Obama's worst moment

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I generally don't think much of theoretical ethics myself, but I can't conceive of war as anything but evil. War inevitably involves inflicting great suffering and death on people who have done nothing to harm you.

I do agree that we should try to avoid war, but once war is inevitable or even the best or "least evil" option available, I do think that engaging in war can be moral. There's a Japanese saying, "the sword that kills is the sword that gives life"; it pretty much sums up my feelings on the issue.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I didn't see the speech, and I do think there is a lot of legitimate criticism to be leveled at Obama. However, in fairness, Obama didn't ask for the Nobel Peace Prize. He never represented himself as a dove and never compared himself to MLK or Ghandi that I am aware of **edit: before he was awarded the prize, I mean. Mentioning MLK and Ghandi and then comparing/contrasting his own views is an appropriate thing to do when accepting the Peace Prize. He said quite specifically during his career and during the presidential campaign that he thought the war in Afghanistan was right. It seems many people on the far Left were projecting their own views onto Obama, who is really a moderate as Sunstone has pointed out. And Obama admitted this exact thing in his book, The Audacity of Hope (that people project their own views onto him, since he is relatively unknown).

 

[Mr Spinkles]

But to say that when accepting a peace prize - THE peace prize?!

Exquisitely artless, and at least to me, unexpected.

I think you make a very good point, angellous. Let me throw this observation out there -- this is only tangentially related to the topic, it has nothing to do with Obama or your take on it per se:

You say "But [it was] artless" of Obama to say this while accepting the Peace prize. In other words, it is the truth, but our leaders should conceal the truth in order to preserve or exaggerate appearances to certain audiences.

Again, I sort of agree with your comment, you make a good point, but in general, isn't this a curious habit of mind that we have about politics?

Sort of related to my point: everyone absolutely must read George Orwell's essay, Politics and the English Language. One part actually made me laugh out loud on an airplane, once.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I guess the point I want to throw out there is this: if Obama's views are an embarrassment to the Nobel Peace Prize, the people who messed up, first and foremost, are the people on the committee who gave him the prize. Obama's views may be right or wrong, but to expect him to change his views because he got a prestigious prize is to expect him to be a phony, and to expect him to conceal his views is to expect him to be dishonest. Instead maybe we should be faulting the committee for bringing this embarrassment on their own prize and being caught in the delusion that Obama is on the far Left.

 

[Storm]

I agree with Spinks.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I saw a part of the speech at work, but because of the cold moving more people inside rather than outside, I couldn't actually hear it.
Didn't Obama win it for basically kissing every nation's butt attempting to make up for the foreign relations that Bush messed up?

 

[kai]

I agree with Spinks.

me too

 

[Jeremy Mason]

His acceptance speech for the Nobel Peace Prize.

I was deeply saddened to hear a man that I respect embarrass himself and his country with such a horrible, vile thing.

He mentioned himself along with other nobel prize winners - most notably Martin Luther King and Ghandi - and then talked about the notion of "just war," obviously talking about Afganistan.

I support Obama and I believe that war is necessary... but morally right?! Give me a break. That's the same argument that the Bush administration and their Christian goonies used for Iraq and Afganistan, and whatever else the Bush administration wanted to do.

How unfortunate to set aside the wisdom of King and Ghandi for a justification of war. And when accepting a peace prize. Obama didn't need to justify anything. Just say that the Bush administration got us into this mess and we're doing the best we can do clean it up.

Not your best, Obama.

I sadly agree.

 

[Smoke]

Obama's worst moment

So far.

 

[Magic Man]

So far.

Yeah, just give it time. More and more I have to say to myself "Well, at least we elected a non-white president" as a consolation. No matter what happens, I'm still happy about that part of it. I just hope there are more things than that to be happy about.

 

[MSizer]

Yeah, just give it time. More and more I have to say to myself "Well, at least we elected a non-white president" as a consolation. No matter what happens, I'm still happy about that part of it. I just hope there are more things than that to be happy about.

I understand the significance of breaking the trend of strictly electing white presidents, but to say "at least we elected a non-white..."? I'm not sure, is that necessarily something that should be considered?

Yeah, I guess so. (I'm typing as I think - sorry for the flip-flop). I guess ideally it wouldn't matter, but given the history, I suppose it does.

There's no doubt in my mind though that Obama contrasts Bush in integrity as much as in skin colour. I find he's eloquent, commands respect, open to various arguments on hot-button matters, and I'm very happy to see such a powerful country have a level-headed (IMO of course) leader.

I didn't hear his speech, but you guys make good points about his lack of humility in that case. I still don't understand why it was awarded to him in the first place. Did I miss something? Has there been an explanation?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I didn't hear his speech, but you guys make good points about his lack of humility in that case. I still don't understand why it was awarded to him in the first place. Did I miss something? Has there been an explanation?

Some people claim he got just because he's not Bush, when I doubt. I doubt McCain would have gotten it, and many other Democratic politicians probably wouldn't have been considered either. I'm pretty sure I heard it was due to him mending international affairs. Obama himself though did admit in one speech that he felt he didn't deserve it, and hadn't done enough to deserve it.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It seemed to me that his speeches concerning the prize as a whole are a laundry list of him admitting why he should not receive it.

He should have rejected it, and in doing so, he would have much more integrity.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

It seemed to me that his speeches concerning the prize as a whole are a laundry list of him admitting why he should not receive it.

He should have rejected it, and in doing so, he would have much more integrity.

Integrity and Politician in the same sentence

Nah, that couldn't be what I read.

 

[Magic Man]

I understand the significance of breaking the trend of strictly electing white presidents, but to say "at least we elected a non-white..."? I'm not sure, is that necessarily something that should be considered?

Yeah, I guess so. (I'm typing as I think - sorry for the flip-flop). I guess ideally it wouldn't matter, but given the history, I suppose it does.

That's the thing. Considering the history of racism, it's nice to see that we can elect someone even if they're not white. It would be nice if he was also a good president, too. I would rather the whole "non-white" thing be an added bonus rather than a consolation.

There's no doubt in my mind though that Obama contrasts Bush in integrity as much as in skin colour. I find he's eloquent, commands respect, open to various arguments on hot-button matters, and I'm very happy to see such a powerful country have a level-headed (IMO of course) leader.

Yes, he's definitely a step up from Bush, but that's not saying much.

 

[YamiB.]

Honestly I agree with Obama that war can be the morally right action. I'm not quite sure if I agree that it applies to the war in Afghanistan, but I would say he is right on a philosophical level.

I have problems with Obama, mostly that he is not liberal enough, but this isn't one of my strikes against him.

 

[Joe_Stocks]

It's good to see our little Barry grow up before our very eyes.

But seriously, it looks like a rather irrefutable common sense argument has irked the liberals (or whatever they are calling themselves these days) here.

He said that evil exists in the world. Is this a scandalous thing to say?

He said that the Nazis could not have been talked out of war. This is offensive to liberals now?

He said that negotiations will not lead to al-Qeada to lay down their arms. This is a controversial statement?

Sunstone talked about the bizarro world conservative live in. I think there needs to be a correction.

 

[Smoke]

I do agree that we should try to avoid war, but once war is inevitable or even the best or "least evil" option available, I do think that engaging in war can be moral. There's a Japanese saying, "the sword that kills is the sword that gives life"; it pretty much sums up my feelings on the issue.

I think it depends on whether you can separate an act from its intent. If we focus on the intent to stop Hitler, the firebombing of Dresden may be seen as moral act. I tend to focus on what's being done to other people, and to see it as tens of thousands of acts of burning a person to death.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I have problems with Obama, mostly that he is not liberal enough

Yes, being President is a "damned if you do damned if you don't" proposition.

Trying to be an "all things to all people" President is a thankless job.

It is lonely at the top. His lack of leadership is amplified by pursuing the impossible.

 

[dogsgod]

I understand the significance of breaking the trend of strictly electing white presidents, but to say "at least we elected a non-white..."? I'm not sure, is that necessarily something that should be considered?

Yeah, I guess so. (I'm typing as I think - sorry for the flip-flop). I guess ideally it wouldn't matter, but given the history, I suppose it does.

There's no doubt in my mind though that Obama contrasts Bush in integrity as much as in skin colour. I find he's eloquent, commands respect, open to various arguments on hot-button matters, and I'm very happy to see such a powerful country have a level-headed (IMO of course) leader.

I didn't hear his speech, but you guys make good points about his lack of humility in that case. I still don't understand why it was awarded to him in the first place. Did I miss something? Has there been an explanation?

Obama is a far more dangerous terrorist than Bush due to his ability to lead people further down that path. He's a very eloquent speaker, even when speaking from both sides of his mouth.