Obama '08?

The thumbs down works good on ci anymore. I only have to read the inane and crude comments once, then hit the thumbs down.

okie, You're about as childish as they come. How old are you? Ten?

Uh oh. They let President Obama out without his teleprompter again.

Normally I wouldn’t do this, but this really REALLY doesn’t give me any confidence that our President has a clue what he’s talking about re this financial stuff (and it's funny):

The question: "A question for you both, if I may. The prime minister has repeatedly blamed the United States of America for causing this crisis. France and Germany both blame Britain and America for causing this crisis. Who is right? And isn't the debate about that at the heart of the debate about what to do now?"



Here’s one Brit’s satirical commentary analyzing the answer:

The question that flummoxed the great orator
John Crace
The Guardian,
Friday 3 April 2009

Barack Obama, the World's Greatest Orator (™all news organisations), didn't exactly cover himself in glory when the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson asked him a question about who was to blame for the financial crisis. Normally word perfect, Obama ummed, ahed and waffled for the best part of two and a half minutes. Here, John Crace decodes what he was really thinking ...

Nick Robinson: "A question for you both, if I may. The prime minister has repeatedly blamed the United States of America for causing this crisis. France and Germany both blame Britain and America for causing this crisis. Who is right? And isn't the debate about that at the heart of the debate about what to do now?" Brown immediately swivels to leave Obama in pole position. There is a four-second delay before Obama starts speaking
[THANKS FOR NOTHING, GORDY BABY. REMIND ME TO HANG YOU OUT TO DRY ONE DAY.]

Barack Obama: "I, I, would say that, er ... pause [I HAVEN'T A CLUE] ... if you look at ... pause [WHO IS THIS NICK ROBINSON JERK?] ... the, the sources of this crisis ... pause [JUST KEEP GOING, BUDDY] ..[I'M IN WAY TOO DEEP HERE] . the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to . . . pause ... a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial system ... pause, close eyes [THIS IS GOING TO GO DOWN LIKE A CROCK OF **** BACK HOME. HELP]. I think what is also true is that ... pause [I WANT NICK ROBINSON TO DISAPPEAR] ... here in Great Britain ... pause [****, GORDY'S THE HOST, DON'T LAND HIM IN IT] ... here in continental Europe ... pause [DAMN IT, BLAME EVERYONE.] ... around the world. We were seeing the same mismatch between the regulatory regimes that were in place and er ... pause [I'VE LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT AGAIN] ... the highly integrated, er, global capital markets that have emerged ... pause [I'M REALLY WINGING IT NOW]. So at this point, I'm less interested in ... pause [YOU] ... identifying blame than fixing the problem. I think we've taken some very aggressive steps in the United States to do so, not just responding to the immediate crisis, ensuring banks are adequately capitalised, er, dealing with the enormous, er ... pause [WHY DIDN'T I QUIT WHILE I WAS AHEAD?] ... drop-off in demand and contraction that has taken place. More importantly, for the long term, making sure that we've got a set of, er, er, regulations that are up to the task, er, and that includes, er, a number that will be discussed at this summit. I think there's a lot of convergence between all the parties involved about the need, for example, to focus not on the legal form that a particular financial product takes or the institution it emerges from, but rather what's the risk involved, what's the function of this product and how do we regulate that adequately, much more effective coordination, er, between countries so we can, er, anticipate the risks that are involved there. Dealing with the, er, problem of derivatives markets, making sure we have set up systems, er, that can reduce some of the risks there. So, I actually think ... pause [b][FANTASTIC. I'VE LOST EVERYONE, INCLUDING MYSELF] [/b]... there's enormous consensus that has emerged in terms of what we need to do now and, er ... pause [I'M OUTTA HERE. TIME FOR THE USUAL CLOSING BOLLOCKS] [/b[/size]]... I'm a great believer in looking forwards than looking backwards.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/03/g20-barack-obama-nick-robinson-question

Foxfyre, my wife, who is not that into politics, she has said from the very beginning after listening to Obama that he doesn't seem to have a clue about much of anything, even though he can uh, ah, and talk around an issue without answering a question pretty well, even if he knows nothing about the subject. She is pretty perceptive on people, and this has been her take from Day 1 on Obama. "He doesn't know what he is doing," that is what she keeps telling me.

Well, the next day, the Washington Times reporter asked Merkel and Obama, if they agreed the export plus of Germany 8and China) was the reason for the US economic crisis.

That was funny!

If somebody gives a reason A, say, a philosopher would ask what the reason for A was. It can get silly I know, with jokes about my missing rib, but The Reformation is a possibility after going through the alphabet up to R.

In the first place the current liquidity crisis is not at all confined to the United States. The degree of the effects varies a bit from country to country, but everyone is affected. Moreover, the excesses of leverage among banks and bank-like financial institutions, particularly in the housing market are not at all unique to the United States. Spain, Ireland and the UK have very similar problems in this area.

I think it is clear that the wide spread securitization of debt in this country, and internationally as well, increasingly broke down the effectiveness of feedback loops that, formerly stabilized the interactions of borrower, financial institutions, and traders. Though I am a bit past my own understanding of these things, I believe that trading in new products like derivatives added new destabilizing forces to an already overstrained situation. All of this was accelerated by a related, nearly worldwide, bubble in real estate prices and developments. Many of these innovations started here, but all of them were widely applied in financial markets throughout the world. The relative size of the U.S. economy multiplies the adverse effects of any failures here. However we weren't alone in this game.

Such economic bubbles are hardly new. They all appear to have been readily predictable - in retrospect. However, they all seem to catch everyone by surprise.

I believe the different demographic circumstances that prevail in most of continental Europe and the United States are the, perhaps unseen, but most significant driver of the different viewpoints of many Europeans and Americans concerning what to do about the crisis. Negotiations cannot resolve these differences.

Bubbles are normal, but they are worse when regulators fail to do their jobs. The main problem is that the economic and political structures are both now slaves to growth. Trying to force growth has lead to this calamity both in the sense that political leaders allowed the economy to become fundamentally unstable and in the sense that since growth is still necessary we are trying to force the recovery as well which violates the vary same markets that we profess to believe in. This does not get fixed until we remake the global economy in such a way that consumption of goods and services no longer must continue to increase in order for the system to work. We need an economy that helps man preserve the earth and that is geared towards promoting healthy and whole people above creating consumers.

The "fix" now being tried might work for a time to avoid doing what must be done, but if so their will be another economic collapse a few years down the road. We may as well deal with this now, but there unfortunately is no appetite for doing so.

I agree Hawkeye, that our economy cannot continue to be driven by Apple's newest iPod, GM's newest Corvette, or the availability of the Playstation 3 this holiday season.

What a bunch of advertising inspired moron's my nation is becoming (or maybe, always has been).

You and I must be smarter and more concerned with our well being than are those who are trying to get us to do something that will profit them. It is not the advertisers fault that so many are convinced that the next acquisition will make them happy, even in the face of a lifetime of buying stuff having so far failed to do the job. People are stupid, not is the sense that they have poor brains but rather because they are poorly educated, sedated on chemicals, and preoccupied with the busywork game of making money so that they can spend money. People are asleep.

What Obama needs to understand is that this last year is not a hump that can be overcome with spending even more money that we don't have....the jig is up, people are waking up to the realization that binge of consumption that was financed by leverage can not be continued without causing great harm to our kids. There is enough goodness left in man to sober up when necessary, though at the moment we are more like the drunk who has been in the tank for two days who can only see the problem being those who made him dry out when he did not want to. We are lashing out at the bankers/ceo's/ politicians whom we blame for causing this drying up of our ability to consume. But tomorrow we will for the first time in a long time see that what we have been doing is our fault, and that it is not working, and that we need to do something else with our lives.

I wish Obama felt that handing the drying out drunk a bottle is a bad idea, that he is working against the best interests of the nation by applying stimulus and trying to save banks that by all rights should be dead. Maybe he thinks we can't go cold turkey, that in our fits of withdrawal we will tear up this nation. But the disquieting sense I get is that he is trying to get to a more sustainable drugging of America with consumerism, that he thinks that the old ways can continue if we would only slightly modify them. Maybe he is right. I don't think so.

This is a bit unfair, is it not? President Obama is over here representing his country. He is hardly going to be expected to say "It was us, our regulatory failing, our bankers, it was mainly our fault". His job is to take stock of the situation, rally the troops, and move forward, not to wring his hands over the last administration's performances.

(btw most of AIG's misdeeds were done in London, under British regulation, or lack of it.)

As far as the Obamas performance in Europe is concerned, it has been a resounding success, and America's standing in the wider world has begun to improve again, markedly.

Well it was your guy who was making fun of the answer. And was not the content of the answer that was being ridiculed but the incompetence of it and it was done in a humorous instead of a mean way. I'm glad you think President Obama's performance in Europe was a resounding success. But over here, an answer like that by anybody would have been (and is by some) properly ridiculed.

No doubt any American leader who will scold America, even mildly, and praise Europe will be seen favorably by Europeans. President Obama's remarks are being seen favorably over here too by those by those who are more likely to put down America and praise Europe than vice versa. Others are impressed by the favorable press our President is getting. The Obama-ites would ooh and ahh if the President read the phone book off his teleprompter, and there are many who think America has not that much to commend it and that we should be more like Europe.

Last night I watched some lady on Fox gush on and on about how Michelle Obama had re-created Camelot for America and had surpassed even Jaquelyn Kennedy in grace and stature. The lady's face was filled with awe and rapture, her eyes glowed, and you could almost detect a glowing aura.

And some of us think a subserviant attitude to be unnecessary and somehow unseemly for any national leader. Why not simply meet confidently and on equal footing and find where minds can meet? Does our President have to be submissive and concilatory and self-deprecating on behalf of his country in order to be admired?

I hadn't noticed that, I guess I'm not paying attention.

I remember Bush acting as our representative overseas...
giving the German chancellor an unwelcome shoulder massage; not being able to find his way out of a room; giving clueless answers to questions about sovereign nations; generally smirking and posturing and appearing ignorant and brutish....

Anyone who looks at the two last presidents and thinks Obama is the more deserving of ridicule for their carriage on the international stage is dangerously blind, irretrievably deluded, and pitifully ignorant.

Certainly President Bush can be criticized for much. But we weren't talking about President Bush were we? I don't recall making any kind of comparison between President Bush and President Obama. Nor do I think it is rational to think President Obama must never be criticized or is above criticism because he isn't President Bush.

No, we weren't talking about Bush. but when did you ever hold Bush up for ridicule? And wasn't he at least as deserving of it?

I'm sure your answer will demonstrate your unflinching intellectual honesty.

If you were less intent on taking shots at me, you would have seen many times in the past and present in which I have criticized President Bush. I have posted many spoofs of him and many cartoons of him in awkward situations. Now would you have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge that?

Ff, you do seem to find it problematic that the view of America in other countries is improving.

~~~

McTag was commenting on the European view of America and you took the opportunity to carefully slag President and Mrs. Obama rather than comment on what McTag said.

~~~

You're certainly an interesting study to follow, Foxfyre.

Never address the point must be taped to your monitor.

Thread after thread after thread. People call you on it over and over and over, but then continue to play along with you. They're certainly patient (or some much less flattering term).

~~~

"awe and rapture". I realize it is Lent, but your use of religious terminology is intriguing. Once again, you're an interesting case to follow.

I have no interest in "taking shots" at you, Foxfyre. I really have very very little interest in you in any way, and the only reason I reply to you is because of your constant and consistently disingenuous niggling about everything Obama has done all the way back to his announcing for his candidacy. Every once in a while someone just needs to tell you that you are chock full of blind partisan (and often racist and divisive) bullshit. This was just my turn to do it, that's all.

This is standard fare for Foxie: the victim. She can't see how often she herself uses put-downs and ad hominems.