« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama in Berlin: How Bad Was It?
[Would have been better if I'd finished writing when I just watched it, not enough time to go back to remember it all]
Okay, the good parts - I'd recommended Zoo Station in honor of U2, and the Tiergarten was close enough - certainly much better than the Brandenburg Gate.
Second, somewhere around 21 minutes, the speech turned to how immigrants from every nation shaped the US - good image. Walls & bridges okay, thought of Lennon's album. Probably the appeal to Germans was okay, though could have been updated to note as much the post-Wall changes.
Now, let's talk about Dad. Dad was a goatherder the way I was a lawnmower or lifeguard or pizza deliverer. You know, those kid jobs that everyone does - in Kenya that means goatherder. Even if your father's a CEO. Dad's first wife notes that Dad was an office clerk in Nairobi for 5 years before going to America. 5 years. Nairobi. Big city. White collar job. Intelligent, well educated young man. Left for America at 23. Dad did not go to America for freedom. Dad went to America to further his education. College. To get ahead. Like many from the 3rd world. And of course to get that "Been in America" stamp. Very valuble in 1960. Grandpa had good connections with the British, so I don't imagine Dad wrote letter after letter across the US. His father wasn't just a cook for the British, he was a reasonably wealthy farmer and landholder and was widely travelled. This is not poverty case or a typical Kenyan family, and I don't like Obama mischaracterizing his family to score endearment points.
Terrorism? Oh God, I thought the progressive side stopped framing things like this 4 years ago (except progressive Joe Lieberman). Terruh, terruh, terruh. Are we scared already? Yes, there have been some attacks, but very few, and we continue to do stuff to try to improve the situation - at least would if we weren't wasting time in Iraq. So why is Iraq the frontline of terror? I don't even understand what we're trying to accomplish in Afghanistan by talking about more troops. Do we have an exit strategy? A gameplan? Osama Bin Laden is supposedly in Pakistan - how does building up troops in Afghanistan fix that? While I'd love to see him hung, isn't it a better use of resources to isolate them, cut off/monitor their communications, bolster the democratic elements in Pakistan & Afghanistan, and only go military if we can't get handle on it?
Friendship with Russia across the continent? Thanks, but no thanks. Maybe under Yeltsin, but Putin has become a billionaire under his reign, nationalizing oil companies by force, absconding with money, threatening Europe with withholding natural gas and of course getting rid of his opponents in various ways. We can have a friendly arms-length relationship with Russia while deepening our ties with the democratic portions of Europe.
Get rid of nukes? Now? Nope, I'm against. We haven't even addressed China's role in this brave new world, we hope that North Korea's not as close as they keep claiming to be, Iran's certainly got some hight tech motion in both distance and nuclear savvy even if our reports are correct, and I of course don't trust Putin.
Besides making me like Obama less (I know, some of you will find that hard to believe, but I'm starting to think he's actually naïve both in policy and in what he thinks his speeches accomplish), I think it gives a lot of damaging ammo to the Republicans for this fall.
Oh well, maybe everyone's at the beach and will forget it all by Labor Day. Maybe I can close my eyes and it'll be over when I open them. Maybe maybe maybe...
Comments (102)
Yes, but he looked good.
July 25, 2008 2:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
I donno Des. The Dad story... I'm not sure every pol doesn't do this. HRC the a hard-drinking gal, her Granddad in Penn or whatever, all that stuff - that's par for the course. I don't LIKE it much, but how many Americans say that they came over for money? Not many. Better to talk about how your ancestor was persecuted, or stole cattle in the Highlands. Americans wipe clean & rewrite upon arrival. e.g. How many know the largest single ancestral group in the US was German? I got German-American relatives whose family wiped the names clean on entrance, came up Irish. But there's at least 60 million who were German - more than England/Scotland/Wales combined. Rewriting is pretty standard I think.
Terror, same thing. He HAS to talk about it. HRC would have as well, right? It sounded fairly gentle to me, not too overplayed. I agree, the actual methods need to change, but I didn't feel like he overplayed this. The other stuff will get the headlines - world citizens etc.
The Russia inclusion surprised me. That didn't sound like a normal part of his foreign policy speech, though someone could correct me. I actually wondered if the Europeans or his Euro experts asked for that to go in. That is, I'm not sure anyone in their right minds likes/trusts Putin (exception: GWB), but they still want Russia to play nice - esp. with that gas. And he couldn't very well stand in Germany & blast Russia could he?Though I WAS surprised at the inclusion.
Nukes - reduce proliferation, fine.... reduce our numbers, sure. How many subs do we need, with whatever it is now, 64 missiles each and 18 independent heads or whatever. Not sure when we got 000's if reducing their numbers is a biggie. now, the QUALITY of the fuckers, and the systems around them I'm concerned about. Not too keen personally on letting China or anyone leap miles ahead there.
But otherwise, biggest cheer from the Germans was for CO2. Me also. But hey, that's my schtick. He looked a bit liberal interventionist. But again, that's reasonably ok with me. In my mind, the only thing worse than America on an Imperial bender (GWB) would be a complete withdrawal and Fortress America thing. Right now, with China coming on hard, Putin hanging around, oil & gas being a lot more vital... I wouldn't mind some hands across the water, bit of the Kumbaya.
Fire at will.
July 25, 2008 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm all for Kyoto or something more effective. Good it makes the speech.
My family came here for the money. The freedom and the imperialism were gravy.
July 25, 2008 3:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mine came for the potatoes. The gravy was the gravy.
July 25, 2008 4:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sincere question: Why did Obama play the race card? He said:
To trigger memories of the consequences of Germany's racist past?
I'm bewildered by the whole father story:
Is it Third World = backwards? The West = progress?
The connection to Germans is...yearning? Huh? Didn't some other famous politicians appeal to German yearning?
It's a bizarre opening to his speech.
July 25, 2008 4:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Please. First comment, he was tying himself to the Europeans through his father. Good or bad, if that was the fact then it was what it was. Second, yes, America was the dream. Not so bad in my book. Third? Trying to achieve that dream. Achieved. Again, not so bad. Finally, shared experience for all, kinda powerful for me. Seemingly for them as well.
He was ultimately talking to the U.S., so why so bizzare?
July 25, 2008 4:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, there's an American dream of coming to the US to build a life, and there's an American dream of coming to get a US education and going home. Both are respectable goals, but why does Obama intentionally have to swap them? His father was not an immigrant. He was a foreign student for a few years. Nor was his father poor, but he keeps implying that with the goatherder bit. I call bullshit on that. I don't know why others don't.
July 25, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama doesn't swap them, Des. He's saying there was something special about a higher education in the U.S. that drew his father to America.
That "something special" depended on the freedom (i.e., academic, political, etc.) and opportunity (i.e., economic and cultural) promised by Western values.
No switcheroo. I think you and readytoblow spend too much time reading between the lines and not enough reading the lines themselves.
July 25, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was more like Tom Mboya's dream of something special about higher education in the U.S., not Obama Sr.'s.
Mboya raised the money to send Obama Sr. (and others) to school in the U.S.
But whatever.
July 25, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
And do you think the Germans nodded in agreement? Yes, we poor Europeans have to make do with the University of Heidleburg or Oxford.
July 25, 2008 3:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is there BS there? Absolutely. Name one national politician who doesn't "enhance" his/her "life story". That doesn't make it OK, but it does mean that it's not going to be an issue you can use to differentiate between politicians, right?
July 25, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe we're just too inured to the whole President who grew up in a log cabin thing.
July 25, 2008 10:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Lincoln hated splitting rails too.
Doesn't that just suck?
Depends on your commitments, I guess.
July 26, 2008 12:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
i think it is just a matter of view points and perspectives. I think both sides have a very valid points but, I think it comes down to which one you believe in more. Or something more subconscious.
But since, I myself side with the "its not a big deal, he said it because of A, and that was good" I guess crowd.....
What would you have really rather he said Ghost?
July 26, 2008 1:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
First: Please back at ya. He was tying himself to the Europeans through the British his grandfather cooked for? That's not a blood tie. Why didn't he use his mother's bloodline to tie himself to the Europeans?
Second: Obama's father got educated in the U.S. then went back to Kenya. That's not the American Dream! The American Dream takes place in America; "American" is part of the definition.
Third: Again, this is not the American Dream.
Fourth: Weak. Simplistic.
Finally: His speech was not aimed at Americans; it was directed at the Germans to rally them for the cause of boosting NATO forces to fight the terrorists.
This read you offered is frighteningly simplistic and strains the logic of a narrative (meaning, the logic of storytelling). I'd hate for such simplistic, strained, and forced connections to come out of the mouth of my next president. But maybe you are right, and maybe I'm giving Obama too much credit in my own read.
July 25, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you think Obama's speech was not aimed at Americans, you really are clueless.
How many votes of Germans do you suppose Obama is expecting to get in November?
July 25, 2008 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right, I'm totally clueless!
I actually thought all the direct addresses to Germans (22 refs to Berlin) and Europeans (15 refs) were directed at Germans and Europeans, and the Yay-for-NATO! parts had something to do with Obama's previous public statements about how Europe should help support NATO forces in Afghanistan.
But I'm really literal that way.
July 25, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Who do you think is more favorable to the message that NATO should be helping us more in Afghanista—those in Europe, or those in the US?
Obviously, nothing is black and white. This tour was about both. However, I think the cynic/realist would argue that this was primarily a campaign speech. He's not campaigning for German (or European) votes.
It seems that only an Obama loyalist, blinded by his/her devotion, would claim this speech was pure of heart and primarily aimed at Europeans. You've never struck me as being an Obama loyalist.
July 25, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Germany has 3500 troops in Afghanistan and agreed to up it to 4500 in June. 25 German troops have died there. I imagine the Germans sent a fair number of troops to Bosnia when we quit the country to go attack Iraq, so it's also not fair just to look at Afghan numbers.
July 25, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Doesn't have to be troops. Cash works too.
July 25, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does it have to be one or the other? Why is "aimed at the Americans" mutually exclusive to "aimed at the Germans"? Presumably it was aimed at both, no? If Obama can persuade the Germans to help us out of a pickle in which we find ourselves, that is a good reason for Americans to vote for him. Part of his pitch is "I can heal the breach between ourselves and our allies, and that will be of benefit to everyone, ourselves included." You are free to doubt the accuracy of the claim that he can heal the breach, but it makes no sense to treat the matter as if "aimed at the Germans" is somehow distinct from "aimed at the Americans" in a context where the Americans have an interest in making nice with the Germans (as is the case at present).
July 25, 2008 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems to me, his speech was aimed at the world, and whether it helps him get elected or not, I think it's about time an American presidential candidate (let alone an American president) acknowledged the world as more than a collection of enemies and allies - not just echoing our egocentric belief that the U.S. is all that matters. It might have been sensible to think that way when we didn't have such modern inventions as airplanes and the internet, and we didn't have the capacity to destroy our own ability to survive on the planet through nuclear war or environmental disregard.
We live in a time when the idea of the "tragedy of the commons" is all-too real. When people destroy rainforests in Brazil to make room for cattle to sell to McDonalds so that Americans can have more and more unhealthy fast foods, the whole world pays the price. The life layer of this world, in fact, is such a small, tiny and in many ways fragile system that we have reached the point of being able to cause it to lose balance, and with forces as titanic as nature can unleash, man-made imbalance is not something we are really equipped to understand or control.
So, for so many reasons, this is a world, not a country. A politician who recognizes this and recognizes that the 21st Century cannot be like the 19th or the 20th or the 14th has come at a time when he's sorely needed.
That's how I see it, anyway. Thanks for listening.
July 25, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly didn't mean to frighten anyone with my simplicity. Not intended as a narrative, strained or forced. Just my little positive take on your more negative thoughts.
The "Please" thing was just dumb, I apologize for that.
July 25, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not commenting about you, barefooted! By narrative I meant Obama's narrative, not yours!
My comments are based on reading the text of his speech as a "narrative," as if he's telling a story, complete with symbolic references, structure, repetition, and audience.
I approach it like a literary critique. That's how I read all of his speeches. It's not "negative." It's a critique. I just read it differently than you do.
So I'm saying I found his opening about his father awkward, forced, and peculiar. I find such an awkward fit bizarre, uncharacteristic; I can't think of another example where he begins so awkwardly. If I were working on this speech with him, I would ask if we could cut that part or I would push him to make better connections with his audience. I would tell him it wasn't working. I would say, "You have to use something other than the simple fact of your race to convey to this audience that you represent change. Your audience is smarter than that."
July 25, 2008 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your critique did have some valid points, but I think it would've come off better if you (a) found more "good parts" (I'm sure you could've if you'd tried), and/or (b) sandwiched the negative criticism with the positive.
Just a critique of your critique, if you will. You definitely managed to generate some discussion, and it's been quite civil.
July 25, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess I was responding to the title of the post: How Bad Was It?
Also, it was 4 a.m. Past my bedtime.
I was thinking I shouldn't have written anything.
July 25, 2008 6:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I tried to add a few positives.
July 25, 2008 9:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!
July 26, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I read again your comment at 9:07 AM, and it really seemed directed at me. How am I getting it wrong? Please let me know.
I do see some of your points about the speech. I didn't love the beginning, either. I didn't love parts of the middle or parts of the end. But I loved it as a sum of its parts. I think it had the effect that was intended upon the world. And most importantly the United States. I still believe it was intended for us to see him looking presidential and being, more importantly, appreciated by other countries. Bush has embarrassed us so much that simply seeing so many people embrace Obama outside of the US is heartwarming.
July 25, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, I'll do my best. I was disagreeing with your interpretation point by point, as you had structured your 4:53 a.m. comment to me ("First," etc.). Your points were brief; mine got briefer as I went down the list, so that by the time I got to my 4th point, I was down to 2 words.
Probably my points were too abrupt-sounding (an admitted fault of mine; if TPM had a Preview function, I could edit myself better before posting). Abruptness is a habit I've acquired from working with deadline-stressed editors in New York, who say things like: "Nah. That's not it." I apologize for sounding abrasive or dismissive.
In my final paragraph I tried to explain that maybe your interpretation is correct, although I hope it isn't. It's not because I have anything against you or your interpretation. It's because I think the reasoning is not strong enough for Obama to have structured his speech that way. Why? Because I expect him to build in more complexity than that, for 2 reasons: based on the history-making speeches (by JFK, Reagan) that came before him, and based on the usual structure of his own speeches.
When I said I thought Obama's opening was "bizarre," I think you read it as a more negatively charged word than I consider it. In your comment to me, you used the word "bad" 3 times, and you asked why I thought it was "so bizarre" since Obama was talking to the U.S.
First of all, I didn't think the whole speech was bizarre, just the opening part about his father (which is what I said).
Second, I don't think he was addressing the U.S. in his opening.
Third, I personally can't help thinking of Hitler, who also spoke before large, enthusiastic crowds in Berlin. To me, therefore, the topic of race evokes an automatic association with Germany's racist past. That's tricky terrain (when you are considering the audience), which I thought Obama did not traverse as eloquently as he could have. In fact, I thought he was remarkably tone-deaf about it.
I don't disagree with this, but you didn't say this directly until now.
While this may be true, I think Americans are very needy for this to be the case, and are therefore incapable of being objective. I have no idea what people outside the U.S. think, except for what I've read in the foreign press. The foreign press has been good but not particularly doting or earth-shattering. That seems reasonable to me: they don't know if he's going to win or not.
Hope this helps somewhat.
July 25, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, readytoblowagasket, for taking the trouble and the time to respond. I see your point, both original and afterward, better now.
July 25, 2008 11:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, thanks for taking the time too, barefooted. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. Again, sorry for the abruptness.
Does anyone know how we can talk Dad into getting one of those Preview thingies?
July 26, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just curious, gasket, but would you also provide critiques of McCain's speeches?
And in your critiques, do you find room for some praise for what's done well?
July 25, 2008 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could, but that means I'd have to read them. (joke) Since TPM doesn't focus as much on McCain's speeches, I haven't spent time studying McCain's words yet. I've seen a couple of his speeches, debates, and ads, but not nearly as many as Obama's and Clinton's. I have to force myself to watch McCain speak, just like I do with GWB. Maybe one of these days I'll do a McCain post, although I don't think people will take it seriously.
Of course I look for what I think succeeds as much as for what I think is flawed. This speech was not Obama's best, in my opinion. I think it was burdened by a certain degree of self-consciousness, and by that I mean I think it attempts to place itself next to JFK's and Reagan's speeches, and therefore comes off sounding less humble than maybe the occasion warrants. That's fine for Obama's American base, who is hungry for redemption on a grand scale. So it succeeds with the choir, but I'm not sure it's able to win converts.
The questions to ask then are: Did the choir need reassuring that he's presidential? Did the choir have doubts about his foreign policy strength? Those aren't questions I can answer, can you? Did you have a tiny flicker of doubt?
July 26, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the reply. I appreciate it. And I totally understand how you feel about watching a McCain speech. I wouldn't want to wish that on you.
July 26, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ha! Thanks! :-)
July 26, 2008 1:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
If it was aimed at a German audience, it hit A LOT of wrong notes, and I don't think Obama's that tone deaf. The War on Terror stuff, the Afghanistan stuff, these are total turnoffs to post-war Germans. But over here, where we haven't seen a war for over a century and a half and have no understanding at all of what aerial bombarment is actually like, we seem to want to elect only strong arm type guys who are willing to bomb lean tos and huts and grandparents (preferably with non-white skin), and who will tell the rest of the world to get in line and march with us into the breach.
So that's, I think, who Obama was playing to. And I als, most regretfully, guess he has to.
July 25, 2008 10:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here are some confirming opinion pieces that it did hit some wrong notes for Germans. The German government gave it a thumbs-up, however.
July 26, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
I took the entire speech from the "goatherder in Kenya", to the comment that he looked different than his predecessors who ran for president, to be his way of telling the Europeans that he was different. Change has been the theme of his entire campaign. His history is different and he looks different, therefore he is a new and different type of leader.
July 25, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
How bad was it?
Not bad at all!
Looked presidential and laid out a vision for a world where America is aa admired colegial leader instead of a druken bar room bully.
July 25, 2008 8:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
It also, not incidentally, pressed Germany to help out in Afghanistan -- a line the audience didn't like, but needed to hear. If you're probably going to be #44, and you've got a cheering audience of 200,000 liberal Germans, you might as well go ahead and do some bully-pulpit diplomacy.
I understand why people are a little wary. There was so much charisma and eloquence (and ambition) on display in that speech that it makes me wary too. But there's a lot of hard intelligence, and conscience, underneath it as well. We could use someone like that on our side. It almost makes this hardened pessimist slightly optimistic.
As far as the politics of it goes . . . I really think Josh is right, on the front page. Swing voters are barbecueing. They're not paying attention till the fall. The most important thing about this week is the impression it has made on the centrist media (Joe Klein, David Broder, etc), and the way it shapes the discussion going forward.
July 25, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Germany agreed in June to up troops from 3500 to 4500, pre-obama pressure.
July 25, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Des, Billy, Cypher, Seaton...not worth responding to except to encourage people to ignore these guys. You're wasting your time.
July 25, 2008 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Have to say, love Obama even as I do, the speech was a disappointment to me, and you make a lot of good points here, Ghost -- except when you get to paranoid city in regard to keeping our nukes. I think the idea is that everyone should start disarming, not just us. And I think it's a bit too retro to go on about keeping Russia at arm's length. Putin made a good pile, yes that's true. But he made Russia a real player again, pulled it up out of post-Communist destitution and despair, and whether you like it or not, we can keep Russia at a holier than thou arm's length about as well as we can keep China there.
July 25, 2008 11:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Once a KGB, always a KGB.
July 25, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the support, Anne. Yeltsin had Russia as a reasonable player - Putin renewed the fear and while improving self-respect, I'd say it was a nationalistic mafia-run self-respect to the detriment of developing open democracy and a free press and a true capitalistic market instead of crony capitalism. Without trips to Crawford, we have Putin at arm's length enough. I don't wake up in cold sweats at the the thought of nuclear war, not even terrorism which is much more likely. But now with Pakistan and India as nuke players and the uncertainties in Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran, it seems like a strange time to discuss giving up our nukes. When Putin's puppet retires, maybe we can get some progress we can trust.
July 25, 2008 11:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely there. As for friendship with Russia, though?
July 25, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
J Edgar Hoover is not Vladimir Putin. Perhaps the sentiment holds true with Putin, but I doubt it - arm's distance I'd go for. Hoover? Might have been better for all of us if he'd been shoved out of the tent, though clamping down on Capone/Chicago was one good thing he did.
July 25, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think there was no corruption or strong arm stuff under Yeltsin??? I think you better think again.
July 25, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Putin made Russia a player by being a nasty jerk. There is a reason why pretty much all Russia's neighbors hate Russia.
And what really fixed Russia's economy were skyrocketing prices of natural resources, not Putin.
July 25, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bingo. And threatening neighbors to cut off natural gas if they didn't renegotiate to ridiculous prices. Nationalizing Yukos was key to his extortion strategy (and personal rise in wealth - the KGB guy becomes a billionaire, how opportune).
July 25, 2008 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
But it did seem silly. He's on such wonderful ground here:
"It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era."
That was sufficient. Why detract from it with talking about seeking a world without nuclear weapons? It's so unnecessary to feed into the naive argument when you don't need to.
July 25, 2008 7:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
My father was a major bank VP before retirement, but he raised sheep as a boy. As burnished as he became over the decades, he so did enjoy shocking bourgeois dinner hosts in Europe with the stark Caribbean poverty narratives of his childhood, which served, among other things, to emphasize his achievement.
July 25, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is he Democrat? Can we run him for VP?
July 25, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL! Alas no. He's now, of all things, an empire-wary old man who now finds anything north of the Tropic of Cancer excessively bleak y muy poco interesante.
July 25, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm afraid I agree with him, desafortunadamente.
July 25, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
The speech was very low on substance. There's a reason for that. Obama is not the President. I was annoyed by Brooks' column, comparing Obama's speech as a candidate to Kennedy and Reagan's speeches as presidents (speaking at critical historical moments). Obama's objective was not to tangle with Europe on trade policy, for instance. Not only would that be bad for his campaign, it would be presumptuous and spark justified complaints from the Bush Administration.
Basically, the goal of the speech was to make Obama appear statesman-like and to make Europeans slobber. I would say that it accomplished that. If also offered an indication of what Obama's style and attitude would be towards international relations. Would I have preferred an historic, visionary, world-changing address? Of course. But despite what his supporters are often accused of believing, Obama is not Jesus.
July 25, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've always thought O'Brahma was more apt. (Irish-Indian, if you will.)
July 25, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
That would certainly tie him in with an elitist cast...
July 25, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, I'll go ahead and point out that I'm obviously being a flip-flopper on this issue. ;)
July 25, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would I have preferred an historic, visionary, world-changing address?
---------------------------------------------------
I would have prefered no speech at all. How many presidential candidates go on world tours as part of their campaign? I'm surprised he was willing to play at some of the smaller venues, all the big rock stars only do the major cities, big stadiums and large concert halls.
Its all hype, Obama takes it to an extreme that's ludicrous. yes I know, McCain challenged him to go to iraq and so he did, and included a world tour, the whole shebang. But McCain said Obama doesn't understand Iraq, he needs to go there and see what's happening on the ground. What did he learn?
Why do senators go on fact finding missions over seas? To play basketball with the boys, photo ops at all the major attractions, speeches for the multitudes? He could have done what hundreds of senators have done over these many years, a low key fact finding mission. Instead he made it just another campaign event. The Obama World Tour. Exciting, I suppose, for the masses but low on substance.
That last sentence pretty much sums up Obama for me.
July 25, 2008 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
How did you feel about McCain's trip to Mexico? Canada? Columbia?
July 25, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't have a problem with it. I also don't have a problem with an Obama visit to any country. Perhaps you missed this in my post:
"He could have done what hundreds of senators have done over these many years, a low key fact finding mission. Instead he made it just another campaign event. The Obama World Tour."
Everything about obama is hype. its not entirely his fault, the media eats it up just like they do with Britany or the latest pretty white girl that's missing or murdered. But Obama plays it up, plans events in anticipation of the media exposure and turned a fact finding mission and simple meet and greet of world leaders into a Major Campaign Event.
July 25, 2008 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that's pretty stupid of him. If he were smart, he'd tried to avoid any free press that the media might be willing to give him.
July 25, 2008 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't be an ass ben, its not like you. I never said it was a mistake, it was very smart. That doesn't mean I have to like it and I've been pretty clear why. Most major presidential candidates do these meet and greets with some world leaders during the campaign but its pretty unusual for it to be hyped and played for the press the way this one was. If fact I can't recall any candidate having the audacity to attempt anything like this, even to the point of planning a speech at the brandenburg gate.
Maybe you think its cool for candidates to use the rest of the world as campaign background color and soldiers and world leaders as props. Bad enough when presidents do it after being elected imo. Audacity, he chose a apt word. It describes this trip to a T.
July 25, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I use sarcasm quite a bit. Arguably too much, but I'm not sure it's fair to say it's not like me. ;)
On the grand scale of things, it's about as pecca as peccadilloes come. What exactly is the harm that's being done here? I mean, sure, in a perfect world politicians wouldn't need to actively campaign. They'd just issue their policy statements and stand on the strength of their past legislative/executive/judicial histories. The only thing I see that makes this different from the typical presidential candidate is that Obama is doing it better than everyone else.
Just to make sure my question doesn't get lost in my quasi-rant above, what harm do you think is being done? What would be a perfect campaigning style for you? Avoid all photo ops? No more exploiting babies by kissing them? No more using locals by pretending to listen to what they're saying?
July 25, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ben, that is SO you. Of course you are right.
July 25, 2008 8:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, I use sarcasm quite a bit.
---------------------------------------------------
Really? I hadn't noticed, but then I don't read all the posts. I was more referring to the setting up of the strawman and knocking it down. I can handle a bit of sarcasm but I don't like being a foil for you to debate yourself.
You're right though, I don't like any of the foo foo stuff of campaigning. I don't like the rah rah pep rally aspect of it. I accept that its necessary and tolerate it. What has always bothered me is that Obama is so good at it. Sometimes I wonder if that's all he is. At least with Reagan I knew who he was at his ideological core.
I also don't like the way Obama takes the hype and doesn't just step over the line, he goes whole hog and throws all caution to the wind. From the trivial, like the "presidential seal" to trying to give a speech at Brandenburg gates. The problem I have with the stories of his "goatheader" father is not that he streaches or exaggerates but that he's damn near created a complete fiction. No other candidate has had the audacity that Obama has in his politicing. And yes, I don't like it.
What harm? Maybe none. Maybe substantive dialog and honesty in politics has been so degraded that Obama cannot degrade it any farther. (shrug) But I still don't have to like it.
July 26, 2008 1:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I look at this particular post as a source of amusement. What exactly is the point here?
Desidero, you are gunning to write speeches for Obama yourself?
Are you thinking that you wasted time watching it?
Are you still wishing that there was another person running for POTUS from the Democratic side?
Are you hoping that McCain wins in November?
I can't wait for you analysis of McCain's speeches while visiting foreign countries. Of course, the problem there is that not enough people care about those to follow them and have a context for your "analysis".
July 25, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's McCain's momentous speech in Canada:
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/06/20/f-mccain-remarks.html
Fire away.
PS For a fun bit of hypocrisy, McCain had this to say about Obama's speech:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/07/24/1220326.aspxJuly 25, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau... Genghis. I tell you, as a man not prone to overstatement or emotion, that Senator McCain held a nation spellbound when he spoke in Canada. My wives and I, well... we've never had more than six - maybe seven - experiences THAT thrilling. Top Ten, certainly. Listen to this, the way he begins, tugging gently at our heartstrings: "With 60% of all direct foreign investment in Canada originating in the United States- some $289 billion in 2007- our economies draw strength from one another."
Wife #1 collapsed in tears, right there. But then, the crowd already bending under the master's whip, McCain... drew back: "What a blessing it is for the United States to have in Canada a neighbor we fear only on ice rinks and baseball diamonds." You see how that's done? A little 'Larry Walker in absentia' reference. And then.... though the nation edged forward, waiting for him to mention basketball, and (the R. Honourable) Steve Nash... no. For the McCain is nothing if not gracious. And Nash's heart yet requires time to heal.
He plunges on into the depths of our... well, he says it best himself. (And indeed, I remain pained that your Senator so-called Obama did not attribute these words to the McCain): "At the same time, Canada & America are joined in other vital causes around the world - from the fight against nuclear proliferation to the fight against global warming, from the fight for justice in Haiti to the fight for democracy in Afghanistan." Oh sure, your Obama changed Haiti for Darfur, likely because it's easier to pronounce.
And then he smoked it. Downtown. Wooo-hoo! Tater Time Baby! Se Yaaaa! Oh Docccccctor! (Sorry.) Because, like all Canadians, what we'd been longing for was the meat - a detailed, programmatic, knowledgeable discussion of policy. And McCain stuck it right in our meathouse. "As always in Canada's history, this nation has been willing to do hard things, even when the costs run high. Like your home heating bills. Husky chow. And... your world-renowned, universal, free-to-all, fully portable, Moose Mace packets." Wife #2 - and a hearty, unemotional beast she is - sobbed. She sobbed. I'd repeat myself, but damned if I can hear over the sobs. He had us at Moose.
We awaited the crescendo. You know, the high concluding bit that comes near the end. Because most of us can't spell crescendo - we're French you know. He delivered. This was Ali in his prime. If Malcom X at his best was Malcolm X, then THIS fine man, this McCain... America, he is your Malcolm Y. "We've been through an awful lot together, Canada & America, and together we have achieved great things. We have a long shared history to draw from & deep reserves of good will and mutual admiration." Wife #3 passed out entirely, right there. It took a full 15 minutes waving the jerky under her schnauzer to revive her. A brief time later, the wife came round too.
We were left.... we were left sated, exhausted and somewhat hungry. "Sandwiches", we cried. When the crying didn't do the job, we went out to the pantry & made some ourselves. Fuck the crying, we're Canadians.
After the Great Man had departed in his sky bird, we were left only with two questions. 1st, Why did he come to our lowly land? And 2nd, The meaning of this cryptic passage: "As you all know, Canada is America's largest energy supplier. Not only does Canada have the 2nd largest proven oil reserves in the world. We have much to gain by harmonizing our energy policies, just as have through NAFTA."
And each night, round the fire, we ask ourselves, again & again, finding no answer - What is this thing... NAFTA?
July 25, 2008 2:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn, I asked for a scathing critique, not a kool-aid smothered snog-fest. This is precisely why Canadians should not be allowed to post at TPM. I'm sorry, allow me to rephrase that in a less condescending and oppressive manner. To all Canadian residents, I don't have a problem with you reading quietly to yourselves, but for the collective good of the cafe, I respectfully request that you cease posting here. Also please spare us from your ill-considered recommendations.
PS Quinn, it's a pity that you weren't around for my first Canada-related post and the ensuing hilarity: http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/03/what-really-happened-in-canada.php
July 25, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like the man said, "You Americans all look the same to us."
P.S. Your new strictures are, as stated previously, harsh, oppressive & worse than condescending - they're condownscending. Which is bad, believe me. I hate you, and something something minute genitalia something.
P.P.S. Can we move our lips when we read?
quinn, the esquimeaux
July 25, 2008 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
quinn, that was outstanding! You captured the McCain magic several times over. Its easy to see how Obama could only wish to have a shadow as bright as McCain's.
And those intense points of the speech, by god he wasn't afraid to hammer home the demands, he was the man...he feared no Canadian!
Its not every day that an electrifying speech like that can so overwhelm your legs that you have to stay seated as you'd faint if you went for a standing ovation. Wow, he could use that technique in WARS.
Ohhh, John McCain has so much to teach Americans...the only problem right now is there isn't that much room in the cheese aisle for an audience.
But dear Canadians, don't think he is Johnny one-note because of the surge projection. At 72, he has to keep it simple.
July 25, 2008 8:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh my, Quinn burning it up on my thread and I wasn't here to catch it. See? Canadians *can* hit the long ball. Give Vancouver a stadium, quick.
July 28, 2008 4:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm amazed by people's ability to pick apart a great moment and demean and degrade it. To me, Obama speaking before 200,000+ people - anywhere - is a great thing. What he said was, if not perfect, something that we need to hear. We need to change the way the world works in the 21st Century or watch what we call civilization most likely fail as resource wars and wars of imperialism and ideologies and scarcity... and environmental disasters tear the fabric apart.
Even if Obama is far from perfect, jeebus guys, what's the alternative? McWWIII? Pick it apart and be negative if you want. I understand that some of you are consistent in that. I suppose then, I'll have to be consistently impressed with someone who can stir positive emotions and get people thinking toward unity and peace, for the most part. Someone who is a statesman who can inspire others and send a message of shared responsibility - something long missing from this country under the Republicans and neocons.
Yes, I have my concerns. I wonder about more war in Afghanistan when Osama is in Pakistan. I don't like it, but I accept that the guy can't be Kucinich and create a ministry of peace and get elected.
And Russia? Well, Obama seems to be an optimist on the subject of getting along with others. He could get into trouble with that attitude, but on the other hand, he's pretty good and doesn't seem stupid or naive, even if people like to paint him that way. The guy has pretty strong political instincts, which makes him not so much a perfect idealistic hippy radical flowerchild, but a political realist with some progressive attitudes and beliefs. How, otherwise, did this half-black dude from Chicago go so quickly from state legislator to a presidential nominee who isn't part of a famous, filthy rich and immensely powerful family? The guy's pretty good.
I'm just saying, it ain't perfect, but it was mighty impressive and I think good for Obama and good for America and a lot more good than not good.
Castigate me for my idealism if you must, but it's where I'm coming from.
July 25, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a good speech, appropriate for the setting and the audiences on both sides of the Atlantic.
The pejorative title of the thread was selected by a person who is determined to make sure that McCain wins in November.
July 25, 2008 1:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow, this is a pretty sloppy post. In lieu of serious debate with Obama's arguments in the speech, we get treated to ad hominem/horserace style quips. (Much like a David Brook column actually)
I welcome more substantive criticism of Obama's proposals / policies that go beyond "Oh God" "Yeah right" type sneering.
Pure opinionating without good reasons just doesn't convince anyone reading (at least at TPM, it doesn't)
July 25, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Everything about the speech, affect, approach, words, and tone, says to foreign leader's, "I am a man who listens and can talk with you rather than at you."
To American’s, he demonstrated that the world wants America to be part of a conversation with them.
Geeze, Ghost, what more do want at this point? Could it be that you might need to review your own expectations as to whether they are reasonable or even attainable?
July 25, 2008 2:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama spoke of the need to find a way for the entire world to get rid of all Nuclear Weapons. Now look at how the thread OP spun it to make it sound like Obama was talking about just the USA giving up all it's Nukes, and everyone else keeping theirs.
That alone exposes the thread originator to be a war mongering right wing propagandist.
Here is the giveaway passage:
"Get rid of nukes? Now? Nope, I'm against. We haven't even addressed China's role in this brave new world, we hope that North Korea's not as close as they keep claiming to be, Iran's certainly got some hight tech motion in both distance and nuclear savvy even if our reports are correct, and I of course don't trust Putin."
July 25, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
OT:
Just wanted to correct any misinformation that "Ghost" throws out there (constant).
In reference to an archive on the immorality of others admission to hack personal information, Ghost, had a another break from reality and stated that "I, quasar", had the inclination to contact "Ghost" off-line.
Of course this would seems ridiculous on it's surface, (for why would anyone want to contact "Ghost"?) and shallow as a proclamation, but it is there as stated as another unbelievable thrust for recognition.
One explanation that I can fathom is his apparent need to reduce someone's ability to ignore him as a psycho-drama of "she wants me, she just doesn't know it".
That would be one explanation.
The other would be the more familiar act of vertically blowing it out his ass embedded as html within the freeze frame shot his avatar gives us everytime he posts.
His reality literally blows.
July 25, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
You showed up on another blog and stalked me for a while. Fuck off.
July 25, 2008 9:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're out of your mind.
Or just a pathological liar.
What name did I use? This one?
You're so lame.
July 26, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're confused. I don't want you. I'm indifferent to you. I don't read your disintegrated verbosity anymore since it's apparent you feign outrage and ignorance and the same time only because you're lonely. Remember? We've been through that discussion. Your deceptive practice of creeping to brain leech people is not something entertaining. Only a sociopath would think that's appealing as a "leader".
I really think you believe you have superior intellect as long as you get your back door narcissistic supply.
So don't make me the object of your stalking desires. I don't want you.
July 26, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was so bad, Des, he's running about 65-15 over McCain in the preferences of Europeans, 64-4 in France.
The address was tone. You're wringing hands about bits and pieces. Rebuilding American goodwill within Europe, starting at general principles about unity and shared purpose, is valuable.
The Euros get that, and that matters independent of your critique of the content.
So I agree with Raider about your post.
And btw, I won't have time to post on your comment on Real or Fake, but it was incredibly true and good, thanks for writing it.
July 25, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, that was a revealing comment section. Brings the uncommon occurrences or "the fluke" into perspective.
Darkness.
July 25, 2008 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
See
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/25/us/politics/25assess.html
and
http://www.eurotrib.com/story/2008/7/25/84017/3269
July 25, 2008 4:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to Ghost for some comic relief in a busy day of reading glowing reviews of our next President from all over the world. Who can believe it? More than 200,000 Germans cheering for Obama, waving American flags, and chanting USA! USA! USA! as the planet realizes he's the next President of the United States -- and that's a good thing! Of course we here at home already knew -- we saw it on the faces of our troops when he went to Kuwait, and Afghanistan, and Iraq and met with them. Nice to have our allies on board too tho! You can see that same smile that was so obvious on the faces of our troops, on the faces of the World leaders that Barack met with. Yep. There's change comin' and we can all see it.
...and this during a Bush administration!
Your parody of a wingnut troll's response to it here is spot on -- but i must say it can't quite top McCain's hilarity trifecta this week. Ridin with 41 in the golfcart (Dukakis moment?) Whining about the surge at the cheese case, and speaking to a crowd of nobody outside the Fudge Haus. Sometimes reality is funnier than parody! Ah well, at least you tried. I also liked your earlier post defending J Edgar Hoover as well, but Coulter had already played that one.
July 25, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well shit - that's nothing compared to how much they love him in France.
As a parody, this post doesn't make it.
July 25, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
i figured it must be parody, as certainly nobody in their right mind would take it seriously ;)
July 25, 2008 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Apart from your rather unique way of comprehending language (naturally Obama is proposing that the U.S. unilaterally disarms but also gives all the extra nukes to Russia), light factuality (bin Laden is thought to be on the on the Afghan side of the Pakistan border) and your exotic thought process (antagonising Russia will surely make them see the error of their ways), I am struck by your inability to take in the context of the speech.
Although it explains why you would like U2.
July 25, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What fascinates me about all this is the totally different impressions I got from watching & listening to the speech and how I felt about it when I read it.
Watching, by the end of it I hated it. I thought oh no another another bloody American president who seeks to remake the world on. It really did impact on me emotionally in exactly the same way as Bush talking about democratising Asia.
Then when I read it just now, the conclusion of his speech seemed totally reasonable.
Maybe I'll make better sense of that once I've had time to think about it all, but for now I suspect that it's because the delivery and setting seemed rather messianic (his usual `now is the time`) in the context of watching him deliver a so very American message - war on terror - to non-American people who were so subdued half the time - (ie unenthusiastic/unconvinced about the war on terror, Afghanistan)
Whereas reading it one's absorbing the context of climate change, Dafur, aid, cleaning up loose nukes etc.
July 25, 2008 7:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
You know, with all the problems we face going into the 21st Century - maybe now IS the time. Maybe we need leaders who can inspire people with rhetoric and call them to account.
I know that rhetoric can be empty - certainly nothing bush has ever said had substance other than his hidden agenda, but I think/hope Obama is different. I admit that he stirs me and makes me think there could be hope after all, though I still think it's slim.
July 25, 2008 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can relate to and respect that, Raider. I felt exactly the same at the beginning of the primaries.
Various things since then have made me slightly sceptical and so I suppose to some extent I can relate to the right wing attacks on him in relation to his character and the `flashy` theme.
One thing remains constant though: he's the Demoratic, not the Republican, nominee. That outweighs everything.
But when I see things about him I don't like/respect, it worries me that swinging voters are seeing them in the same way.
sigh
July 25, 2008 10:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fran, I didn't read it, but I started off listening and just felt "I can never vote for this person". I don't know how I can spin that as good. Sure, I can say I dislike John McCain - so what after that.
July 25, 2008 9:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Listen, the speech may not have been the best one he's ever given but to say you think you never could vote for him because of it is absurd. There's nothing he said, in terms of potential policy, that should make anyone want to run and hide. Like you, I could've done with less War on Terror slogan slinging and less now is the moment for Afghanistan, but compare that to the surge is working and we can still win in Iraq, just wish upon a star.
I also have hope that Obama isn't boneheaded enough to create his very own quagmire with Afghanistan for a first act. I also think he's got enough people around him who will present him very clearly with the other side of the issue (see link to Brzezinski's take on TPM's front page), and Obama is a man who listens to both sides.
July 25, 2008 10:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well if you find voting for Obama impossible and would prefer to vote for John McCain, a temperamentally unstable militarist who clearly has absolutely NO grasp of facts relevant to any subject, whose main goals in life seem to be to keep refighting Vietnam and enabling the rich instead of America's infrastructure, education and health systems, we really don't have any means of useful communication, do we?
(If people can't agree on first principles, there is no possibility of them doing anything other talking at each other.)
July 25, 2008 10:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Read it.
July 26, 2008 1:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
With this newfangled invention called the "internets on the worldwide webs" you can use the googler to rewatch the speech or read the transcript. At least then, you'd have a few facts to base your commentary on.
Sounds like you've been watching Elonepb's McCain Mystery Science Theater 3000. More popcorn?
July 25, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just had to take care of family, such is life. I'm sure you can counter-parse for me.
July 25, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't even read all the comments as I usually do, but I will just ask this:
How did his speech compare with any speech McCain could ever give? McCain has no vision; no oratory skills; he is not intelligent; he makes stupid, adolescent jokes; he is an embarassment.
Trying to pick apart Obama's speech is just silly; it was a great speech and the people listening loved it. Don't like the goat-herder part? Well, my friend, there's always, "Bomb, bomb, bomb; Bomb bomb Iran for ya!
July 25, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
See
Change Germans Can’t Believe In
By Susan Neiman, July 26
It's an intriguing little essay though playing the generalization game; a taste:
July 26, 2008 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment