Finally! The DNC grows some balls.

[intention]

@kaylasdad99

I meant “Nice of you to have noticed that I gave an answer to the question in the earlier post – no wait, the other thing: NOT nice of you to have NOT noticed (or at least acknowledged) my answer in the earlier post.”
Perhaps. But I’ll note that you’re not a member of the Prize Committee, so it’s apparently not your standards that were consulted. However, the fact that he was so effective in his outspokenness that he was rewarded with what may be the most powerful position in the world, was an astonishing accomplishment. And it can be argued that his campaign and subsequent victory in and of themselves, did ceate a global environment of respect for the United States and of receptivity to the leadership of the United States in the task of forging a peaceful world. An environment that had not existed during the Bush years; and an environment which is ultimately indispensable if the task is ever to be accomplished.

I’ll be candid: I’m pretty sure that, had I been on the committee, I would have taken a lot of convincing to vote for the choice they made. I have a weakness for the fait accompli, myself.

But I truly feel that the most negative response to the committee’s action that is appropriate is bemusement; and that to castigate President Obama with terms such as “reprehensible”, “despicable”, “megalomaniacal idiocy”, “hypocrisy”, “theft”, is not the behavior of a a supporter who truly wants him to succeed. From what I’ve observed of your posts regarding the president during the past few weeks, I get the feeling that you’re so averse to being tarred with the “kool-aid drinker” brush that you swing way far in the opposite direction. You seem to bend over backwards to give the opposition the benefit of the doubt as being honest participants in the various debates. Good for you on that, by the way. President Obama is setting you a good example for being respectful of your opponents’ honestly held and expressed views, as I hope you’ll agree.

But in the world as it exists today, dishonesty and deceit and self-serving lies do exist in the political discourse. When they are coming from Democrats, it is right and proper that we, as Democrats, police our own, not only to deprive the Republicans of a weapon with which to bludgeon us, but because it allows us to stay true to our principles. And when they come from the Republicans, we have the right and obligation to recognize them for what they are, expose them, and deal with them separately from their honestly held and expressed contributions. I haven’t seen you demonstrate much willingness to do that to the Republicans, but you seem all too eager to do it to the Democrats.

I won’t defend the DNC spokesperson’s remarks; the past few days have shown them to have been over-the top, and ultimately unhelpful, however soul-satisfying they may have seemed when I first read them.

kaylasdad99, thank you for your calm, reasoned, and reasonable response.

As for my response, I can only repeat what I said above. The situation deserves more than the “bemusement” that you recommend. Getting abused by the DNC for my beliefs is no fun. Seeing a Democrat rave about grinding his Birkenstock of Death™ on somebody’s neck turns my stomach. Seeing the DNC attack our own is depressing. Is that really what Democrats stand for these days, abuse and comparisons to terrorists for those who disagree with us, even members of our own party? Should we just be “bemused” about that?

In addition, I thought (as do a number of other people) that Obama blew a huge opportunity to take the high moral ground. All he had to do was to graciously decline the Prize, saying (as he said but didn’t follow through on) that he had done nothing to deserve it. It was a perfect chance to shake his reputation for self-aggrandizement. He could have given a killer speech, in his own most inspiring style, and gained massive political credit from friends and opponents alike.

Instead, as the commenter in the London Times wrote, “President Obama, in letting the committee award it to him, has made himself look vain, a fool and dangerously lost in his own mystique.” And the Democrats, by viciously attacking anyone who thinks he didn’t deserve the award and should have turned it down, have done nothing but reinforce the belief that some see him as the “Obamessiah”, as someone who can do no wrong. We don’t need any of that, we don’t need the Europeans seeing him as a vain fool lost in his own mystique, we don’t need Democrats angry with the DNC and Birkenstock Brigade, we don’t need to reinforce allegations about the Obamessiah.

And more to the point, we simply cannot afford that. We are locked in struggles over a number of important issues, both domestically and internationally, and we need every ally we can get.

So yes, the combination of DNC insults, Democrats gone Rambo, maniacal defence of Obama, and a giant blown opportunity has driven my response. At times my reaction has been over the top, but these are issues that are important to me. My apologies to those I have abused undeservedly, it has been from an excess of concern regarding what I see as a very dangerous turn that too many Democrats are taking.

I do not see this, as some do, as a minor question. If we Democrats adopt the nasty, invidious ways of the Republicans, if we grind people with our Birkenstocks, we become no better than they are. Yes, they do a raft of nasty shit … but that is all the more reason that our response must not only be, but must be seen to be, civil, measured, modest, and reasonable.

Otherwise, we will become what we are fighting against, and that would be a tragedy. The temptation is there to answer the Republicans tit for tat, to take an eye for an eye, to unleash the dreaded Birkenstocks on them. I understand that desire to lash out at our political opponents, to use their tactics on them, it is tempting to all of us to take those dark roads.

But I’m sure that all of you can see the inevitable end of that path …

Again, my thanks for your response.

[Punoqllads]

@intention

In addition, I thought (as do a number of other people) that Obama blew a huge opportunity to take the high moral ground. All he had to do was to graciously decline the Prize, saying (as he said but didn’t follow through on) that he had done nothing to deserve it. It was a perfect chance to shake his reputation for self-aggrandizement. He could have given a killer speech, in his own most inspiring style, and gained massive political credit from friends and opponents alike.

Did you listen to the speech that he gave?

[elucidator]

How do you know how they’d react? How do you know that refusing the prize wouldn’t be seen as the very height of self-righteous arrogance?

“Well, look, its the Americans again, you try to applaud them and encourage their change, they piss on your flowers and throw them in your face. They never change, those Americans…”

How do you know that’s not how they’d react? Heaven knows, we’ve given them plenty of good reason to think we’re ill-mannered, belligerent and bedbug crazy, how do you know they wouldn’t think “Well, shit, here we were thinking that Obama was different, the Americans were changing, but it turns out he’s just like all the rest of them…”

What makes you so certain?

[intention]

@elucidator

How do you know how they’d react? How do you know that refusing the prize wouldn’t be seen as the very height of self-righteous arrogance?

“Well, look, its the Americans again, you try to applaud them and encourage their change, they piss on your flowers and throw them in your face. They never change, those Americans…”

How do you know that’s not how they’d react? Heaven knows, we’ve given them plenty of good reason to think we’re ill-mannered, belligerent and bedbug crazy, how do you know they wouldn’t think “Well, shit, here we were thinking that Obama was different, the Americans were changing, but it turns out he’s just like all the rest of them…”

What makes you so certain?

I got this same question before in this thread. I invited people to give me one example of people dumping on Obama (or any other politician) for being too humble, for turning down something they felt they didn’t deserve.

I got nothing. Not from you, not from anyone.

Unless you can give me one example of it happening sometime somewhere, I will continue to believe it is just your fevered imagination.

If Obama could not turn the situation to his advantage, I would be very, very surprised. He turned the Reverend Wright situation to his advantage. Compared to that, this one would be a piece of cake, I thought that one would sink him for sure. Have you no trust in your President? It is extremely hard to bust someone for excess humility. Unless I badly misjudge the man, he could thank them for their good intentions, say that he would take it up as a personal challenge to accomplish the things he has envisioned, and end up being applauded by almost everyone.

But hey, if you truly believe he’d fail, that he’d crash and burn, that he’s not the man for the task, that he’s not up for the challenge, that he hasn’t got the brains and balls to pull it off … well, that’s your vision, not mine. Me, I have much more faith in the man than that.

[intention]

@Punoqllads

Did you listen to the speech that he gave?

Yes.

I agree with the commentator from the London Times. It made him look “vain, a fool and dangerously lost in his own mystique.” See, here I am, siding with the terrorists again. I did not find it inspiring in any sense.

[Punoqllads]

Why did you think he sounded vain? Here is the text, I see him downplaying his achievements, downplaying his importance, and asking for the help of others to accomplish future endeavors.

[gonzomax]

Obama through his campaign rhetoric has lowered the level of anxiety across the globe. He was not like the defiant Bush with his blind belief in American exceptionalism and his right to act unilaterally. He made it known he was more cooperative and less likely to be a bully. To claim there is absolutely no reason to award him the prize is typical right wing bullshit. I believe he needs to prove it was not just talk by carrying out his promises but I feel more relieved now that the neocons are out of power.

[intention]

@Punoqllads

Why did you think he sounded vain? Here is the text, I see him downplaying his achievements, downplaying his importance, and asking for the help of others to accomplish future endeavors.

I thought he sounded vain because he was accepting an award that he didn’t deserve, and he knew it. He was well aware that there were men and women out there that, unlike him, had actually done something to deserve the award.

As a result, all the downplaying of the accomplishments and his own importance struck a totally false note. Downplaying his own importance but accepting the prize anyhow made it sound like one of those bullshit Academy Award acceptance speeches where the winner is vamping about how “I know that I don’t deserve this award” … yeah, right, like you really believe that. It doesn’t make the Oscar winner sound less vain to say that, and it didn’t make Obama sound less vain. “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” is the Shakespeare line that comes to mind.

Don’t get me wrong, Obama is a marvellous speaker, he almost always gives the best speech possible, and he said all the right things.

But the underlying premise was false. So it ended up like striking a brass bell. No matter how well it is hit, no matter how skilled the striker, it still sounds … well, brazen, not the clear, clean, unblemished note we want to hear.

[elucidator]

You. You are the example. In answering my question, you say:

…I got this same question before in this thread. I invited people to give me one example of people dumping on Obama (or any other politician) for being too humble, for turning down something they felt they didn’t deserve…

And then a bit later you say…

…I agree with the commentator from the London Times. It made him look “vain, a fool and dangerously lost in his own mystique.”…

Contrast and compare.

[intention]

@gonzomax

Obama through his campaign rhetoric has lowered the level of anxiety across the globe. He was not like the defiant Bush with his blind belief in American exceptionalism and his right to act unilaterally. He made it known he was more cooperative and less likely to be a bully. To claim there is absolutely no reason to award him the prize is typical right wing bullshit. I believe he needs to prove it was not just talk by carrying out his promises but I feel more relieved now that the neocons are out of power.

I, like you (and much of the planet), am overjoyed that the Bush League is out of power. However, usually and reasonably one needs to “prove it was not just talk by carrying out [ones] promises” before being awarded any prizes … particularly when it is a Peace Prize and Obama is ramping up the war in Afghanistan, packing Baghram prison full of people without habeas corpus, trying to prevent torture prosecutions, maintaining Guantanamo despite promising to close it, and continuing the neocons insidious domestic spying program. His record to date of keeping his promises is not stellar. Do you truly think his record to date, that includes increasing war and overlooking torture and maintaining Guantanamo and spying on fellow citizens, really adds up to a Nobel Peace Prize? Really? Because I certainly couldn’t say that and keep a straight face.

Don’t misunderstand me. I think he is the best president we’ve had in a long, long time, I think his heart is definitely in the right place although his brain lags behind a bit regarding actualizing his vision, and I think he will keep his promises. I am well aware that these things take time.

But until he does keep the promises, I’m not disposed to shower him with laurels and laud his majestic greatness. This award is an insult and a slap in the face to those other nominees who did keep their promises, often at great risk to their “lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor”.

[DanBlather]

@intention

No, they said people who criticize the President for receiving the Nobel Prize had thrown their lot in with the terrorists. Among them are the Republican Party, and me, and my father-in-law, and a host of other people. Clearly we’re all siding with the terrorists …

I take it back. Here is the latest from the DNC:

Intention and his father-in-law, as well as anyone who has ever voted for a Republican, watches Fox News, or refuses to sing pledges of subservience to Obama have sided with the terrorists against their own country and should be put in front of Death Panels.

I think they may have gone over the line with the singing part. Not everyone can carry a tune.

[intention]

@elucidator

You. You are the example. In answering my question, you say:

@intention

…I got this same question before in this thread. I invited people to give me one example of people dumping on Obama (or any other politician) for being too humble, for turning down something they felt they didn’t deserve. …

And then a bit later you say…

@intention

…I agree with the commentator from the London Times. It made him look “vain, a fool and dangerously lost in his own mystique.” …

Contrast and compare.

Please improve your reading skills, as you are not following the story. Where in any of this did Obama “turn down something [he] felt [he] didn’t deserve”, as I said and you quoted above? He didn’t turn it down, that’s the point, which makes his humility feigned. Of course people will dump on him for false humility and for not turning it down. Which they have done. Your “example” is meaningless, you didn’t read the question.

If he had turned down the award that he didn’t deserve, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

[intention]

@DanBlather

I take it back. Here is the latest from the DNC:I think they may have gone over the line with the singing part. Not everyone can carry a tune.

Blather indeed … could you possibly have found a more puerile, imbecilic, meaningless argument?

[kaylasdad99]

You thought that was an argument? I won’t contest that it was puerile, meaningless and even imbecilic if you like, but an argument? Really?

Looked like a joke to me. Even a mildly funny one.

Lighten up, Francis.

[Punoqllads]

@intention

I thought he sounded vain because he was accepting an award that he didn’t deserve, and he knew it. He was well aware that there were men and women out there that, unlike him, had actually done something to deserve the award.

He “knew” he didn’t deserve the award? You’re reading minds now? He said that his accomplishments to date were not enough to merit the award, and that he felt that he had been awarded the prize on the basis of the goals that he has set and the concrete steps that he has taken.

He manged to be gracious to the Nobel committee who gave him the award. He’s giving the money to charity. He’s using the award to push the very agenda that he was given the award for. You’re saying that anything he does or says short of throwing the award back in the committee’s face is insufficient for you. I say you’re setting goals at a place which would do more harm to America than him accepting the award.

[intention]

@Punoqllads

He “knew” he didn’t deserve the award? You’re reading minds now? He said that his accomplishments to date were not enough to merit the award, and that he felt that he had been awarded the prize on the basis of the goals that he has set and the concrete steps that he has taken.

He manged to be gracious to the Nobel committee who gave him the award. He’s giving the money to charity. He’s using the award to push the very agenda that he was given the award for. You’re saying that anything he does or says short of throwing the award back in the committee’s face is insufficient for you. I say you’re setting goals at a place which would do more harm to America than him accepting the award.

Throw the award back in the Committee’s face? You’re reading minds now? Because you surely are not reading what I wrote. I said nothing about throwing the award in the Committee’s face.

I said that he should graciously decline, with all of the wit and charm that he is noted for. How could that possibly harm America more than his accepting an award he didn’t deserve? Read the comment from the Times of London again … “vain, a fool and dangerously lost in his own mystique.” Do you truly think a gracious declining of the award would have done more harm than that? He has given his opponents all the ammunition they need … vain … a fool … and this is not from a Republican. It’s not from a terrorist.

We have once again shown the world that we are the Los Angeles of countries, that mythical territory where appearance is all, and substance and actual accomplishment means nothing. A territory where nothing is over the top, where no hype is too great, where all publicity is good publicity, where any award is automatically accepted, deserved or not. Where is the integrity in that?

Yes, he was gracious to the committee, gosh, that’s wonderful. And he’s giving the money to charity, wow, be still my beating heart. Yes, he made all the right noises, just like a third-rate actor accepting an Oscar … “I want to thank my manager, and my parents, and God for giving me this opportunity to win the Oscar, and my parents, and the Nobel Committee, oh, and Brad and Angelina for all their support” … and you are impressed by that? Do you celebrate all non-achievements in that way, or only his?

Nor am I reading minds. Obama said:

To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who’ve been honored by this prize

So no, I am not reading minds to say he felt he didn’t deserve the award. I’m reading words. His words. He said he didn’t deserve it. And unfortunately …

… he was right, but he didn’t act on that. He took the award that he says he didn’t deserve. And you want to celebrate that?

Pathetic.

w.

[gonzomax]

Grayson calls on American public to 'Unmask the Fed' - Raw Story Grayson and a couple representatives want Bernanke to provide info about who got the 1.2 trillion dollars. what they promised to get it and what they delivered. They want to hold up his approval until they get it. Grayson asks for what the taxpayers deserve.

[intention]

@kaylasdad99

You thought that was an argument? I won’t contest that it was puerile, meaningless and even imbecilic if you like, but an argument? Really?

Looked like a joke to me. Even a mildly funny one.

Lighten up, Francis.

Yeah, upon reflection you’re probably right, but after being attacked from all sides, you want to know what’s really funny?

I’m not in that humorous of a mood …

Anyhow, my apologies for not getting the joke, my thanks to you for pointing it out.

[kaylasdad99]

@intention

I’m not in that humorous of a mood …

No shit.

Certainly explains a lot.

Take care of yourself, man.

[elucidator]

For a guy who tearfully proclaims his martyrdom in the service of Truth, you are just a tad disingenuous.

For instance, this British pundit you keep hitting us in the head with, as if the sheer force of her respected opinion might be offered as evidence of…well, what, exactly? That you can find someone who thinks poorly of Obama? Is it somehow important that she is British? Apparently, you think this quote is solid evidence of something crucial, its like you run in and seize us by the lapels and shout “There’s a woman in England who thinks what I think!”

OK. So?

And this Lech Walesa stuff. What’s that supposed to be about? You make the inference that the DNC has insulted Lech Walesa, but, of course, Mr Walesa wasn’t mentioned, that inference is your own creation. In point of fact, Mr Walesa’s comment and the DNC statement broke news within minutes of each other, it is entirely likely that no one on the DNC even knew that Mr Walesa has made any statement.

And this stuff about Alfred Nobel’s will, which you keep slapping us with as though it is nearly as important as some British woman’s opinion…perhaps even more important and significant, as breathtaking as that may be!

Again, so effing what? Andrew Carnegie gave a fortune for libraries to be established in America, need we review his documents in order to decide which books to offer? Whether directly stated or no, the decision is now a matter of the assigned committee, the wording of Mr Nobel’s will has all the legal and moral weight of a butterfly fart.

And you seem to be at least two people arguing under the same name. One is painfully sensitive and proper, wouldn’t say “shit!” if he had a mouthful, and the other is perfectly at ease insulting the intelligence of anyone who disagrees. Its like hearing Miss Manners deliver advice on propriety with a cigarette dangling from her lip while she slams down another shot of cheap gin.

I think Obama probably held at least one meeting about this, I very, very much doubt he welcomed this news. What’s to gain? Surely doesn’t need the money, and double surely doesn’t need the ensuing grief. They probably considered declining the prize, but couldn’t think of a viable and diplomatic way to do so. There was no “good” response, so they picked the best of a bad lot: accept, but emphasize humility.

But they sure didn’t fool you, did they, nor did they fool Whats-her-face, the vitally important British pundit. You are utterly unwilling to extend the benefit of a doubt to someone you claim to support and admire. Rather odd, that.

And finally there is your lachrymose bleating about how badly treated you have been. Well, yes, you persist in poking someone with a stick, they are likely to get rather cross with you. Goes with the territory, bubbeh. I’ve had unpopular opinions all my adult life, and the lesson is simple: get over it, or STFU.