Obama Would Have Been Better Off Saying Simply "I Am Not Worthy" or “Nolo Episcopari”...

"[Dream Cafe. Jerry comes in.]

Babu Bhatt: Welcome to the Dream Cafe.

Jerry: Well, I've been looking forward to it.

Babu: Oh, how did you hear about us?

Jerry: Eh, people, people are talking.

Babu: Smoking or non smoking? We are proud to offer both.

Jerry: Non smoking would be great.

Babu: Very good. My name is Babu Bhatt, I will be your waiter. A steaming hot face cloth for your pleasure.

Jerry: Thank you. [Throws the towel around like a hot potato.]

Babu: Our specials are tacos, moussaka and franks and beans.

Jerry: Well, what do you recommend my good fellow?

Babu: Oh, the turkey.

Jerry: Oh, the turkey it'll be. And may I say you have a splendid establishment here , my friend. I'm sure you flourish in this location for many many years.

Babu: You're a very kind man. Very kind, thank you. Very kind...

Jerry thinks: Very kind. I am a kind man. Who else would do something like this? Nobody. Nobody thinks about people like I do. All right, snap out of it you stupid jerk. You're eating a turkey sandwich. What do you want, a Nobel Prize? "

http://www.seinfeldscripts.com/TheCafe.html

" President Obama could have said "I am not worthy," a true response that would also have kept him from the ridicule this Nobel Peace Prize designation has brought upon him. But it is not in his character."

Marty, that was exactly what the president said about the prize -- "I am not worthy".

The president did not earn the Nobel prize, however, it would be rude for him to reject it. Rudeness is not in his character. And neither is arrogance, which you seem to imply is in him. Only mindless critics, like you, Marty, would ridicule people for receiving an award they never asked or campaigned for.

Actually, the ridicule is on you and them for all the silliness.

"Marty, that was exactly what the president said about the prize -- "I am not worthy".

No, he said he was "greatly humbled". There is a difference.

" I'm reminded of the famous words once spoken by Golda Meir: "Don't be so humble, you're not that great."

http://www.facebook.com/martinkramer.page?ref=mf

"No, he said he was "greatly humbled". There is a difference."

But the president added: "Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments,.........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 "

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/10/09/transcript-of-obamas-remarks-on-...

How Marty could see that as hubris confounds me. But then Marty is adept at seeing negativity in the positive, especially if the object has managed to get in his crosshairs.

A person's word choice is not everyone else's word choice. I think Obama made a great short statement of Friday deflecting the negative potential of the whole deal, and I have to say that, watching him manage this, I was reminded once more of why we elected this guy over the other guy.

The nomination of Obama for the NPP a mere 11 days after taking office, and his subsequent (or perhaps consequent) winning of the prize after only 9 months in office and not having accomplished anything of note (even Arafat at least signed an agreement that at the time that many (not I) thought had a reasonable chance of ending the Israeli-Arab conflict) reminded me once more that, above all else, the Obama phenomenon is a personality cult, fed in no small part by his own narcissism and hubris.

Much has written elsewhere on just how ridiculous the whole thing is. Any further comment is superfluous.

Hershel Ginsburg

Efrata / Jerusalem

Indeed.

Increasingly, it appears Obama is not worthy enough to be in the same paragraph with Peretz. Nor with any of his authoritarian disciples here in The Spine. At least not when they are talking about the liberal lice bestowing accolades on Them.

One thinks back to Wayne and Garth backing away abjectly from Alice Cooper.

Or, perhaps, in imagining Obama backing away abashedly from the Pope, you get the same sense of disgust. Maybe Dowd will go there in her next installment of "Behind the Arab Curtain With The President".

And then [yawn, yawn, yawn and yawn] again: Arafat the murderer got The Prize!!!!!

On the other hand, so did Henry Kissinger....the mass murderer.

But on and on and on the prattling will go about a wicked world gone mad in not recognizing The Whole Truth about the anti-Zionist distortions and packs of lies in Copenhagen.

E-V-E-R-Y-T-H-I-N-G is about the world-wide anti-Zionist conspiracy eventually.

george

Figures that the Jew hating creep George Walton would get up in the middle of the night to compose a post that blames the Zionists for Obama's prize and its reaction.

It's all about the Jews with him.

His calling others "authoritarians" is a joke. This creep has tried to set himself up as an "authority" on every event in the news while in reality his knowledge of most events is next to nil.

Authoritarianism is the results of narcissists claiming an authority they do not possess.

"Or, perhaps, in imagining Obama backing away abashedly from the Pope, you get the same sense of disgust. "

It was Obama's backing away abashedly from the Dallai Lama that provoked the sense of disgust, george.

_________________

"Obama made a great short statement of Friday deflecting the negative potential of the whole deal,"

He has not deflected. For myself, I will continue sceptical until I hear what he has to say during the ceremony itself. I predict something to please everyone, along the lines of his inauguration speech. It won't matter one way or another since he seems to churn out speeches at such a rapid succession that no one pays much attention anyway. It's like watching one of those pleasant movies, that offer a mildly interesting story, good looking characters and a happy end. You enjoy them and then as soon as you step out of the theatre you forget all about them. Because ultimately they have little meaning beyond that of passing time. Maybe that implies some sort of meaning, too.

___________

"I was reminded once more of why we elected this guy over the other guy."

For you there was never any question, was there, irony? Were you ever tempted to vote for Hillary?

Of course, if she'd been the nominee. But being realistic it was difficult to imagine that, as she made such a catastrophic mess of her campaign. She assumed a set of things were going to happen one way, but they happened another way (as often happens in the real world), and that cost her the nomination. Obama did not make those assumptions, and won.

Before the campaign began, I was for Hillary. Then I switched to Obama very early on after the campaigning got personal. But, had Hillary won the primaries, I would have voted for her over McCain in the general election.

I'll still vote for her, I believe she's running in 2016, no doubt.

"Of course, if she'd been the nominee."

Exactly. so it's not a matter of ""I was reminded once more of why we elected this guy over the other guy."

It's a matter of foregone voting, for a Party, not one particular nominee, right? Since there was never any question who you would vote for, why do you congratulate yourself so on your perspicacity?

Then I misunderstood your point, Noga.

If it makes it clearer: watching the president on Friday, I was reminded of the qualities that he showed during the campaign that enabled him to win both the nomination and the general election.

noga:

It was Obama's backing away abashedly from the Dallai Lama that provoked the sense of disgust, george.

george:

Of course Obama is going to back away from the Dalia Lama! Wall Street would go ape shit if American foreign policy did not revolve first and foremost around sustaining "business as usual" with our "most favored nation" dictatorial trade partner in Beijing.

Corporate profits or political freedom in China?.....corporate profits or political freedom in China?.....corporate profits or political freedom in China?

Tough call, eh?

Are you one of those folks who believe that America has a "special interest" with Israel because it cherishes democracy in the Middle East? Or instead is it because, between AIPAC and the need to have an ally in the part of the world where all the oil is, money talks both here and abroad. Why in the world do you suppose the U.S. has to at least appear to be "evenhanded" in the Israel-Palestinian conflict? Because it has to placate our Arab/Muslim "allies" in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and all the mini oil kingdoms there.

Like so many others in here though you reduce American foreign and domestic policy down to "ideals" and "doing the right thing".

Obama it was dearly hoped would do the right thing by Israel. But Obama is no less ensnared in the world as it really functions [around political and economic power] than was Bush, Clinton and all the rest of them in the White House and Congress.

What bothers you most about me [and this is just a surmise of course] is not that I don't share your own idealism, but that I chip away at it piece by piece. You begin to see the nature of our Bilderberg world and you don't like it. That's not the way God wants it, is it? That's not the way the world SHOULD be, is it? It should be principled and moral and bursting at the seam with folks of integrity.

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Right?

george

Typical Jew obsessed George Wally dumbs ass post:

"Of course Obama is going to back away from the Dalia Lama!...."

Oh, of course.....

"Are you one of those folks who believe that America has a "special interest" with Israel because it cherishes democracy in the Middle East? Or instead is it because, between AIPAC ...."

Asks question and aswers them himself......

"Like so many others in here though you reduce American foreign and domestic policy down to "ideals" and "doing the right thing". "

Comment out of the blue....

Evidence for his assertion?

Not in Pig Walton's eye

"What bothers you most about me [and this is just a surmise of course] is not that I don't share your own idealism, but that I chip away at it piece by piece."

Assumes that he knows what his interlocutor feels or believes.....

George's conclusion:

"Ha! Ha! Ha!

Right?

george"

ha, ha, ha, Right George the ideal Jew hater.......

Notice how George has ot believe that he is having a real conversation with someone. This is why he takes both sides of an imaginary debate.

ha, ha, ha, George old boy is bonkers......

nuf said

While Koffi Annan cannot be bashed enough for his role in the Rwandan genocide and cowardly attempt to cover it up later, notice how Marty uses this event to bash his enemies (with the predicatble swipe at a Clinton), but not a word about the courageous human rights/peace activists who were worthy?

Telling.

Rather piquant I'd say and all to the point: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/12/opinion/12douthat.html !

George,

There is no reference in Marty's post to any supposed anit-Zionism on the part of the Nobel committee. So I too am constrained to question your assertion that everything (presumably according to Peretz) is about the anti-Zionist conspiracy.

As to Marty's post, I take his essential point to be that Obama should have said "I am not worthy" and then have nevertheless humbly accepted the prize. As Scubby points out, that is essentially what Obama said: "Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments,.........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." Would that Marty would explain why he does not think that is close enough.

Basman refers to an op-ed piece by Ross Douthat setting forth an argument that Obama should have rejected the peace prize. Douthart, of course, is a relatively obscure opinion writer who does not have to be concerned about what effect his unsolicited advice to the President would have on the international stage in Obama followed it. He says with an apparently straight face that the only people a rejection of the prize would affect are the 5 members of the Nobel Committee, and implies that it has no significance beyond that committee. What basis is there for believing that Douthart is smarter, more politically savvy, more attuned to international relations and more responsible than Obama's advisors were in making their calculation as to how Obama should respond to having been awarded the prize? Are his advisors merely starry-eyed Obamaphiles? Indeed, in using that epithet with regard to Obama's supporters, Douthat betrays that he begins the discussion from a position of antipathy toward Obama. To paint supporters of Obama and/or his policies with that broad and insulting brush is no more valid than painting opponents of Obama's policies as racist.

I perhaps misread Peretz’s post. I thought that even while he explained the Anglican tradition resulting in acceptance, his counsel to Obama was to reject the prize. Fwiiw and as a bit of circumstantial evidence for my reading of the post I offer the tease on TNR’s home page: “Peretz: Why Obama Should Have Turned Down the Nobel Prize.”

A second argument I’d make for my reading of the post is, as Dhurtado astutely points out, Obama is in effect saying I’m not worthy and, pace the Anglican, then going on to accept the word. I don’t say that Peretz is the world’s most impeccable reasoner but it’s simply too incoherent to blame Obama for doing what Peretz ,on Dhurtado’s construction, is saying he should do. One answer to that incoherence may be Peretz thinking that in his few words last week Obama wasn’t saying “I’m not worthy.” But: 1. It’s virtually impossible on any objective view of what Obama said that he wasn’t in effect saying “I’m not worthy” and (2) we’ll never know what Peretz had in mind. So for those reasons, I’m sticking to my interpretation of the post.

It matters not whether Douthat is obscure or as well known as Mordecai “Three Fingers” Brown. What matters is his argument, which is a good one: gracefully and graciously turn down the award and jujitsu a political embarrassment into a welcome self deprecating political gain. Just as Obama winning the prize will have not the slightest effect on other nations pursuing their interest neither will his nice and polite turning down of it.

Similarly it matters not, and is a misconceived irrelevancy, whether Douthat is more “savvy” than Obama’s advisors, whatever that might even mean. The issue, again, is the strength of the ideas and the arguments advanced therefor. Comparing the collective wisdom of Obama’s advisors to Douthat’s is a way of avoiding the issue under cover of an irrelevant question begging assertion.

Finally, but again similarly, trying to discredit Douthat’s argument on the basis of his colorful reference to overzealous Obamphiles is to make polemical mountain out of a molehill of incidental phrasing. And that polemical mountain is beside Douthat’s point as I read it. As I argued on a different thread and gave examples, even amongst Liberal commentators there is a growing impatience with Obama’s endless high rhetoric which seems out of whack with what he has done, which might be encapsulated by the Yiddish rooted phrase “enough already”.

The premature Nobel award, not Obama’s fault of course, seemed an apotheosis of that impatience. And it’s highly arguable that both substantively and politically Obama in politely and nicely refusing the award would have been doing the right thing. This argument rests not on the foundation of Obama zealots but on the foundation of mainstream opinion and where the independent voters are these days. So to go charging into equivalence land, where we get a pairing of absurdities, all critics of Obama are racists just as all supporters of Obama are zealots, is to be whipping on a hysterical horse.

Basman,

What you say about the irrelevance of of Douthat's credentials and biases would be true if in fact Douthart's argument had any content the merits of which could be evaluated. His argument is based on conclusory assertions that are either absurd on their face (e.g., that only the the 5 Nobel committee members would be negatively affected by a rejection of the prize) or not falsifiable. Faced with an argument that has no substance to evaluate, the biases that the author brings to the argument become relevant in determining what weight should be given his arguments. Let's be honest Basman. You find Douthat's piece persuasive because it comports with your pre-judgment of the issue. But Douthat's argument is not based on any genuine, good faith analysis. And the reference to Obama supporters as starry-eyed Obamaphiles is not merely a "molehill of incidental phrasing." It is an allegation that supporters of Obama are cult-like followers who are completely uncritical of his policies and decisions. You certainly did not regard Carter's comments as a "molehill of incidental phrasing," even though he clearly was not purporting to describe all opponents of Obama's agenda.

Here is what opponents of Obama cannot stand: That his charisma, communication skills, ability to reach out and his philosophy that the United States should work with the rest of the world rather than try to dominate it or defy it actually amount to something more than star-power; that he has changed the tone of international relations in a way that may faciliate resolution of some of the world's intractible problems. That is what the Nobel committee was purporting to recognize and encourage. It is certainly possible, indeed probable, that the world's conflicts are beyond Obama's ability to ameliorate. But intransigence and chauvinism clearly will not win the day.

Do you remember the time when Bill Clinton was asked by a pair of pretty girls in the audience whether he prefers briefs or boxers? He responded by expressing his incredulity hat such a question would be asked and then proceeded to answer it, with a flirtatious smile. I thought then how very Billish that was, his inability to resist the temptation to indulge in risquee repartee when the fair members of the other sex so obviously courted him.

Likewise, Obama has something of a tragic flaw: he cannot genuinely resist admirers even when they support him for the wrong reasons. If you recall how long it took him to denounce and distance himself from Louis Farrakhan during that famous debate with Hillary Clinton:

SEN. OBAMA: You know, I have been very clear in my denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I think that they are unacceptable and reprehensible.

***

I did not solicit this support. He expressed pride in an African-American who seems to be bringing the country together. I obviously can't censor him, but it is not support that I sought. And we're not doing anything, I assure you, formally or informally with Minister Farrakhan.

***

MR. RUSSERT: Do you reject his support?
.

SEN. OBAMA: Well, Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy. (Laughter.) You know, I -- you know, I -- I have been very clear in my denunciations of him and his past statements, and I think that indicates to the American people what my stance is on those comments.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2008/02/obama-farrakhan-and-how-hillary-cli...

This is the key phrase:

"Tim, you know, I can't say to somebody that he can't say that he thinks I'm a good guy. "

And another key response is the choir-like (Laughter.) that follows on this cleverism.

Since the Norwegians are so much better than Farrakhan, it it probably unthinkable and practically an impossibility for Obama to bring himself to reject their offering.

Dhurtado, maybe it’s just me, but I have notice an increasing tendency in your posts, at least those addressed to me, and in the infamous McWhorter one—yes, I forgive you, we all lapse from time to time--to make psychological arguments rather than substantive ones. Here too:

1…Let's be honest Basman. You find Douthat's piece persuasive because it comports with your pre-judgment of the issue…

2… But Douthat's argument is not based on any genuine, good faith analysis….

3. …Here is what opponents of Obama cannot stand: That his charisma, communication skills, ability to reach out and his philosophy that the United States should work with the rest of the world rather than try to dominate it or defy it actually amount to something more than star-power; that he has changed the tone of international relations in a way that may faciliate resolution of some of the world's intractible problems…

Your reading of Douthat is, respectfully, unsupple. And I’m betting you were not an English major. Consider:

“…So turning it down would have been a slap in the face, yes, to Thorbjorn Jagland, Kaci Kullmann Five, Sissel Marie Ronbeck, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn and Agot Valle. But it wouldn’t have been a slap in the face to the Europeans or the Africans, to Moscow or Beijing, or to any other population or great power that an American president should fret about offending...”

his is not an empirical assertion needing a methodology to ascertain its falsifiability. It’s a colorful, journalistic way of saying “really who gives a shit?” It uses the literary device of metonym to make that point by saying the 5 on Committee would have been offended, but who else. The issue isn’t a head count. The issue for Douthat’s argument is that in reality Obama had little lose to turn down the prize gracefully and graciously and a lot to gain politically, particularly at home. So you wind up misreading this entirely and offer your misreading as example for your mischaracterization that

… if in fact Douthart's argument had any content the merits of which could be evaluated. His argument is based on conclusory assertions that are either absurd on their face (e.g., that only the the 5 Nobel committee members would be negatively affected by a rejection of the prize) or not falsifiable…

And you proceed with this flawed line of reasoning because it proceeds from your flawed premise that then merges with your tendency to make psychological arguments, (which is all ironic considering you misread Douthat in the first place):

…Faced with an argument that has no substance to evaluate, the biases that the author brings to the argument become relevant in determining what weight should be given his arguments….

I have already laid out Ross’s argument. So I need not repeat it. It’s a good argument and there are arguments to be made against it. So make them if you care to and leave the anatomizing of motives and biases et al to the anatomizers of those things.

Finally these kinds of psychological arguments *can* lead to the logical fallacy of infinite regress, which is also an argument against post modernism. If I am subject to my predilections, biases, etc., why aren’t you? And if you and I are, why isn’t everybody else? And then where are we?

I think Obama had a difficult job in that debate, as he was trying to split off the positive Farrakhan (the one who talks about black self-reliance and is popular among African-Americans) from the negative Farrakhan (the antisemitic rabble-rouser), in such a way as not to give the impression he was just falling in with the white American line on LF.

Clinton didn't have this problem, so she could just press the trigger and keep firing. Obama, at that point, had still to convince blacks that he was a candidate with a real shot at winning and someone who understood something of their cultural paranoia too.

"I think Obama had a difficult job in that debate, as he was trying to split off the positive Farrakhan (the one who talks about black self-reliance and is popular among African-Americans) from the negative Farrakhan (the antisemitic rabble-rouser), in such a way as not to give the impression he was just falling in with the white American line on LF."

And I suppose it is high time Germans tried to split off the positive Hitler (the one who restored the German people's glorious faith in themselves, lifted them out of their wretched recession and created jobs for them) from the negative Hitler ((the antisemitic rabble-rouser and genocider)... Where does it end, ironyroad? And by "it" I don't mean Obama's attempts to talk people into moral lassitude but your own ever more plastic understanding of such attempts.

Hitler, so the saying goes, was not a genuine antisemite. He only used the antisemitic meme by way of rallying the people around him. A perfectly good cause, understandable and explainable, I daresay.

Who's Hitler now, Obama or Farrakhan? Or me?

I'd just like to be clear, before we go any further.

"Who's Hitler now, Obama or Farrakhan? Or me?"

Such anger!

".. the positive Farrakhan (the one who talks about black self-reliance and is popular among African-Americans) from the negative Farrakhan (the antisemitic rabble-rouser)...

... the positive Hitler (the one who restored the German people's glorious faith in themselves, lifted them out of their wretched recession and created jobs for them) from the negative Hitler ((the antisemitic rabble-rouser and genocider)...

No. You, ironyroad, remind me mostly of the German nobleman Maximilian von Heune, from Cabaret, re-assuring his friends that the German Elite were only tolerating Hitler because he was useful in getting rid of the communists. Once his job was done, no one will hear of Herr Hitler anymore...

"Noble" as in "Noble gas", an element with its outer p orbital filled, so it fends off everything, doesn't react, and nothing can harm or interfere with it.

Noga, I should perhaps note that I was not expressing anger of any kind but rather my dislike of Hitler analogies that I believe are inappropriate and designed to give the analogy-author an edge in the discussion that he or she doesn't deserve on the merits.

Obama could have said that he rejected Farrakhan's antisemitic remarks and diatribes, right? But that's exactly what he did say ("unacceptable and reprehensible"). Clinton was trying to imply, however, that it wasn't a full and complete rejection, because somehow he was enjoying "support."

She also knew, as did Obama, that Obama would be faulted by blacks for buying into white America's line on Farrakhan if he went down that road. I believe he got out of that awkward bind quite effectively, without either getting fuzzy on his rejection of Farrakhan's antisemitism (and related notions) or sounding like he was just channeling white disdain for the man.

So, rather than the shadows of Hitler, I see a democratic electoral struggle under way between two smart and capable politicial adversaries.

"She also knew, as did Obama, that Obama would be faulted by blacks for buying into white America's line on Farrakhan if he went down that road."

And that would be an unacceptably high price to pay for choosing to take a clear and unambiguous moral position, including the rejection of supporters who are so clearly antisemitic? Would he have accepted the support of Jews, who were racists?

What does it mean, ironyroad? I asked: Where does it end?

Frankly, I don't see that the analogy of Farrakhan/Hitler such a stretch. Maybe for you it is. I daresay you can see merits in Farrakhan that I, in my Jewish sensitivity, am incapable of accepting as even remotely tolerable. It is, according to you, my fault for failing to see that the consummate antisemite who is responsible for much of black lurid antisemitism, is doing good work for his people.

Your apparent animus toward Obama is becoming a little strange, Noga, and sometimes I don't quite know how to respond. Clinton -- in order to win the Democratic primaries, let us recall, not for any abstract principle -- was trying to say that Obama was in cahoots with the antisemitic demagogue Farrakhan and Obama was saying, no I'm not, and I can say with clarity that I reject that hate-filled antisemitic rhetoric of his. She (and Russert) were then trying to claim that, well, if you really rejected it you'd say you don't want his support in any shape or form. Obama knew that she wanted to get him to buy publicly into a white American hatred for Farrakhan which would then have blacks saying, you know, I don't like Farrakhan but I like even less how Obama was joining in dissing him on that debate. Obama needed to get out of that trap and I don't think his remarks were antisemitic, dangerous, weak, corrupt, or even fuzzy. I'd like to emphasize that Obama shares your position that Farrakhan's antisemitic rhetoric is "not remotely tolerable" and he said so in the damn debate.

OK, Basman, perhaps my arguments are slipping into the "psychological." Trying to carry on a discussion of the Spine blog can push one into that mind-set. Or perhaps I am just more cranky lately. In any event, let me try to respond without psychological arguments.

Let's start with the key passage in Douthat's piece that you say I have misread:

“…So turning [the Peace Prize] down would have been a slap in the face, yes, to Thorbjorn Jagland, Kaci Kullmann Five, Sissel Marie Ronbeck, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn and Agot Valle. But it wouldn’t have been a slap in the face to the Europeans or the Africans, to Moscow or Beijing, or to any other population or great power that an American president should fret about offending...”

You say that is "not an empirical assertion needing a methodology to ascertain its falsifiability. It’s a colorful, journalistic way of saying “really who gives a shit?” It uses the literary device of metonym to make that point by saying the 5 on Committee would have been offended, but who else. The issue isn’t a head count. The issue for Douthat’s argument is that in reality Obama had little lose to turn down the prize gracefully and graciously and a lot to gain politically, particularly at home."

I don't understand why you regard Douthat's statement as not an empirical assertion. It may contain some hyperbole in that he does not mean literally that only 5 people in the world would be offended if Obama rejected the prize. But he clearly is making the empirical assertion that few people or nations outside the Committee would care. The substantial truth of that statement is necessary to the argument that Obama has little to lose by rejecting the prize or that a cost-benefit analysis should have led to his rejecting the award. But Douthat says nothing that should persuade anybody to believe that statement who doesn't already believe it. He just says it. I don't expect him to have conducted an international survey, but, unless he can articulate some persuasive reason to believe the statement is true, it is a weak premise for the argument that Obama had nothing, or little, to lose by rejecting the award.

My view is that the foregoing is emblematic of Douthat's entire piece. Below, if you care to read the remainder of this post, I respond seriatum to his assertions.

“Here was an opportunity to cut himself free, in a stroke, from the baggage that’s weighed his presidency down — the implausible expectations, the utopian dreams, the messianic hoo-ha.”
What is this baggage that has weighed Obama’s presidency down? I have not heard anyone refer to Obama in messianic or utopian terms other than mockingly. For example, I have heard people use the word “messiah” to mock the excitement than many blacks felt about Obama’s presidency. I disagree that Obama has been weighed down by “implausible” expectations from which he needs to extricate himself. If anything, it has been weighed down by issues that he has had no choice but to try to address: the economy, health care, two wars, terrorism, Iran and North Korea, just to name a few. Perhaps the “expectations” Douthat refers to are the expectations that Obama would try to tamp down international stridency and try to open diplomatic channels. Perhaps Douthat disagrees with that objective or believes it is an “implausible expectation,” but unless it is Obama’s wish to abandon that objective, why should he have wanted to “cut himself free” from it?
“Here was a place to draw a clean line between himself and all the overzealous Obamaphiles, at home and abroad, who poured their post-Christian, post-Marxist yearnings into the vessel of his 2008 campaign.”
This is essentially the same argument -- that Obama should separate himself from those who have “post-Christian, post-Marxist yearnings[.]” Just what is Douthat talking about here? What is it that he regards as “post-Christian, post-Marxist yearnings”? The “overzealous Obamaphiles” are who? Those who think he might make a difference on the international stage? Since that is Obama’s objective, why should we want to separate himself from it?
“Here was a chance to establish himself, definitively, as an American president — too self-confident to accept an unearned accolade, and too instinctively democratic to go along with European humbug.”
Though I respect the view that the prize was premature, I do not agree that it is an “unearned accolade.” As the Nobel Committee stated, he was given the award, unanimously after much debate, because it was the Committee’s view that he had done more than any other person during the past year to promote peace, citing the “change in global mood brought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation. [The Committee] also praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.” Clearly Obama has tried to do those things and has reached out to other nations in that effort. You may disagree that those are worthy objectives, but that does not mean that the accolades are unearned from the perspective of those who believe they are worthy objectives. Or you may believe that, because there has not been much concrete progress toward those objectives, the accolade is unearned. But Obama certainly is not the first to receive a Nobel Peace Prize without his or her efforts having had concrete results, e.g., Kissinger, Peres, Begin and Arafat.
And what does Douthat mean by “European humbug”? The fact that Norway is a European country? That Europeans’ reaction to Obama is humbug? And what does democracy have to do with it? To me, the phrase “too instinctively democratic to go along with European humbug” has no meaning to which I can respond.
“Would the world have been offended [if Obama refused to accept the prize]? Well, to start with, the prize isn’t given out by an imaginary “world community.” It’s voted on and handed out by a committee of five obscure Norwegians. So turning it down would have been a slap in the face, yes, to Thorbjorn Jagland, Kaci Kullmann Five, Sissel Marie Ronbeck, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn and Agot Valle. But it wouldn’t have been a slap in the face to the Europeans or the Africans, to Moscow or Beijing, or to any other population or great power that an American president should fret about offending.” (Emphasis added.)
I disagree with the last sentence. Indeed, it strikes me as patently absurd. At minimum, the nation of Norway would have been offended, and it is highly likely that Europe, and even Russia, China and certain African countries would have regarded it as a gesture of disrespect and ingratitude, indeed, even arrogance.
“In any case, it will be far more offensive when Obama takes the stage in Oslo this November instead of Morgan Tsvangirai, Zimbabwe’s heroic opposition leader; or Thich Quang Do, the Buddhist monk and critic of Vietnam’s authoritarian regime; or Rebiya Kadeer, exiled from China for her labors on behalf of the oppressed Uighur minority; or anyone who has courted death this year protesting for democracy in the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
Fighting oppression, as the people Douthat notes have done, is noble. But it is not the same as working for peace. And who besides Douthat is going to be offended on that basis when Obama takes the stage in Oslo? He doesn’t tell us, so it is difficult to respond. I cannot conceive of anyone being offended by Obama taking the stage in Oslo who is not already offended by the fact that Obama was awarded the prize.
“True, Obama didn’t ask for this. It was obvious, from his halting delivery and slightly shamefaced air last Friday, that he wishes the Nobel committee hadn’t put him in this spot.
“But he still wasn’t brave enough to tell it no.”
I disagree. I did not see in Obama’s delivery or demeanor a “shamefaced air” or a wish that he had not been put on the spot by the Nobel committee. I saw a recognition that many would regard the prize as premature, and so he expressed humility, acknowledged that he might not yet have earned the award, but stated that he would accept it on behalf of America’s peace efforts. I think he (and his advisors) calculated that rejecting the award would cause negative repercussions internationally, and that the better course was to accept the award and to use it to advance his international agenda. You may disagree with that agenda, but it is Obama who was elected to the presidency, and he is right to use the award in a way that he calculates will help advance his agenda.
“Obama gains nothing from the prize. No domestic constituency will become more favorably disposed to him because five Norwegians think he’s already changed the world — and the Republicans were just handed the punch line for an easy recession-era attack ad. (To quote the Democratic strategist Joe Trippi, anticipating the 30-second spots to come: “He got a Nobel Prize. What did you get? A pink slip.”)”
It is a fools’ errand to try to avoid attacks by the Republicans. I do not agree that the prize does not enhance Obama’s stature among any domestic constituency. There are those even on the TNR blog who have said otherwise, and people around me were quite moved by the realization that, perhaps more than in his own country, Obama’s efforts are highly regarded and inspiring to much of the international community.
“Overseas, there was nobody, from Paris to Peshawar, who woke up Friday more disposed to work with the United States because of the Nobel committee’s decision — and plenty of more seasoned statesman who woke up laughing. (Vladimir Putin probably hasn’t snickered this much since John McCain tried to persuade Americans that “we are all Georgians” during last year’s weeklong war.)”
This passage is particularly impervious to falsification. We can’t know what any world leader’s disposition was when he or she woke up on Friday. And the parenthetical statement is purely a throw away. As a factual matter, according the Committee, the majority of world leaders reacted positively to Obama receiving the award, and most of the criticism has come from the media and Obama’s political rivals.
“Meanwhile, the prize makes every foreign-policy problem Obama faces seem ever so slightly more burdensome. Now he’s the Nobel laureate who has to choose between escalating a counterinsurgency in Afghanistan or ceding ground to a theocratic mafia. He’s the Nobel laureate who’ll either have to authorize military strikes against Iran or construct an effective, cold-war-style deterrence system for the Middle East. He’s the Nobel laureate who’ll probably fail, like every U.S. president before him, to prod Israelis and Palestinians toward a comprehensive settlement.”
I don’t agree that the prize will materially affect Obama’s foreign policy decisions. I have no reason to believe that Obama is so malleable, and too much respect for him to believe that. Of course, I cannot know how this will affect Obama psychologically with regard to foreign policy, but neither can Douthat. And if Obama would be so affected, why wouldn’t the mere fact that the Nobel committee sought to honor him have the same effect? On the other hand, even if the prize were to in fact embolden Obama to choose a course in Afghanistan that will realize our legitimate objectives at minimum cost in terms of human life, or to consider military force against Iran only as a last result, that is a good result. True, he will likely fail to broker an Israeli/Palestinian settlement. But that will not be because he is not a hawk. It will be because the problem is intractable. And again, there are prior Nobel laureates who failed to broker a Middle East peace. Were they told that they should reject the prize? Should they have?
“At the same time, the prize leaves Obama more open to ridicule. It confirms, as a defining narrative of his presidency, the gap between his supporters’ cloud-cuckoo-land expectations and the inevitable disappointments of reality. It dovetails perfectly with the recent “Saturday Night Live” sketch in which he was depicted boasting about a year’s worth of nonaccomplishments. And it revives and ratifies John McCain’s only successful campaign gambit — his portrayal of Obama as “the world’s biggest celebrity,” famous more for being famous than for any concrete political accomplishment.”
This simply repeats the ad hominem argument that Obama’s supporters are delusional about his abilities, and so he should slap them into reality by refusing the prize. I incorporate my response above.

"Your apparent animus toward Obama is becoming a little strange, Noga,"

Your obvious infatuation with Obama is becoming increasingly and undeniably pronounced, ironyroad. I know it is foolish to try to disenchant a lover. I truly wonder, though, how deep and entrenched is this infatuation. You really express yourself as if Obama can do no wrong. Everything he says is justifiable, one way or another. You have such faith in him and you get all uppity and vehement when I point out his failings. I find him tedious and his oratorics do not impress me. I'm also not a great believer in hope as a policy. But apparently this now counts for animus. If I do not admire Obama, I am "strangely" against Obama. Hasn't the wheel turned a full circle here?

"Obama knew that she wanted to get him to buy publicly into a white American hatred for Farrakhan which would then have blacks saying, you know, I don't like Farrakhan but I like even less how Obama was joining in dissing him on that debate"

If blacks do not like Farrakhan (presumably because he is antisemitic?) I cannot see how Obama dissing him could have been ill received by them, or why that would be a good enough reason not to say, and do, the right thing. Wouldn't that have been "a teachable moment"?

But I will accept your judgment, that it would be too much to expect of any politician to put principle before popularity.

"You really express yourself as if Obama can do no wrong. Everything he says is justifiable, one way or another."

That's a lie. And it echoes a particular kind of nonsense that a number of other posters have tried on this board over the past 18 months or so, implying that everyone who supported Obama was an uncritical cultist, devoid of common sense or objectivity.

I'm glad that Obama won. I accept also that lots of people, even one or two in Canada, aren't . But I'm not anyone else's ideological projection and I'm very happy to list the points in which I've been very disappointed in Obama since January. What I'm not prepared to do is look at a brief exchange back in the primary debates and roll over when someone implies that he was conceding to antisemitism.

And as a footnote I'd like to copy the sentence of mine you ignored, to wit:

"I'd like to emphasize that Obama shares your position that Farrakhan's antisemitic rhetoric is "not remotely tolerable" and he said so in the damn debate."

Any evidence to the contrary?

"Any evidence to the contrary?"

Red herring. That is not my beef with Obama. I'll make it easy for you and quote your very astute quantification of his calculatiive nature:

"Obama had a difficult job in that debate, as he was trying to split off the positive Farrakhan (the one who talks about black self-reliance and is popular among African-Americans) from the negative Farrakhan (the antisemitic rabble-rouser), in such a way as not to give the impression he was just falling in with the white American line on LF."

And I ask, again, a question to which you provide no answer:

"If blacks do not like Farrakhan (presumably because he is antisemitic?) I cannot see how Obama dissing him could have been ill received by them, or why that would be a good enough reason not to say, and do, the right thing."

To repeat:

"or why that would be a good enough reason not to say, and do, the right thing."

__________________

"...everyone who supported Obama was an uncritical cultist, devoid of common sense or objectivity."

I don't know about "everyone" but it is my perception that you certainly are uncritical of Obama to the point of having dispensed, when it comes to defending him, with your critical faculties otherwise always in such sharp display here.

Face it, ironyroad, you are really not that self-aware.

I notice your north by northeast sneer. If Canadians cannot find nice things to think and say about Obama, Canadians are well advised not to say anything. Got it.

Come to think of it, since Canadians by and large are in habit of swooning over Obama, and I see no reason why savvy ironyroad would not be fully aware of this fact, then I have to conclude that he literally means "even one or two in Canada,". That is, the one or two in Canada who are not happy with Obama. That would be, I guess, one or two of a certain... let's say, dismissable ethnicity?

I hold neither you nor your ethnicity to be "dismissable," Noga, as well you know. I do dismiss some people but group-dismissing is not me. Also, I imagine finding Jewish Canadians who like Obama would not be that difficult. So your point is . . . ?

I don't believe what I asked was a red herring, as (perhaps unwittingly) the implication that Obama was being fuzzy on Farrakhan's antisemitism was present in your earlier comments.

I also thought I answered your question, but I'll try again:

a) I don't believe that black Americans dislike Farrakhan because of his antisemitism in particular, but because of his general style of extreme provocation and his loudmouthed egoism. Many dislike the Nation of Islam. However, for a few different reasons, the same black Americans would often find themselves on Farrakhan's side if he were to be attacked by whites in a public forum, and blacks who joined in would be seen as opportunistically falling in with white contempt for a powerful African American figure who makes them feel on edge and uneasy. It may not be rational, it may not be principled, but that is, I think, the way it is. Clinton was cleverly trying to get Obama to make that misstep, because she knew that she had a lot of black support at that stage, but could lose it if Obama gained more credibility.

b) I thought that Obama did indeed do the right thing in that (electoral) context: he clearly stated where he stood in respect of the antisemitic outpourings but said quite correctly that he had no power to prevent Farrakhan from expressing support of him.

c) I take Obama's description of Farrakhan's antisemitic rhetoric to be what it said.

I am indeed not so self-aware, and never claimed to be.

And finally:

I wasn't sneering.

busy and tired give me a bit of time to try and respond though I'm not sure the article deserves this much attention. it's not a sonnet by Shakespeare.

Now I've read it again, I think my comment about "one or two in Canada" was inappropriate (although not meant maliciously) and I'd like to withdraw it and apologize for implying that you had no right to say whatever you want on Obama, the U.S., or anything else.

But (you can stop reading here if you like!) if I may try to explain what I was getting at at that moment, perhaps some of my approach might be more understandable.

I remember emailing with the very nice production manager at the press about some negligable thing a couple of days before the election. She got back to me, saying she couldn't think about work stuff because she was "so sick with anxiety about the election and everything."

I think the movement from "sick with anxiety" to relief and happiness was quite substantial for a lot of people. We believe we have historical openings for major reform in many areas of public policy; we believe we can restore a level of credible American leadership in the world based on something other than "either you're for us or against us!" Et cetera. And you are quite entitled to find all of that pretty unimpressive or downright contemptible.

But, if you're in Canada, your health care system is not going to be impacted if this administration's struggle to reform ours goes down in flames. If you're in Canada, you don't have Guantanamo, which we have to close down so it isn't a running sore on our reputation as a nation of laws. If you're in Canada, you don't have to deal with a rapacious financial sector wanting the right to gamble unsupervised with everyone else's future. In Canada, you don't have a lunatic right that tries to challenge the president's (or prime minister's) citizenship. So for me there's an existential dimension to any discussion of Obama's presidency and I feel a responsibility, as this is a public forum, to deal with accusations, hostile interpretations, etc as they come. The stakes are a bit higher here than there, that's all I was trying to say.

".... the movement from
"sick with anxiety"
to
relief and happiness

was quite substantial
for
a lot of people.

We believe
we have historical openings
for major reform
in many areas of public policy;

we believe
we can restore a level of
credible
American
leadership

in the world
based on something
other than

"either
you're
for us
or
against us!"

Et cetera.

And you are quite entitled to find all of that
pretty unimpressive or downright contemptible."

Oh dear. I was way off the mark describing your state as infatuation. This sounds like devotional hymn Jews sing during the Passover Seder, no less when they are celebrating their delivery from slavery.

The following is premature but its time will come:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3mC4485Ue0

A clever avoidance, by way of typography.

I think the sneer is now clearly audible, but it's not from me.

Ironyroad, when you decide to season your words with sneers and innuendos, you should be prepared to get some sarcastic returns on that investment.

oh, and btw, you are basically correct about Canada only a mite cautious downwards.

There is no gold to be scooped up in the street, but the sidewalks are padded with cotton-encased down feathers to provide anyone slipping on the ice with a warm and soft hug.

When you go to the clinic you don't even have to wait 6 hours for a doctor to see you. The doctor is actually standing on the doorstep waiting for you, eagerly.

You pay so very little by way of taxes and then when you are prescribed a more expensive medicine, you get it for free at the pharmacy!

And everyone is walking about with big sunny smiles greeting each other with cheery good mornings and I'm sorries.

What I said was:

"I'm glad that Obama won. I accept also that lots of people, even one or two in Canada, aren't . But I'm not anyone else's ideological projection and I'm very happy to list the points in which I've been very disappointed in Obama since January. What I'm not prepared to do is look at a brief exchange back in the primary debates and roll over when someone implies that he was conceding to antisemitism."

I don't see any sneering tone there and I apologized for any innuendo in the Canada remark, which was meant to be a jocular aside but wrongly implied that you had no business expressing an opinion on the U.S.

I then tried to explain in more detail what motivates some of my exchanges (and, I think, not just mine), which summoned an exercise in typographical adjustment on your part.

Followed by what I assume is a satirical description of the Canadian health care system (it's not heaven on earth, I gather). Most Canadians I've met seem to be happy with it, however.

So, if you don't actually want to engage with any points, responses, or questions coming from my side, that's fine.

The duel

The gingham dog and the calico cat
Side by side on the table sat;
'T was half-past twelve, and (what do you think!)
Nor one nor t' other had slept a wink!
The old Dutch clock and the Chinese plate
Appeared to know as sure as fate
There was going to be a terrible spat.
(I wasn't there; I simply state
What was told to me by the Chinese plate!)

The gingham dog went "bow-wow-wow!"
And the calico cat replied "mee-ow!"
The air was littered, an hour or so,
With bits of gingham and calico,
While the old Dutch clock in the chimney place
Up with its hands before its face,
For it always dreaded a family row!
(Now mind: I'm only telling you
What the old Dutch clock declares is true!)

The Chinese plate looked very blue,
And wailed, "Oh, dear! what shall we do!"
But the gingham dog and the calico cat
Wallowed this way and tumbled that,
Employing every tooth and claw
In the awfullest way you ever saw -
And, oh! how the gingham and calico flew!
(Don't fancy I exaggerate -
I got my news from the Chinese plate!)

Next morning, where the two had sat
They found no trace of dog or cat;
And some folks think unto this day
That burglars stole that pair away!
But the truth about the cat and pup
Is this: they ate each other up!
Now what do you really think of that!
(The old Dutch clock it told me so,
And that is how I came to know.)

Eugene Field

" Most Canadians I've met seem to be happy with it, however."

I suppose it should be a great comfort for me to know that most Canadians you've met seem to be happy with it...

I don't know. I do know that the fact that polls report most Americans "happy" with their current health coverage is not a comfort to me, as they are happy with something that is unsustainable.

Basman,

I agree that the Douthat piece does not warrant further attention. Indeed, I would feel sheepish if you actually took the time to further respond. But be my guest if you wish.

basman, your rhyming couplets (ok, Field's) are hypnotically chastizing.

You should go into the chastizing business!

I had an excellent teacher. I had a Jewish mother.

For example:

A Jewish guy is an hour late for his early morning session with his shrink. He comes rushing in and the shrink is furious, his whole schedule knocked to hell, and demands an explanation. The Jewish guy says, "I'm so sorry, but I had a night mare last night. In it was my mother and worse you were my mother. I couldn't sleep. I tossed and I turned and finally fell asleep just when Morning Joe started. I slept in, had a piece of toast for breakfast and got over here in a rush. Again, I'm so sorry". The shrink says, "Well that's very interesting and we are going to have to get into the meaning of your dream. But...