Barack Obama, Jedi Knight.
No One Could Have Predicted, Garland EditionPost + Comments (145)
This post is in: Activist Judges!, Best President Ever, Black Jimmy Carter
This post is in: Best President Ever, Election 2016, Hillary Clinton 2016, Open Threads, Proud to Be A Democrat, Readership Capture
Lazy Saturday afternoon filler. In case you want some brief inspiration/aggravation to send your friends & families.
Jim Nelson, at GQ – “Why Obama Will Go Down as One of the Greatest Presidents of All Time”:
Something is dawning on us—it’s almost too soon for us to admit, but it’s there, a half-considered thought only now blooming in our brains. Maybe we dismiss it with one of those quick cognitive fly swats. Nah, too early to say or I hate that guy. But the truth is coming, and it sounds like this: Barack Obama will be inducted into the league of Great Presidents…
… In so many ways, Obama was better than we imagined, better than the body politic deserved, and far, far better than his enemies will ever concede, but the great thing about being great is that the verdict of enemies doesn’t matter.
In fact, and I say this as a Bill Clinton fan, I now feel certain that, in the coming decades, Obama’s star will rise higher than Clinton’s, and he’ll replace Bill in the public mind as the Greatest Democrat since FDR…
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, in the Washington Post — “In this crucial election, I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton”:
… Before I get into the reasons I support Clinton, let me first explain why this election really is so important. On Aug. 8, 1945 — two days after the bombing of Hiroshima — Albert Camus wrote an essay warning future generations about the choices before them: “This is no longer a prayer but a demand to be made by all peoples to their governments — a demand to choose definitively between hell and reason.” That is what the stakes of this election are: We are choosing between hell and reason…
I’m frustrated and angry at hearing about frustration and anger toward Washington gridlock as an excuse for embracing candidates who will only add to the problem. But that’s what is happening with Trump and Cruz supporters. These voters share a distrust of experts, preferring “the wisdom of ordinary people.” Really? I prefer the wisdom of a trained physician when I have pain in my chest. One of the problems in Washington is that some legislators ignore the experts, such as the international community of scientists who have studied and confirmed global warming, so as to bury their heads and do nothing. When did we start devaluing intelligence and knowledge?
… Clinton possesses that rare but crucial combination of idealism and pragmatism. She can both envision a better world and take the necessary steps to make that vision a reality. She embodies the principles of the Age of Reason and isn’t afraid to fight against the confederacy of dunces who would undermine the principles of inclusion and diversity that America stands for…
And finally, Paul Krugman, in the NYTimes — “Why I Haven’t Felt The Bern”:
… What you see [in the Sanders campaign]… is the casual adoption, with no visible effort to check the premises, of a story line that sounds good. It’s all about the big banks; single-payer is there for the taking if only we want it; government spending will yield huge payoffs — not the more modest payoffs conventional Keynesian analysis suggests; Republican support will vanish if we take on corporate media…
… It’s about an attitude, the sense that righteousness excuses you from the need for hard thinking and that any questioning of the righteous is treason to the cause. When you see Sanders supporters going over the top about “corporate whores” and such, you’re not seeing a mysterious intrusion of bad behavior into an idealistic movement; you’re seeing the intolerance that was always just under the surface of the movement, right from the start…
This post is in: Best President Ever, Proud to Be A Democrat, Yes We Did, The Failed Obama Administration (Only Took Two Weeks)
Well, not really. But over and over again, President Obama does something that rises above — way higher than — ordinary political discourse. Just as Bill Clinton in the 90s was without doubt the best retail politician I’ve seen in my lifetime, Obama does an epic job of being president.
He’s the Ted Williams of the job: he’s got that quality of gracefulness, a stillness within himself, joined to an analogue to Williams’ sweet swing — the capacity to unwind suddenly, and produce so precisely, so effectively, that the audience doesn’t have time to register how hard it was to do what they just saw. He’s a virtuoso.
What I’m trying to say is that there are people — easy to identify in sports, I think — whom even opposing fans can simply admire, suspending for a moment their tribal obligation to deride and deny anyone wearing the wrong laundry. Opposing fans could boo Williams. But they watched, knowing that they might witness something special. Nowadays, for a sport closer to Obama’s heart, think Steph Curry; even when he destroys your team, you can’t take your eyes off him.
But pity the poor GOP. President Obama owns his role by this point. With increasing confidence and skill over his time in office, he defines objectives and outplays opponents* to get what he wants. As the occupant of the bully pulpit, he nails the lay-ups** and he blows away the impossible shots. It’s been really special to watch — someone sustaining a formidably complicated performance with ever increasing elegance.
All of which to say is that were you to find politics and public life fascinating as well as vital, you should be enjoying this presidency as performance even if you deplored its content. But the GOP, it seems, can’t allow themselves even that pleasure.
All of that is prologue to say that I don’t think Obama’s speech in Cuba yesterday has gotten enough attention — at least part, understandably enough, because of the Brussels attacks. But it’s still worth a listen, for what it means within the process of US-Cuba reconciliation, certainly, but at least as much for its formal excellence. The speech is simply a masterpiece, in my view, a remarkable demonstration of saying difficult things to multiple audiences while moving the rock, at least a little, on that long journey up the hill. Here’s the transcript, and here’s the speech itself:
It really is an amazing piece of work. I love the small touches — he clearly worked on his Spanish accent, to pretty good effect, and it was such a hoot to hear him throw a little shade on Raul Castro and his … let’s say, garrulousness. But the speech as a whole was much more than the sum of its parts and gestures. It’s completely worth your time, so I’m only going to quote one passage:
…before I discuss those issues, we also need to recognize how much we share. Because in many ways, the United States and Cuba are like two brothers that have been estranged for many years, even as we share the same blood. We both live in a new world, colonized by Europeans.
Cuba, like the United States, was built in part by slaves brought here from Africa. Like the United States, the Cuban people can trace their heritage to both slaves and slave owners. We’ve welcomed both immigrants who came a great distance to start new lives in the Americas.
Over the years, our cultures have blended together. Dr. Carlos Finlay worked in Cuba, paved the way for generations of doctors, including Walter Reed, who drew on Dr. Finlay’s work to help combat yellow fever. Just as Marti wrote some of his famous words in New York, Earnest Hemingway made a home in Cuba and found inspiration in the waters of these shores.
We share a national past time, la pelotero, and later today our players will compete on the same Havana field that Jackie Robinson played on before he made his major league debut.
And it is said that our greatest boxer, Muhammad Ali, once paid tribute to a Cuban that he could never fight, saying that he would only be able to reach a draw with the great Cuban, Teofilo Stevenson.
As I read that, it’s addressed to the Cuban people of course, just like the title of the speech says. But it’s impossible not to notice who else Obama engages here: an America whose self-portrait is changing faster than its [dwindling white majority] perception of it has shifted. As the president noted,
You had two Cuban Americans in the Republican party running against the legacy of a Black man who was president while arguing that they’re the best person to beat the Democratic nominee, who will either be a woman or a democracy socialist.
Again — spoken to Cubans; addressed to those back home.
Relish what you’re seeing in this president. Perfect he ain’t, of course; that’s no one’s inheritance short of the grave. But he’s so damn good at this now. We won’t see his like again soon.
*I’m not saying Garland’s appointment will go through — though the odds are better than I thought they’d be. My point is that Obama’s handling of this on both its substance and politics has been elegant.
**ETA: And bang! Obama slams another one home. To Ted Cruz’s proposal to “patrol and secure” Muslim neighborhoods in the US, POTUS replied, “I just left a country that engages in that kind of neighborhood surveillance…Which, by the way, the father of Sen. Cruz escaped for America.”
That one leaves a mark.
Image: Edgar Degas, Ballet – l’étoile (Rosita Mauri), c. 1878.
This post is in: Activist Judges!, Best President Ever, Republican Venality, OBAMA IS WORSE THAN BUSH HE SOLD US OUT!!, Peak Wingnut Was a Lie!, The Failed Obama Administration (Only Took Two Weeks)
Here’s President Obama, writing in SCOTUSblog* on what he’ll look for in a Supreme Court nominee (h/t Washington Monthly):
First and foremost, the person I appoint will be eminently qualified. He or she will have an independent mind, rigorous intellect, impeccable credentials, and a record of excellence and integrity. I’m looking for a mastery of the law, with an ability to hone in on the key issues before the Court, and provide clear answers to complex legal questions.
Second, the person I appoint will be someone who recognizes the limits of the judiciary’s role; who understands that a judge’s job is to interpret the law, not make the law. I seek judges who approach decisions without any particular ideology or agenda, but rather a commitment to impartial justice, a respect for precedent, and a determination to faithfully apply the law to the facts at hand.
But I’m also mindful that there will be cases that reach the Supreme Court in which the law is not clear. There will be cases in which a judge’s analysis necessarily will be shaped by his or her own perspective, ethics, and judgment. That’s why the third quality I seek in a judge is a keen understanding that justice is not about abstract legal theory, nor some footnote in a dusty casebook. It’s the kind of life experience earned outside the classroom and the courtroom; experience that suggests he or she views the law not only as an intellectual exercise, but also grasps the way it affects the daily reality of people’s lives in a big, complicated democracy, and in rapidly changing times. That, I believe, is an essential element for arriving at just decisions and fair outcomes.
Also — just in case you were worrying (I wasn’t and am not) that President Obama might take seriously for a moment any suggestion that he should punt on this choice, here’s all you need to know:
The Constitution vests in the President the power to appoint judges to the Supreme Court. It’s a duty that I take seriously, and one that I will fulfill in the weeks ahead.
I will so miss this man.
*POTUS blogging FTW!
Image: David Gilmour Blythe, Justice, c. 1860
This post is in: Best President Ever
Was watching All in with Chris Hayes and he, as well as many other journalists, pundits, and what not, seem to think that there is no way a SCOTUS nominee is going to go through. I just don’t get it- where have these people been the last seven years? Will they never learn? We’re a few days in and the GOP wall of obstruction is already crumbling into farce:
After Justice Antonin Scalia was found dead on Saturday, many Republican senators categorically ruled out confirming any nominee by President Barack Obama.
“This vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican, said in a statement.
Soon, a number of colleagues—including Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Rob Portman of Ohio, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, all of whom face tough reelection battles—came out in agreement.
But within 72 hours, the GOP began showing some signs of division on tactics. Some Republicans are open to at least considering an Obama nominee in the GOP-controlled Senate, even if it amounts to nothing more than a show trial. Other still want to reflexively block any hearings or votes regardless of who Obama chooses.
It’s a sign that at least some in the party fear political blowback if Republicans look like they’re being unreasonable in obstructing Obama with almost a full year left in his term.
All Obama has done, mind you, is state “I’m going to do my job and I expect them to do theirs.”
That’s it. Wait till he starts lacing up his Chucky T’s and gets in the game.
I can't believe seven years in to his Presidency people are questioning whether Obama is going to get his pick. pic.twitter.com/3xJL9HcATS
— John Cole (@Johngcole) February 14, 2016