Euro angst is tasty

[Warspite]

I'm here for the angry fist shaking. Where do I queue up?

[Admiral Yi]

Damn fine rant.

[Camerus]

Meh, Der Spiegel is a piece of anti-American trash anyway.

[Ed Anger]

I'm here for the angry fist shaking. Where do I queue up?

mart is hogging the line with his gay.

[Sheilbh]

He is getting flack, more in general, because he is looking more and more like what those who were not Obamateurs were afraid he might turn out to be - a charismatic hack without much of a clue about how to go about actually doing anything - or worse, without even the desire to actually do anything.

I don't think you can accuse him of lacking ambition.  I mean it's been under a year and he's had massive stimulus, a cap and trade bill, healthcare reform, Israel-Palestine and they've dropped a few hints about immigration reform.

I think Euros and, probably, Canadians do see opposition to him as more or less irrational because the things he's talking about are very widely supported in Europe and Canada.  Even on the right you'll find very few who aren't generally pro-gay, who don't believe in universal healthcare or worry about climate change.  It's sort of the same as when Americans look at Euro leaders arguing about Sunday opening hours, economic deregulation and privatisation or increase military spending.  To Americans of all hues most of those issues look like no-brainers so the opposition is, inevitably, a bit loony.  For all our commonalities we have very different political cultures.

Incidentally a thing that's interested me about the disillusion on the left has been the degree to which it's about the American system.  It's as if the left (and perhaps everyone) has only just realised that America doesn't have a parliamentary system.  Winning a majority, even winning a supermajority doesn't mean that you get to basically pass whatever laws you want.  The constitution seems to me to be designed to be conservative to moderate and restrain the impulse of reform.  That can often hinder good law but it can (or should) lead to an equal hindering of bad.  I don't think this is the case because I often think some very bad laws are the ones it's politically impossible to vote against or oppose in any real way.  The American system it seems to me is designed to hold back change, it's designed to almost encourage horse-trading and messy, ugly coalitions. 

I also think that the modern Presidency is the opposite of the press: it has responsibility without power.  With the media as it is the impulse is that 'something must be done'.  In the American system the President is the focus of that while also only being able to travel so far as Congress will let him, except on foreign policy where he is the God-King of Washington.  Unfortunately foreign policy is even more difficult because, ultimately it's in the hands of a bunch of foreigners in a distant land (look at the fate of poor Jimmy Carter).

[Admiral Yi]

I agree with you far more than I disagree Shelf, but Obama is not totally blame free.  No one forced him to lard his campaign speeches with all those declarative "I will do X and I will do Y."

[Neil]

Even on the right you'll find very few who aren't generally pro-gay,

Not anymore.   Martinus ruined it for you guys.

[Sheilbh]

I agree with you far more than I disagree Shelf, but Obama is not totally blame free.  No one forced him to lard his campaign speeches with all those declarative "I will do X and I will do Y."

Oh I entirely agree Obama's to blame.  Though I think you're on the wrong track.  If you look at the history of political rhetoric very few successful speakers (defined as either successful orators or successful statesmen) have larded their speeches with 'I will try to do X.  I will appoint a commission to study Y.'  It doesn't set the heart on fire.

The exception that proves the rule is Gordon Brown who quoted his school motto 'I will try my utmost'

[Admiral Yi]

Oh I entirely agree Obama's to blame.  Though I think you're on the wrong track.  If you look at the history of political rhetoric very few successful speakers (defined as either successful orators or successful statesmen) have larded their speeches with 'I will try to do X.  I will appoint a commission to study Y.'  It doesn't set the heart on fire.

The exception that proves the rule is Gordon Brown who quoted his school motto 'I will try my utmost'

The relevant comparison is the history of political rhetoric in the US, since as you already pointed the ability of elected leaders to single-handedly implement changes is much greater in a parliamentary system.

Now I totally admit my observations may be skewed by bias, but it seems to me Obama was much, much more liberal in his use of "I will do X" than previous candidates for the office.  I will fight for, I support, I'm in favor of, I will call for, X Y & Z are my priorities, etc., those to me are more typical campaign formulations, and rightly so.  Except in the area of foreign policy, for the reasons you've already mentioned.

[Sheilbh]

Now I totally admit my observations may be skewed by bias, but it seems to me Obama was much, much more liberal in his use of "I will do X" than previous candidates for the office.  I will fight for, I support, I'm in favor of, I will call for, X Y & Z are my priorities, etc., those to me are more typical campaign formulations, and rightly so.  Except in the area of foreign policy, for the reasons you've already mentioned.

'We will try to go to the moon.  And I mean try really hard.'

You could be right.  I'll try and read some speeches and see what I think.  The difficulty is finding the speeches of failed Presidential candidates

[Admiral Yi]

Didn't he say "we must go to the moon?"

Note he didn't say "I will get us to the moon."

[MadImmortalMan]

Now I totally admit my observations may be skewed by bias, but it seems to me Obama was much, much more liberal in his use of "I will do X" than previous candidates for the office.  I will fight for, I support, I'm in favor of, I will call for, X Y & Z are my priorities, etc., those to me are more typical campaign formulations, and rightly so.  Except in the area of foreign policy, for the reasons you've already mentioned.

'We will try to go to the moon.  And I mean try really hard.'

You could be right.  I'll try and read some speeches and see what I think.  The difficulty is finding the speeches of failed Presidential candidates

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5354/

[alfred russel]

This is the conclusion of Obama's primary victory speech:

Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment—this was the time—when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals.

I remembered this speech because because of how spectacularly it was detached from reality.

[Faeelin]

This is the conclusion of Obama's primary victory speech:

I quoted it earlier. 

[BuddhaRhubarb]

Oh, I'd say I succeeded.

Congrats man. kutgw