• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

New Newsweek cover: Why Are Obama's Critics so Dumb?

lokiju

Lifer
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/17/newsweek-obama-dumb-cover_n_1210182.html

When I was a kid I remember the good 'ol days when news was at least attempted to be delivered in a "just the facts" kind of way (before 24/7 news stations).

Regardless of political affiliation, that's a pretty provocative title to have on the cover and would be even if it was done in the opposite manner when Bush was president, IMO of course.

Edit: For clarification, I'm not commenting on whatever the content is of the article, just the flame-bait nature of the title.
 
Last edited:
Not much content in that link unfortunately. I imagine the article does indeed have some substance to it. From newsbusters.org, excepts:

“t remains simply a fact that Obama has delivered in a way that the unhinged right and purist left have yet to understand or absorb. Their short-term outbursts have missed Obama’s long game … [T]he president begins by extending a hand to his opponents; when they respond by raising a fist, he demonstrates that they are the source of the problem; then, finally, he moves to his preferred position of moderate liberalism and fights for it without being effectively tarred as an ideologue or a divider. This kind of strategy takes time. And it means there are long stretches when Obama seems incapable of defending himself, or willing to let others to define him, or simply weak. I remember those stretches during the campaign against Hillary Clinton. I also remember whose strategy won out in the end.”


I continue, however, to see Obama's supposed great strategy more indicative of a simple ineptness that his office unfortunately is well accustomed to in recent years.
 
Andrew. Sullivan is great and exactly right. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Obama, but the right very rarely argues those. Instead its all weird conspiratorial nonsense and hyperbole. Let's not even mention the birther stupidity.
Romney has been lying his ass off about Obama as well. Its like they think everyone is too stupid and clueless to notice. Maybe some people are, but far more know they are FOS.
 
Does being dumb have anything to do with condemning actions that they would otherwise praise if GWB were performing them?
 
Here's the article itself:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newswe...ma-s-long-game-will-outsmart-his-critics.html

It attacks his critics on the left as well as his critics on the right.
Very interesting read. I think Sullivan may be a bit overly flattering, especially when he presents his speculation on Obama's strategy as fact. He did a great job of reviewing some of the Obama administration's key accomplishments, and used specifics to nicely puncture many of the usual attacks on Obama. It will be fun to see how much factual rebuttal is offered to this piece, as opposed to the usual mindless howling and endless regurgitation of the same tired talking points.
 
Last edited:
I take a pro-Obama by Andrew Sullivan about as seriously as I'd take an anti-Obama article by Sean Hannity.

Obama could go back in time, shoot Mother Theresa in the face, and Sullivan would probably write an article about how amazing Obama's actions were for our relationship with Pakistan.
 
Last edited:
Very interesting read. I think Sullivan may be a bit overly flattering, especially when he presents his speculation on Obama's strategy as fact. He did a great job of reviewing some of the Obama administration's key accomplishments, and used specifics to nicely puncture many of the usual attacks on Obama. It will be fun to see how much factual rebuttal is offered to this piece, as opposed to the usual mindless howling and endless regurgitation of the same tired talking points.

Yes, the weakness of the article is that he presents what could be interpreted from the outside in a number of different ways as a purposeful strategy on the part of Obama. Some of it was probably Obama figuring out things as he went along, and making mistakes while doing so.

His criticism of Obama's critics on the left is particularly sharp: Obama never campaigned as the leftist firebrand that many expected him to be. They were conflating their emotional response to his historic election with the realities of what he campaigned on. He has always been pragmatic center-left.

- wolf
 
Very interesting read. I think Sullivan may be a bit overly flattering, especially when he presents his speculation on Obama's strategy as fact. He did a great job of reviewing some of the Obama administration's key accomplishments, and used specifics to nicely puncture many of the usual attacks on Obama. It will be fun to see how much factual rebuttal is offered to this piece, as opposed to the usual mindless howling and endless regurgitation of the same tired talking points.

Poseur alert award winner.
 
Thanks for making the authors point, your criticism has zero substance like most of the critics on the far right.

You can't start off a serious discussion by calling any disagreement dumb, it's like slapping someone in the face then complaining they're not being reasonable.
 
He supported and endorsed Kerry in 2004. Try again.

He reversed his stance because of the gay. Are you claiming he was not a neo-conservative Bush supporter prior to that? Are you claiming he did not openly support Bush and his policies prior to that in print and on TV including being the only Bush fanboy on Maher several times? Try again. He is a Paul fanboy now. Keep trying.
 
He reversed his stance because of the gay. Are you claiming he was not a neo-conservative Bush supporter prior to that? Are you claiming he did not openly support Bush and his policies prior to that in print and on TV including being the only Bush fanboy on Maher several times? Try again. He is a Paul fanboy now. Keep trying.

Just correcting your mistake saying he was a Bush supporter when he left that camp back in 2003.
 
Back
Top