This is what he does: He says something lofty, principled and grand, and then backtracks either with a “recalibration” (per Politico), a clarification or some action taken inconsistent with either what he said or the spirit of what he said. In other words, contra his fan club, he is a fairly typical politician.

At least in this case he isn’t in charge of determining whether the center gets built.

To cower before Her Grifterness is amazingly stupid. The Obama of the campaign would never have done that. What happened to him — did Rahm lock him away in a closet somewhere?

Son of a gun! Glenn Greenwald had to basically eat his words.

Indeed, with today’s clarification, Obama is not really on any side of this controversy. What made Bloomberg’s speech so inspiring was how unapologetic and emphatic it was in defense of the mosque itself — not just some sort of “right” that very few people were even questioning. Even worse, the primary focus of my praise here — that Obama was taking a politically unpopular position — isn’t even true in light of this clarification.

What a hero Obama is, heh?

Obama, Milquetoast in Chief.

No one respects a coward. We shouldn’t be surprised by this. The longer he waits the worse it gets, they feel they have the right to act out out, after all they’ve been given permission.

He has to standup for their rights, as well as shame the bigots and the demagogues. That is leadership, and he’s not displaying any. It’s like we are on fucking autopilot hoping no one notices.

He’s not a coward. He’s more than willing to stand up and fight for those who donate large amounts of cash to the DNC.

well done.

Another nice one, Richard Lyon.

Pithy and to the “point”.

Again, “Front Page” in importance.

That Obama, he certainly is one pusilanimous fabulist, isn’t he?

In fact, he personifies that “state” of behavior to absolute perfection.

Definitely, he is the enema of the “good”, to Rahm a certain phrase, “right” back at ‘em.

Pathetic is thine name, Barack Obama, and loathsome thy “strategy”.

DW

This is why education is so important. Pusilanimous fabulist is at once precise and poetic. I, with barely a high school education, have been saying he is an ass hole.

Clearly, workingclass, Obama is both.

The ultimate cipher-man is Barack… all things to everybody.

The Complete Chameleon.

Changes colors, changes stripes …

He’s a flamin’ a-hole … to boot (and we should).

DW

That’s the difference between campaigning and governing. One’s fiction the other’s fact.

I wonder who writes O’s speeches, since he clearly doesn’t believe a word he says when he delivers them.

For just a moment put aside your confirmation bias and read the two statements. They are not inconsistent.

The right to do something and the wisdom of doing it are separate matters.

Like Obama, I understand there is an absolute right to do this, but am an agnostic as to whether the construction of this Islamic center is where wisdom lies.

For just a moment put aside your confirmation bias and read the two statements. They are not inconsistent.

Oh really?

“As a citizen, and as President, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country. And that includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in Lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances.”

And then.

“I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there.”

Get a grip man, that is nothing but a coward, right there. As said above, he’s talking out of both sides of his mouth because the little man stands for nothing.

I disagree. United States citizens, who also happened to be Muslims, were killed on 9/11. I believe the Mosque should be built and endure as a symbol that we are Americans first.

I believe people need to step up and support building the Mosque in every way possible, including confronting anyone who dares criticize the idea.

I’m absolutely outraged and disgusted that anyone would be so venal, petty, and stupid as to criticize this idea.

Barack Obama once again shows us that he’s a coward. If he had any decency, he would resign.

If it were a question of holding him to a contractual commitment in a court of law, then he did indeed word everything he said in a deliberately political speak vagueness. However, his supporters were trying to peddle the first statement as an outstanding example of great political courage. The second statement proves that it was not.

No, there is nothing vague in either statement. They are about as unambiguous as the English language permits.

I am not sure the statements are courageous, but they are intellectually cogent and true to our Republic’s values.

Just not true.

You’re suggesting that making a distinction in this case between the rights of Americans (they’re good) and the wisdom of using those rights (is questionable) is somehow consistent and not a walkback.

Doesn’t fly.

Sanguinity R you, oldgold.

Did you once play Candide in Voltaire’s “Best of All Possumable Wirlds”?

Forgive me for the hopeful temerity of asking … however, oldgold, do you have and represent “old” wealth, as your “handle” would imply, or are you, actually, a home-rolled anarchronistic brand of cigarettes? Given, as you would say and continually insist, that Obama is as liberal as the politics of our daze may allow, would you say that while people of color are permitted to eat at predominantly “white” establisments, need those colorful ones ask themselves if that is where “wisdom lies”? There are a whole “class” of such questions, regarding what we call “race”, gender, and religious “beliefs”, oldgold … as you must know, and we all wouldn’t want to “rush” things unwisely, now would we?

I am glad you are well-fed, well-housed, and generally well-of.

The unseemly behaviors of others who imagine themselves to be suffering or “worse-off” than you, must be quite a burden, but you do bear it nobly, it must be said.

Btw does wisdom lie? Or does something “else” pursue that fabulist, if expedient, “pragmatic” course?

Curiosity R me.

DW

The first statement is packed with strong emotional overtones and repeated references to that specific geographic location. It was calculated to make the people in the audience to which it was delivered think that they enjoyed Obama’s specific support. It does not qualify as a mere statement of philosophical principles. It is an exercise in devious and deceptive political spin.

Aside from completely ignoring Obama’s modus operandi I think you have this exactly right. Whenever Obama appears to be saying something principled, a close reading shows he is, in fact, saying something else.

Your problem is an over-active taste for presumption to fit your particular narrative bias. For instance and in particular, Oldgold, as applied to me, has none of the meanings you suggest.

Similarly, Obama’s second statement has none of the meaning you suggest.
It is a neutral statement. He is neither endorsing or criticizing the building of the Islamic center at that location.

And, yes, generally speaking, I think Obama, as President, is about as liberal as American politics will currently allow. But, there have been specific issues where I believe there was more running room to the left than he took. The most glaring of these was the stimulus package.
For this I have roundly and consistently criticized him.

People need to understand that Obama is a coward who panics at the thought of taking a stand regarding any matter with which the right wing noise machine and the Kleptocrats might disagree or find controversial. Therefore, he deliberately chooses his words with extraordinary care in order to deceive his audience, which in itself is deceitful and dishonest.

This is why he insists on prepared speeches using teleprompters and why he won’t do press conferences anymore. He’s terrified to be honest and too panic stricken to speak extemporaneously without notes.

He’s really a pathetic and pitiful human being when you get right down to it and little more than the Kleptocrats’s sock puppet.

Stupid Gibbs showed us the way last week. We need to really dial up the heat on Obama now and drive up his level of emotional pain so high that he announces that he will not seek a second term.

I am shocked, oldgold, shocked!

You say that Obama has failed to take or avail himself of certain “running room to the left.”

So really then, Obama is deciding, not you, just where the “left edge” of things might or should be? If he is the absolute best we may hope for, then you do think he has not risen to the full needs of the people?

Why do you imagine that to be so?

DW

My view is that it’s plainly tactical, basically the same schtick we’ve seen with congress. Half say one thing, the other half say the opposite. Each plays their allotted role on the stage, and the corrupt deals are cut behind the scenes.

It’s a rope a dope, claim you believe this, weasel out of it. Claim you believe it again, weasel out of it again. Sell out your claimed belief to the interests that run you, then make noises about pragmatism and blame it on someone else.

Repeat ’til voted out. Obama is a hiree, and he’s full of shit.

Like I said, he wasted political capital on a non-issue that would have died down by now if he had not injected himself into it. But the O bots are loving it.

both good, but…. yours is better.

Sorry to have shocked you. But, yes, on several domestic issues I have been critical of Obama. And, don’t even get me started on Afghanistan!

Depite this, generally speaking, given our current political enviroment, I believe he has presided about as far left as is practical. I fully understand that some well informed and intelligent folks might in good faith come to a different conclusion. I will not make this same concession regarding whether or not these two statements by Obama concerning the Islamic center are inconsistent.

The shock was pleasant, oldgold.

There’s hope for all of us, yet, even such a one as I.

But WHY do you think Obama did not take such opportunities, as you imply, … to do more(?) good?

I would truly appreciate that speculation, og. Should you wish to share?

DW

Here is something even more shocking. Something rarely heard here. I don’t know.

A throughly enjoyable thread. Superb comments.

Obama’s really earned it on this one.
It’s impossible to respect a gutless coward.

Regarding Obama’s engagement with lefty “running room,” I think it’s enlightening to look at his Race to the bottom ed reform policy, which was very aptly skewered by Dana Milbank’s Sunday WAPO editorial, “On education policy, Obama is like Bush.”

Now tell me Old Gold, is this the best we can hope for? The man is a disaster.

Yes, we can hope for better. But, currently, this is about as good as it is going to get. Moreover, generally speaking, he is not a disaster.

As I have contended here ad nauseum, there are not enough liberals in the electorate to allow us to form a governing majority. The best we are currently able to do is to partner-up with the moderates to form a governing coalition. This means serious compromise and half measures.To pound our elected officials for bending to this political reality is
less than productive.

This “political reality” of which you speak, of what is it comprised?

Is it that the people, the would-be voters, that group traditionally held to be the real and true, “deciders” are simply not, in large enough number, “open” to the ideas of equality, humanity and genuine responsibility? Or is it that the people are presented no real choice, no candidates that will not or cannot bend “to the political reality” of forces or “interests” outside and beyond the people, for example corporations or “social” or governmental “institutions” such as the military and those who supply them or “benefit” from the “activities” of such institutions? You might consider, for instance, that the “war” in Afghanistan, something we both question very deeply, is an example of the military’s “activities”, while the disappeared disaster in the Gulf, will be increasingly typical of the “activities” of corporations. Consider also, that our “political reality” includes corporations as being held, by the law, to be people, just like flesh and blood people, like you and me, when, obviously they are not, they do not die, for example, neither may they be imprisoned … and they have no conscience to which the rest of us might appeal, also, oldgold, the law now holds that money is equated with speech, implying and actualizing the “reality” that those with more money may always out”speak” those with less or none. Do you factor these things, all, together, and more, into what you consider to be ongoing “political reality”?

Just what, as precisely as you may wish to define it, is the nature of the “political reality” which limits and shapes our current human reality?

Your perspective would be more useful to me, oldgold, were you to clarify this portion of it, this “reality” as you perceive it.

Seriously.

DW

Here is an article from thew WAPO in 2008:

This year, 22 percent of voters said they are liberal on most political matters, 44 percent called themselves moderates, 34 percent conservatives. Four years ago, it was virtually the same: 21 percent liberal, 45 percent moderate and 34 percent conservative.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2008/11/ideological_shift_or_just_comp.html

Here is a 2009 Gallup poll:

PRINCETON, NJ — Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004. The 21% calling themselves liberal is in line with findings throughout this decade, but is up from the 1990s.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/120857/conservatives-single-largest-ideological-group.aspx

For older stuff from NYT/CBS, Harris, Pew and Gallup see this article.

While the results in the table are broadly consistent (all show far more conservatives then liberals and 38-41% in the moderate category), there are small differences. The Gallup survey shows slightly more self-identified conservatives (40%) than Pew (37%) and Harris (36%), and the New York Times shows slightly fewer (33%).

http://www.mysterypollster.com/main/2005/06/ideology_as_a_d.html

This is the political reality that I speak of.

I appreciate your answer, oldgold, as it does help me to understand your perspective.

Allow me one more non-simple question: What narrative exits, which you may be aware of, that defines or explains the “liberal perspective”, in an over-arching sense, which might allow others to know what “liberals” are, actually, by their own definition, “about”?

DW

Here is a quote from the political scientist Alan Wolfe that makes some global sense as to what liberalism is.

“Liberalism is the answer for which modernity is the question.”

http://www.bc.edu/schools/cas/polisci/facstaff/wolfe.html

Perhaps you might expand on that sentence, in your own words, oldgold, as I find little that suggests “substance” or “philosophy” or understanding that others might build on, in that quote.

DW