Skip to main content

View Diary: President Obama Shows Why He Won The Nobel Peace Prize. (272 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yeah that whole (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    attempting to stay in Iraq after the Sofa expired and doubling down in Afghanistan and bombing with drones in countries we are not at war with just reeks of peace

    •  so.... no credit for the positive stuff, huh? (15+ / 0-)

      every adult is responsible for every child

      by ridemybike on Fri Sep 27, 2013 at 08:21:23 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You either do or you don't (0+ / 0-)

        I have no respect for posers.

        •  posers? (18+ / 0-)


          on another subject.... and speaking as a gay american
          this president has done more to advance civil rights, more specifically, gay rights, than any president in my lifetime

          (p.s. i was not old enough to vote against ronald reagan)

          you're either for us or against us, laescapee.
          which is it?

          every adult is responsible for every child

          by ridemybike on Fri Sep 27, 2013 at 08:43:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  So what? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            We are discussing the Peace Prize I never said anything about Raygun even though I did vote against that asshole. You want to see someone that put their job on the line for peace look at the history books and see Carter.

            This man has every opportunity every day to tell the man ton stand down yet he hasn't. It's called being the CIC and yes I did serve while you couldn't vote. It is entirely his decision whether or not he sits down on Terror Tuesday and decides who should be killed this week.

            You do not achieve peace through violence that was established long ago.  You will never break the stranglehold of the neocon approach to foreign affairs by using their model of diplomacy. You may think this is a great thing but what I am telling you is that there is an entire forest behind that tree you are staring at.

            Oh and I am with "us" I would hope you would be too.

          •  Yeah (0+ / 0-)

            the president who believed in separate but equal until the polls told him he should "evolve" on the issue.  As a gay man who was old enough to vote against Reagan, I find your analysis facile.

            •  I think you need to consider the context (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              In hindsight, he made the changes that he could make.  He made a public showing of demonstrating the ability of someone to change their mind.

              One of the main problems in political reasoning is that people cannot change their minds.   It is very, very difficult to change someone's mind about a political issue.  

              The president probably recognizes that.  He made a great big deal out of documenting his change in thinking.  

              I find that sort of public display of willingness to change to be more valuable than any adamant statement that a politico will make.  

              Here's an example- the mayor's race here hinged on whether the mayor would support the construction of a large, multibillion dollar waterfront tunnel.  One of the candidates had made a big deal out of saying that he would fight that til the end.  I wasn't going to vote for him, simply because he demonstrated that he was more ideologically captured than he was a wise leader.  

              He came out later and said that he wouldn't simply dismiss the project out of hand.  I voted for him, because he showed that willingness to change.  

              And when we look back on this period in history, we will see it as a time of real progress in civil rights with respect to gay Americans.  There is simply no way we will be able to see it in any other way.  

              So I think you should stop bemoaning something that was changed.  If you think it changed because he saw political expedience in that, fine.  

              I'd at least give him credit for recognizing that holding such an opinion was a barrier to freedom for all Americans.  

              Or, in ten years when we reminisce on this time period, you can remind everyone that Obama didn't agree with it, at first.  Do you think that will have any value at that point?


              by otto on Sat Sep 28, 2013 at 12:04:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Context (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I do not have much disagreement with your comment.  I was responding to the oft-repeated hyperbole that Obama is the best president ever because gay rights have reached a new plateau during his presidency.  To give him credit for the changes that have occurred without his support until the climate was apparent is insulting to GLBT Americans because it reduces our long battle to a commodity of which Obama is given ownership.  That is simply wrong.  

                I commend him for changing his view, but I must admit that as a constitutional law scholar his earlier position is uninformed (as the spate of recent decisions attests) and not very pro-gay rights.  Separate but equal is not a pro-rights position.  

                I agree that history will look back at this time as a watershed for gay rights and that is a good thing.  I would hope that the record will reflect the true heroes of these changes and not lazily (and mendaciously) lay laurels at the feet of Obama simply because he was president during this time.  That would be no different than the unscrupulous canonization of St. Ronnie.  I have no interest in injecting Obama into future discussions of the successes of this period, but I do think it is necessary to ensure the record is accurate.  Surely, we agree on this point, no?

                •  So (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  When you talk about this in ten years, nobody will care. During the presidency of Obama...  And his statement will most likely be used in historical context to demonstrate the position of the nation, as a whole.  

                  A history text covering this issue will no doubt feature his commentary as indicative of the changing status of gays in America, along with the changing opinion of the electorate, as a whole.  

                  The other thing to consider is the context of being a politician.  When politicians immediately change a view, they are considered flip floppers. However, Obama and his team probably saw that there was no way to avoid the historical change with respect to gay Americans.  They would be required to deal with it in one way or another.  

                  As a  political move, the way it was presented by him and his team was wisely done.  

                  He was able to say, in one statement, that he was interested in learning more about the issue, and that the new things he learned might be the cause for change.  

                  That immediately gave him political cover to wait for a while, and then to make the change public.  

                  Would you say that it is just as likely that Obama already agreed privately with the rights of gay people to marry, but he saw that the political consequences of an immediate about face from previous statements would make him appear like someone who is weak under pressure from interest groups?  

                  Additionally, while people may not appreciate Obama's tendency to make statements that appease some kind of middle ground voter, it has also worked for him to accomplish quite a bit as a politician.  It's hard to see his political achievements without acknowledging that he is very astute, politically.  And, he's a politician.  It's a skill, and you want the guys who are supposed to represent your wishes to do so with competent political acumen.  


                  by otto on Sat Sep 28, 2013 at 02:21:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  I see (22+ / 0-)

          So -- 100% success in all things, or he is a total, unforgivable failure in your eyes.

          Must suck to be your kids.

      •  and no recognition either that combatants (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        duhban, OleHippieChick

        including Iranians and Pakistanis and ....

        were all part of the mix in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and hiding out in neighboring countries.

        When countries go to war, shit happens, and when renegades bomb iconic buildings in the most militarized country in the world with two very military minded leaders at the helm, even more shit happens.

        "There's nothing serious about a plan that claims to reduce the deficit by spending a trillion dollars on tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires." - President Obama

        by fhcec on Fri Sep 27, 2013 at 09:01:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  The ridiculous Nobel prize (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        is a bad starting point for giving the President credit for his good work the past month.

    •  So lets get this straight (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dpinzow, AnnetteK

      You oppose drone strikes because of your concern for innocent people in the middle east.

      But if it's Assad gassing little kids in their beds so they die horribly, not our problem. You don't really care and even NOT BOMBING Syria is not an appropriate response.

      I honestly don't understand it. I treat is as some kind of massive failure of compassion on the left. Or it's some kind of libertarian streak revealing itself.

      How many commenters did we see saying the whole CW thing was either some kind of CIA/Mossad false flag attack or that it was only 300 kids instead of 400 and therefore not such a big deal.

      When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

      by PhillyJeff on Sat Sep 28, 2013 at 09:43:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site