4s being wielded in the killing of that young man recently, every time they changed the scene I saw a flashback of that, Whack, “I love Chicago” Whack, “We have such a great city”, Whack, it went on and on.
An incredible act of cluelessness on their part as a whole group of supposedly professional, supposedly smart people. While a viral video of a violent murder was flying around the world and they had the balls or lack thereof to go overseas and state with the authority of the office of the president of the untied states, what a wonderful place it was. Damn, just Damn.
Oh and they spent 100 Million dollars on the proposal, not to mention the taxpayer cost of flying the royal couple over there, don’t, please don’t get me started on the 24 minutes with Gen McChrystal, what a joke this man is.
Nah. He’ll half-ass it sending just enough troops to increase the misery as a pretense to cut-and-run.
Agreed. In fact, I don’t think he’ll send in any troops at all. Months ago he sent in additonal troops (24,000 I think) according to some plan. Now he says he will not send additional troops without a plan. Huh? He didn’t have a plan before he sent those troops in? Soldiers are nothing but tools for him to advance his agenda. Just like everything else.
I think Mitsu is smoking dope if he thinks Obama is in any way serious. Sorry Mitsu, but Obama is lame beyond comprehension. And dangerous.
Miss me yet?
Mitsu
Indeed. For example, look at what Sarkozy had to say recently. And those gifts in the UK went over so well.
Mitsu, I’m afraid you put too much stock in intelligence, unaccompanied by other traits. A person can have the IQ to comprehend details up one side and down the other, but if he doesn’t have the gumption to do something with the details once he’s comprehended them, what good is it? Too much detail + too little internal fortitude = paralysis by analysis.
Obama has been telling us since the campaign that he has a “strategy” in Afghanistan, far better than that dopey Bush’s, naturally — but here we are 10 months into his administration, and he’s telling us that we can’t expect him to make a decision without a strategy! (You have probably missed Neo’s posts on this — you might want to look back to September 27 and its internal links.) Does he think we forgot all those other things he said? Did he forget them? It’s hard to see such fecklessness as reflective of either intelligence or character.
Close to home, it’s the same thing. From your previous comments, I know you have thought a great deal about health care reform and care deeply about it. What did you think about his big health care speech, the one in which he was finally going to define “his” plan — and in which he not only never revealed a plan or singled out one of the multiple bills in Congress as the best, but refused to make up his mind as to exactly what ought to be in any of them? On the public option, for instance: “Well, I want one. But not if Congress doesn’t! Ha ha!! Don’t get mad, Congress, if you think a public option will upset the voters, I don’t want one either. But I sure think it would be great. Maybe. Um. Do you?” That’s how his big speech came across to many Americans, Mitsu. Americans want their President to know what he wants — it’s hard to follow a leader who doesn’t know where he’s going. It would have been better to pick either side on the public option than to fail so thoroughly to exercise leadership on what’s supposed to be his signature domestic achievement. It’s hard not to call such a conspicuous absence of comprehension of the nature of leadership at a critical moment anything but — well — dumb.
What a shame the racketeering scum of the Chicago Machine won’t have this windfall to skim-off of, LOLOL
Aren’t things going great since Valerie Jarret has been running the country?
Mitsu, one question. You CONTINUALLY claim that Obama is brighter than Bush. At least it seems that it comes up in most threads you post. It’s like a mantra for you: Obama is brighter than Bush, Obama is brighter than Bush, Obama is brighter than Bush, Obama is brighter than Bush…
Bush’s SAT scores and college grades are public record. We have no such information on Obama. If you are going to claim that Obama is brighter than Bush, would it not help to have some hard-copy evidence to back the claim up?
# Gray Says:
October 2nd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
I’m celebrating: Chicago sucks. Michelle sucks. Obama sucks. The IOC sucks. They all deserve each other.
Hey, Chicago is my home. It’s a town a dedicated to sports of all kinds, and not really that liberal either. Sure, there is corruption, but I don’t see Rio as immaculate in that regard either.
Obama definitely got egg on his face here though.
Mitsu: I don’t know what the excitement is about. I haven’t missed you, not for one minute.
Michelle says, in her drippy and annoying speech:
“Some of my best memories are sitting on my dad’s lap, cheering on Olga and Nadia, Carl Lewis, and others for their brilliance and perfection.”
Important Note: This is a carefully thought-out, and pre-written, PREPARED speech. Not an off the cuff remark in answer to a question.
She was born in 1964.
She would have been EIGHT when Olga performed in 1972. She would have been TWELVE when Nadia performed in 1976. She would have been sittin on her Daddy’s lap at the age of….TWENTY, when Lewis ran in 1984. mmmkay.
I wonder if anybody in the audience had to hide their faces in order to stop themselves from laughing out loud.
These people are an embarrassment. Somebody needs to tell the Obamas that they either need to just stay home from now on and not go overseas……or just stick to what they are good at, and only speak when it is to acknowledge and seek forgiveness for America’s past sins and egregious mistakes, none of which are his fault, but all is well now, since he is in office and we are going to hit the reset button.
He’s got that down pat. As for her, she needs to stick to taking the Limo two blocks down from the WH to go pick up some organically grown range free Arugula. And only speak when it is to yell at the WH servants. Who I am sure love her as much as they loved the sweet and warm Mrs. Clinton, back when she was first lady.
The gist of these posts, aside from Mitsu, would seem to be that the empty suits that are the Obamas is the natural end-result of Affirmative Action.
neo, you wrote and I completely agree: “Obama’s participation in this fool’s errand wouldn’t be important except that it is emblematic of three things: his poor judgment, his boundless egotism, and the disrespect he’s quickly gaining around the world with his far more vital errors on the international stage.”
That IS the important part of the story.
Here is Rick Moran writing at Pajamas Media:
“He placed the prestige of his presidency directly on the line and failed. That’s the bottom line. He gambled with the one thing no president should ever gamble with unless the stakes are much higher than his hometown getting the Olympic games.”
Today the AP has an analysis, Chicago’s loss is a blow to Obama, too, calling it a “hugely embarrassing defeat.”
Excerpt: “…almost every aspect of his involvement this week in the Olympics quest recalls a strain of criticism that has been gaining ground on him:
– He’s trying to do too much at once.
The line is familiar by now: It’s nuts for Obama to tackle the dismal economy, the overhaul of two wars, a remaking of the U.S. health care system and climate change all in one year, and with other difficult issues on the agenda as well.
He has achievements to be proud of in less than nine months in office. But with most of the bigger issues still in the air, voters – even some in Obama’s own Democratic Party – are beginning to wonder whether he’s someone who tries a lot but succeeds at little, and whether he has the sense to focus on the most important things. A jaunt across the Atlantic, and an extraordinarily expensive one at that, doesn’t help.
– He doesn’t have what it takes to close a deal.
The why-Chicago-lost story has many contributors, with Obama’s last-minute flight to Copenhagen for an emotional appeal probably among the least of them. Regardless, he is now tied inexorably to Chicago’s defeat, and that verdict isn’t good.
– He is a celebrity, for sure, but is that always a good thing?
Remember how Republican John McCain tried to stoke doubts about Obama during last year’s presidential campaign by calling him all flash and no pan? A bit of that is in play here, too, where some perceive Obama as arrogantly relying too much on his celebrity status and not enough on the nitty-gritty work of winning votes. For instance, some IOC members resented the fact that Obama blew into Copenhagen for just five hours, jetting back down the runway toward Washington hours before the result was even announced.
“It can be that some IOC members see it as a lack of respect,” said former IOC member Kai Holm.
– He’s too casual with the use of his own time.
This White House has been drawing questions about its tendency to turn to Obama as its only closer, with not much of a bench. Other White Houses have been more judicious about deploying their most precious resource, the president – doing so only when really needed, and usually only when they know they can win. This reduces the chances of overexposure reducing his effectiveness.
It might have been wiser to know more about the vote count before he boarded Air Force One. In hindsight, there was plenty of reason to doubt Chicago’s chances.
– He’s junior varsity-league, still learning on the job.”
All flash and no pan, heh.
All the other stuff he’s trying to sell and can’t close, he can sort of spread the blame around. (Or, in fall-back mode, blame Bush.) But not with this one. It’s a monumental FAIL. He owns it.
The always-awesome Victor Davis Hanson writes:
“But even without the self-centered story-telling it was a hard sell anyway. How can a post-national, I’m sorry Obama, trapped in a sort of we are the world paradox, be seen in nationalistic and near tribal fashion stumping for his own home town? Again, it did not help that he appeared in campaign mode, tossing out the usual personal, somewhat hokey (and all but narcissistic) stories about himself and his family, that I know don’t resonate, much less make effective arguments, in the less therapeutic world of hardball politics abroad. In short, the community organizer was out organized by the multicultural ascendant Rio.
Almost all of Michelle’s statements were heartfelt and well meant. But they too proved in a global context counterproductive–and almost embarrassing in their now accustomed egocentricity. So the mystery remains, why did Obama think he should risk presidential and national capital in such ambiguous circumstances? Ego? Sloppy prep work? Payback to pals? Hubris?–e.g., I can fly in, do the hope and change cadence, fly out, and leave them hypnotized.”
Why doesn’t this man know how (or care) to act like a U.S. president? What’s wrong with him. What’s wrong with us that we elected him?
Mitsu, I confess myself to be completely unaware of sources that testify to the President’s competence in foreign affairs. I would like to believe that if I find new evidence, my opinions would change, so please provide links or citations so that we can assess the quality of the reports on which you base your opinions.
I hope that these sources won’t turn out to be as ephemeral as the assertion you once made in support of Obama’s great intelligence, namely, that he was the author of many law review articles.
Ideas, intelligence, talent, et al are worthless unless they are utilized to accomplish goals, create good or to take action. I have not really seen or heard anything from Obama that would make me think he is intellectually superior to most people I know. History is made by those who do not by those who talk.
JohnC, I haven’t exactly missed Mitsu. I am interested in how he thinks. His comments indicate that there remains some group of well-educated people out there whose opinions are unaffected by the developments of the past year. I suspect that like the Bourbon kings, they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
If their opinions aren’t rooted in reality, what will happen when things get increasingly out of hand? Will they ever realize that “more cowbell” avails them not at all?
On the other hand, maybe they know something we don’t. We need to guard against the temptation to believe that we own the truth. If I am wrong, I want to know sooner rather than later.
I think part of the shock yesterday on the part of so many of us came because when we hear how much Europe and other members of the international community welcomed the results of the last election, and how much people all over the world love Obama, we assumed that “people” also included all the movers and shakers.
I’m beginning to feel that those on whose shoulders rests the responsibility of providing strength and leadership in foreign countries, those for whom it is most important to be pragmatic, are the ones who have most quickly fallen out of love with our president. They may understand the value of a well-prepared and well-delivered public address, but they know that the greatest and most vital work is never accomplished while behind a lectern. And they are the first in the international community to understand the unbearable lightness of Obama.
In one’s own country the ability to entrance the common masses is enough to get one elected, maybe even enough to push through one’s agenda.
But it doesn’t really matter how many millions seem to adore you all over the globe. Once you have revealed yourself to be impractical, diplomatically tone-deaf, and infinitely more concerned with how you “come off” than what constructive progress is actually made, then enthusiasm and support must naturally wane in those with whom you must actually work in tackling global challenges.
We now know what Sarkozy has been thinking. I wonder how many other world leaders are beginning to harbor the same incredulity and resentment towards our perpetual-campaigner-in-chief?
Oblio: yes, in my mind of minds I know you are correct. Thanks for putting things in context. I think my response though is probably not unlike so many others in and outside of here -> I’m so tired of the Obamasion spinners. Mitsu is a little more clever about it, so maybe I can learn something. I’ll try to be patient.
Here’s the link to th Obama “more cowbell” poster. Enjoy!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/30005766@N02/3177167703/
Oblio & JohnC: I’m curious as well to hear from the Mitsu’s of the world how they are holding up their opinions of Obama in the wake of an odd and disappointing first nine months.
Leaving aside my political differences with Obama, I’m surprised at how poorly he is executing.
Even I would have thought that Obama would be smart enough, for instance, to avoid a bonehead move like a personal appearance to bid for the Olympics in Chicago then losing in the first round. Obama wasted time, money, American prestige and his own political capital.
Contrary to Mitsu — five hours of POTUS time is a very big deal. For instance, Obama has only spoken twice to General McChrystal.
Furthermore, Obama’s presentation was amazingly lame and self-aggrandizing:
Nearly one year ago, on a clear November night, people from every corner of the world gathered in the city of Chicago or in front of their televisions to watch the results of the U.S. Presidential election. Their interest wasn’t about me as an individual.
How is this supposed to sell the IOC? The reasoning seems to be that Obama’s election was a victory for America and the whole world therefore Chicago should get the Olympics. More “I’m great but it’s not about me” egomania from Obama.
It’s hard to find any sparks of intelligence in this whole misconceived trip.
All right, Oblio, here are some references which illustrate the point I was making about Obama:
Report of a discussion between candidate Obama and General Petraeus, in which the two men engage in a spirited and in-depth discussion:
http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1853025,00.html
Here’s a thoughtful and thorough article discussing Obama’s approach to Russia which illustrates the point I’m trying to make about Obama as well:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/Johnson/2009-126-33.cfm
Here’s a rather in-depth interview with Obama on the financial crisis, which I believe demonstrates a rather broad and solid grasp of the essential elements of the situation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03Obama-t.html
Here’s an article outlining the ways in which General Petraeus was more in line with Obama’s policies than with those of McCain:
http://washingtonindependent.com/11381/petraeus
I actually believe Petraeus supported Obama (of course he could not say so) and I suspect he voted for him, based on this and other evidence.
These are all just data points. However, the contrast with President Bush couldn’t be more stark. Obama (like Clinton) is a policy wonk; he gets into the details. Bush, for better or worse (in my opinion, worse), simply lacked a grasp of the details of policy. One could argue that Bush focused on the big picture and his big picture view was more in line with what conservatives think is better policy — that’s a reasonable position to take. I personally think that Bush’s lack of attention to detail resulted in a huge number of disastrous decisions the consequences of which we’re still trying to deal with now.
Mitsu: Thanks for the links. I’ll print out and read tomorrow.
Again, why bother running down Bush? Doesn’t Obama stand or fall on his own merits? And how is it that Obama continues to blame his predecessor? I don’t remember any other president doing that as much as Obama.
Remember that you agreed with Bush on the surge while Obama stubbornly opposed the surge and wouldn’t even recognize the facts on the ground for months after the surge was working.
How does that fit with your continually dissing of Bush?
Well, you’re right, huxley, it’s sort of beating a dead horse when it comes to Bush. All I’m saying here is that I believe Obama is far more competent than Bush, overall. As for the surge, it happened way late — and at the urging of Petraeus, an extremely astute general, as I’ve always thought, after many years of awful, incompetent handling of the war under Rumsfeld and Franks. So yes, I did agree with Bush and disagree with Obama on that, but I credit the success of the surge far more to Petraeus than Bush. As for disagreeing with Obama — of course I’m going to disagree with him sometimes. When it comes to which politician I support it’s going to come down to who do I find more competent overall, not who am I going to agree with 100% of the time; because the latter is obviously impossible. I personally think some of Obama’s opposition to the surge was simply political; at the time the surge was very unpopular with Democrats and he didn’t want to stand against it as a senator and a potential candidate for President. Had he been commander in chief and heard Petraeus’ arguments as commander in chief I would hope he would have come to a different conclusion about the surge.
(We’ll see what happens with Afghanistan… if Petraeus ends up backing McChrystal, I’d be very surprised and disappointed if Obama went against their recommendations.)
All I’m saying here is that I believe Obama is far more competent than Bush, overall.
Mitsu: How can you say that? Obama has only been in office nine months and so far has no major accomplishments, and plenty of gaffes and question marks.
Maybe everything turns up aces for Obama later, but for now it’s all potential. For those of us who doubt Obama, his presidency looks pretty grim. He seems far more devoted to giving speeches than getting things done.
And it is a stone cold fact that Obama has spent more time in front of cameras and microphones than any modern president by a considerable margin. Yet if he is winning any hearts and minds at this point by all this speechinfying, one can’t tell by poll numbers, bills passed or effective coalitions.
I’m simply giving my opinion based on what I’ve seen so far. Obviously we have different impressions and I agree that time will tell. Of course I can’t be certain Obama’s presidency will be seen historically in a positive light; I’m giving my opinion now, based on what I’ve seen so far, but naturally I agree it is very early to tell too much one way or the other.
Thanks for the links, Mitsu. It will be later this evening before I can respond.
Obama (like Clinton) is a policy wonk; he gets into the details.
You mean like Carter? So I guess there won’t be any confusion over the tennis court schedule.
Details of policy is what CEOs have staffs for. An executive’s job is to work through others, not to do the work himself. His job is to set directions, parcel out tasks, and hold accountable those to whom he delegates those tasks – not to perform the tasks himself. Anyone who doesn’t understand that cannot be an effective executive.
With his every move Obama is underscoring the observations of conservatives during the campaign: he’s grass green, and utterly solipsistic. With work, and time, he might have made an adequate Chicago alderman. Maybe.
I’m giving my opinion now, based on what I’ve seen so far, but naturally I agree it is very early to tell too much one way or the other.
Mitsu: Nonetheless you repeatedly proclaim Obama’s superior intelligence and competence over Bush as though that were an established fact that no sensible person could doubt.
All I’m saying here is that I believe Obama is far more competent than Bush, overall.
OK, Mitsu, I have read your links. To summarize:
1. In October 08, Joe Klein recounts reports from Obama’s campaign (if not from Obama himself!) about a conversation candidate Obama had with General Petraeus in which Obama argued for a 16 month timeline for withdrawal from Iraq, and Petraeus argued the need for flexibility. Without knowing the substance of the points Obama made, it is impossible to conclude that Obama’s position reflected any kind of deep knowledge of the situation. Of course, since Obama was a longstanding opponent of the surge, it isn’t apparent to me that Obama even understood the strategy, much less that he could engage intelligently in a give and take discussion with its author. More evidence needed here.
2. From June 09, Obama wants meetings with pro-democratic Russian organizations during the July Moscow summit. This apparently translates in real life into a meeting with Gary Kasparov. The substance of the meetings revolves around talk of “reset buttons” and strategic arms reductions targets. This strikes us as sort of a Golden Oldie from Obama’s school days with the nuclear freeze movement at Columbia and hardly evidence of some kind of deeply intellectual, nuanced strategy. Henry Kissinger, he ain’t. What did you think this demonstrated, Mitsu?
3. From April 09, an interview about the economy with the New York Times. This is the best document by far, because the man’s reasoning can be evaluated according to his own words, and not the description of anyone else. I read the whole thing, hoping to stumble across something more than campaign talking points, but without success. As a piece of analysis, it was remarkably superficial, almost as if he doesn’t have the first idea how the economy works. Was there anything that wasn’t a utopian idea that has been floating around the fringes of the university Left for a decade? Where was the analysis of the investment cycle or the prospects for strengthening the banks? Where were his ideas about the risks of inflation? He talks like someone who gets his economics from a newsmagazine.
4. Oct 08 story in The Washington Independent about General Petraeus not endorsing the identical strategy for Afghanistan that had worked in Iraq. This somehow vindicates Obama at the expense of McCain (not Bush). This article seems to have no idea why Petraeus would say that, even if he endorsed adding troops for counter-insurgency operations. By the way, I am not sure that McCain ever understood the surge strategy either; he just wanted more troops, so he is something of a stopped clock on the subject.
So in half the links, the evidence about Obama–such as it is –is from October 08. Is it still October 08 in your mind? I was joking about the liberals, like the Bourbons, learning nothing and forgetting nothing, but you seem to be proving the case.
There may be evidence somewhere of Obama’s competence, but these links don’t make the case, Mitsu. I hope these aren’t the best you’ve got.
Oblio: I believe that McCain understood the surge strategy quite well. I refer you to this post in which I quote McCain at length on the subject (mostly in the second half of the post).
Thanks, neo, I stand corrected: clearly McCain understood the pointlessness of fighting over the same territory over and over again. What’s missing from his paper is the importance of changing the correlation of forces by enlisting the Anbar clans against the foreign fighters. If my analysis is correct, that couldn’t happen before civil war with the Shia became imminent in 2007. As a result, I recall McCain wanted a lot more troops than were ultimately required (though I am prepared to be wrong again on this point). I know that others did.
Oblio: Well, he may not have foreseen the details, but he certainly understood the main approach. He wasn’t just advocating more troops doing the same old thing.
And by the way, Obama wasn’t just wrong on the surge at the beginning. And he wasn’t just wrong on the surge at the middle. He held onto his wrongness and his opposition to it, as well as his refusal to admit that it had been fairly successful, long past the point when almost everyone else was begrudgingly admitting it, even those who had initially opposed it.
Agreed, and on balance, McCain deserves credit for being willing to do what it took to support the mission, and for seeing that changes were required.
Frankly, I consider Obama of rather meager intellectual gifts. He’s not stupid, but he’s not brilliant, either. He’s a B student, I would guess. Not that there’s anything wrong with that, and in fact I think that’s perfect for a President. But he’s certainly not brilliant, pace Obama adulators, as is apparent when he’s off the teleprompter.
OB, you’re generous to assign Obama a hypothetical B average when there’s no evidence he was ever any such thing. It’s an old hobbyhorse of mine, but the fact his academic record is such a closely held secret is really disturbing. Analyzing Obama’s intelligence based on his published writings (bestseller status is not an indication of quality) his public utterances, his policy decisions, and the lack of scholarly articles or editorials when he was at Harvard Law, suggest an average a lot lower than a B.
My grandmother used to say “handsome is as handsome does.” I think the same adage could apply to “smarts.”
When those transcripts finally come to light, as of course they eventually will, I don’t think we’ll see low grades, if for no other reason than that Obama was educated during a period of rampant grade inflation. I think, as I’ve said before, that the need to hide those transcripts will turn out to be in the nature of the courses he took. Plenty of Marxist This and Revolutionary That, I’m betting, and not much in the way of basic economics.
As for Obama’s intelligence, I know quite a few smart people, including several Yale grads, a Harvard Law grad in my immediate family, and a whole bunch of advanced-degree holders of one sort or another, and I don’t see any evidence that he would stand out in any way in their company. When my kids were in school, the gifted-education program handed out a circular explaining the difference between the “bright child” of ordinary good intelligence, found among the top few students in every classroom, and the “gifted child” of remarkable intellectual capacity who comes along more rarely, in terms such as this: the bright child knows the answers; the gifted child asks the questions. The bright child copies accurately; the gifted child creates a new design. The bright child is pleased with its own learning; the gifted child is highly self-critical. And such. From what I’ve seen of Obama’s writings, speeches, and actions so far, he seems to fit very nicely into the “bright child” category and into the “gifted” category, almost not at all.
Bravo, Mrs. Whatsit. Your post echoes what I was reading this morning in William Manchester’s brilliant biography of Winston Churchill. In Visions of Glory, Manchester discusses Churchill’s education at Harrow and the lack of appreciation masters had for his peculiar brilliance. Manchester wrote:
“Studies at the University of Chicago and the University of Minnesota have found that teachers smile on children with high IQs and frown upon those with creative minds…E Paul Torrance of Minnesota found that 70 percent of pupils rated high in creativity were rejected by teachers picking a special class for the intellectually gifted.”
E: word is that at Harvard Law, at least, Obama was a very good student. He graduated magna cum laude.
Mitsu: I read through your links too, and like Oblio, I’m underwhelmed. I fail see how these articles validate your special claims for Obama’s knowledge, competence and intelligence.
With the exception of the Leonhardt article, Obama is only quoted in snippets and most of what we get is through the prism of the journalists’ viewpoints.
* Joe Klein: Why Barack Obama is Winning
A month before the 2008 election Joe Klein gushes, In his usual partisan way, over Obama while slamming Bush and McCain. There is so much here to fisk — like Bush’s supposed abdication of responsibility by allowing Petraeus to win the war in Iraq or Obama’s judicious thoroughness in choosing Biden as VP — but it would be pointless and this is already a long post.
Instead I will focus instead on Obama’s “Apollo Project” as quoted in Klein’s article:
A new economic turbocharger is going to have to be found, [Obama said],and “there is no better potential driver that pervades all aspects of our economy than a new energy economy … That’s going to be my No. 1 priority when I get into office.”
Mitsu, do you really believe that alternative energy is going to turbocharge our economy? To my mind, this is classic Obama foolishness, a prime example of how sloppy and uninformed his thinking is.
* Dave Leonhardt: After the Great Recession
This is, as Oblio said, the best of the articles, since Obama is quoted extensively, but it is mostly leftover campaign rhetoric. We need more regulation of the financial markets to prevent future meltdowns, we need more college students majoring in math and science, we need to make healthcare more efficient, we need a healthy mix of jobs in the economy.
Blah, blah, blah. No special insights to be heard here. Move along now.
* Brian Whitmore: Obama Wades Into Russian Politics
Obama talks to dissident elements in Russia to give a signal that the White House supports democracy and human rights in Russia. Stop the presses! It’s a shame Bush never thought of that.
* Spencer Ackerman: Petraeus Talk Bolsters Obama
A month before the 2008 election Ackerman uses quotes from a talk given by Gen. Petraeus about Iraq as a means to undercut McCain’s campaign attacks against Obama. Obama is not quoted once.
Mitsu,.perhaps your “other evidence” does the trick, but based on this article I’d say your belief that Petraeus voted for Obama — who fought ignorantly and dishonestly to undermine the Iraq War and the surge — is wishful thinking on your part.
Neo wrote
“E: word is that at Harvard Law, at least, Obama was a very good student. He graduated magna cum laude.”
Good for him! Back then, I mean! And what a waste in the years since!
It reminds me of how frustrating it was to watch Bill Clinton piss away all his intelligence, charm, and potential to do great things. What makes intelligent people go so horribly wrong? Could it be that the kind of smarts that get people their Rhodes Scholarships and magna cum laudes these days don’t require greatness of mind – more like “gradeness” of mind.
Magna at Harvard Law takes a lot of hard work, and I don’t mean to denigrate it. I myself earned my bachelor’s degree from a top university in three years with the cum laude distinction (I didn’t know I would receive the honor until they read my name at graduation – and I had no idea how to calculate my GPA or even what a GPA was. I am not kidding.)
However, I failed economics. That failure means more to me than the cum laude ever did or ever will. It’s good to come face to face with one’s own limitations, and to learn from others. Will Obama have the grace and humility to do the same, or is he too superior to think he needs to? Could he be – like General Motors or AIG – “too big to fail?”
I would need some convincing about Bill Clinton’s enormous intelligence. Its fruits are not immediately apparent when you spend a day at the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, or when I think about his lack of impact after 12 years as Governor of Arkansas. I’ve met him a couple of times, and I don’t understand the hullabaloo.
On the other hand, he showed a spectacular kind of genius to get everyone to think that he had great intelligence. I believe that this trick is easier than you might suspect. Clinton was famous for getting everyone to believe that he agreed with them, and I have noticed that we always think that people who agree with us are highly intelligent, indeed. A dazzling politician, sure, but no Richard Feynman.
On the other hand, he showed a spectacular kind of genius to get everyone to think that he had great intelligence.
Bang! This is a genius I believe Clinton and Obama share.
Yes, it was that particular characteristic that led me to say that Obama fits into the gifted category “almost” not at all. His ability to persuade others that he is exceptional is, in fact, exceptional.
This is a comparatively old topic.
Nonetheless, I would note that although Oblio and I specifically notified Mitsu that we had read his links (about fifty pages worth of printout) and replied to him in detail, Mitsu has made no response.
Yes, Huxley, Mitsu likes the Blue Pill. It gives him the overpowering sensation of being Brilliant and Good.