June 04, 2009

6/4: Obama Goes To Cairo

The political blogosphere's reaction to Pres. Obama's Cairo speech is following a familiar pattern: conservative bloggers are mostly blasting the speech while liberal bloggers are mostly praising it. On the right side of the blogosphere, Michelle Malkin decries Obama's "explicit anti-American apologism" while Hugh Hewitt complains that the speech "communicate[ed] extraordinary weakness on the part of the United States." Erick Erickson goes even further, warning that "Barack Obama's ivory tower naiveté will get us all killed." On the left side of the blogosphere, Steve Benen calls the speech "a dramatic success" while M.J. Rosenberg gushes: "For the first time in memory, an American President spoke to Muslims and Arabs not as antagonists who need to take certain actions before achieving US acceptance but as equals."

Still, there were a few exceptions. Some righty bloggers wrote that they found the speech less offensive than they anticipated. Ed Morrissey thought the speech was "surprisingly good" and was impressed by "the depth of the defense of Israel's right to exist in peace, as well as the strong denunciation of 9/11 Trutherism that has been wildly popular among Arabs." On the other hand, liberal blogger Peter Daou complained that the speech was "disappointingly weak on human rights and specifically women's rights."

What else is happening in the blogosphere?

• Liberal bloggers (Dayen, hilzoy, Greenwald, Ackerman, Yglesias) are praising Obama for pressuring Israel to "freeze" settlement growth, even though Obama's policy is generating pushback from Israeli leaders.
• Liberal bloggers (Bowers, McCarter, Sudbay, Dayen, Benen) continue to demand that the health care reform bill include a public insurance option.

OBAMA SPEECH: All Apologies

Most conservative bloggers are blasting Obama's speech:

• RedState's Erickson: "Did he learn nothing from the [Jimmy] Carter administration? Does he really believe we are going to get China, Russia, and North Korea to give up nukes? If he does, Barack Obama is not just ignorant, he is a fool. And an ignorant fool is too dangerous to have running this country. Barack Obama's ivory tower naiveté will get us all killed."
• Commentary's Jennifer Rubin: "Will this speech accomplish anything? The American elites will swoon. But it won't do much of anything -- other than encourage Iran."
• Gateway Pundit: "[T]his was his second apology speech to the Muslim World. He also apologized for America two months ago in Turkey. Obama doesn't seem to think that liberating 50,000,000 Muslims from two of the world's most brutal regimes counted for much."
• Malkin: "[Obama] attemped to obfuscate his explicit anti-American apologism with a mixture of disingenuousness and naivete totally untethered to reality (including the '7 million Muslims' figure he hyped). Despite all his supposedly frank talk, Obama insists on hiding behind the euphemism 'violent extremism.' It's not only the 't-word' -- terrorism -- that failed to pass from his lips. It's the j-word -- jihad, violent jihad -- that Obama will not acknowledge. He clings to the myth that only a 'tiny minority' of 'extremists' subscribe to the deadly Koran-inspired mission to force infidels to submit. He refuses to acknowledge and confront the violent jihadi virus around the world and on American soil."
• Townhall's Hewitt: "The world is the worse for this speech because it was not honest about the situation in the Middle East, not honest about the threat from Iran, not honest about Israel's deep desire to be allowed to live in peace, and not honest about the determination of Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran to destroy Israel and to gain the weapons necessary to do so in an instant. No speech so deeply dishonest in its omissions or so rhetorically misleading its its assumptions and arguments can do anything other than communicate extraordinary weakness on the part of the United States."
• Right Wing News' John Hawkins: "As per usual, the TOTUS had a nice delivery on his speech and seemed to get a friendly reception from the crowd -- but, the grotesque pandering and weakness he displayed make this speech much more of a negative than a positive."

Conservative bloggers were particularly critical of Obama's remarks about the Israel-Palestine conflict:

• NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez: "[It's] jarring to hear [the] POTUS refer to an 'occupation' when talking about the lives of Palestinian."
• Rubin: "The Palestinians don't lack a state because of Jewish settlements. They lack a state because they rejected one -- again and again. So long as Obama is being anything but 'honest' I suspect we won't see much progress, let alone peace."

Meanwhile, NRO's Michael Rubin complains that Obama "studiously avoid[ed] the word democracy" and "studiously avoid[ed] the word terrorism".

OBAMA SPEECH II: It Could Have Been Worse

A few conservative bloggers had more positive reactions to Obama's speech:

• Hot Air's Morrissey: "[I]n most ways, [Obama's speech] wouldn't differ from a similar speech given by any recent American President. In fact, the Cairo audience may have been a little surprised about the depth of the defense of Israel's right to exist in peace, as well as the strong denunciation of 9/11 Trutherism that has been wildly popular among Arabs, even though Osama bin Laden claimed credit long ago for the attack. [...] Of course, the big question will be whether this does anything at all for our standing in the Muslim world. Frankly, I doubt it; this may wind up eroding Obama's standing instead. Still, a much better effort than I'd feared."
• RedState's Dan Spencer: "I found it Ironic that when Obama turned to democracy, religious freedom and women's rights, the speech was reminiscent of the remarkable series of speeches President Bush gave about the advance of freedom. This was one of President Obama's more important speeches and he rose to the occasion and delivered a fine speech. There are numerous things about Obama's speech to the Muslim world I could criticize, but I will save that for another article."
• Commentary's Max Boot: "Having just read Obama's Cairo speech, my reaction is: Not bad. It could have been better. But it also could have been a lot worse. [...] I realize that the Obama speech isn't going to satisfy those (like me) who once thrilled to Bush's unapologetic pro-democracy rhetoric but, for all of Obama's rhetorical sleight of hands and elisions, I thought he did an effective job of making America's case to the Muslim world. No question: He is a more effective salesman than his predecessor was. Which doesn't mean that his audience will buy the message."
• The Cato Institute's Christopher Preble: "The president hit the essential points without overpromising. He did not ignore that which divides the United States from the world at large, and many Muslims in particular, nor was he afraid to address squarely the lies and distortions -- including the implication that 9/11 never happened, or was not the product of al Qaeda -- that have made the situation worse than it should be. He stressed the common interests that should draw people to support U.S. policies rather than oppose them: these include our opposition to the use of violence against innocents; our support for democracy and self-government; and our hostility toward racial, ethnic or religious intolerance. All good."

OBAMA SPEECH III: A Good Speech, Except For The Part About Human Rights

Most liberal bloggers were impressed by the speech:

• The Atlantic's James Fallows: "[T]his was yet another in the series of speeches that individually and as a group really are out of phase with anything we have known in contemporary political rhetoric."
• The Washington Monthly's Benen: "[I]t appears Obama was intent on establishing a new foundation for the relationship between the Middle East and the United States. It was a dramatic success."
• TPM Cafe's Rosenberg: "Mission accomplished. For the first time in memory, an American President spoke to Muslims and Arabs not as antagonists who need to take certain actions before achieving US acceptance but as equals. Not only did the speech specifically reject western (and American) colonialism, its entire tone was the antithesis of colonial. This is a profoundly different American voice, one that will do much to advance American goals rather than to sabotage them."

On the other hand, Daou disliked the speech: "I know many will gush over President Obama's Cairo speech and I'm likely swimming against the tide of the media and my fellow Democrats and progressives. But reading the transcript, I was struck by two things: (1.) Aside from a few platitudes, it is disappointingly weak on human rights and specifically women's rights. (2.) It betrays a naiveté, perhaps feigned, about how the Arab world works. [...] If we are to fix America's image in the world and if we are to heal the planet's myriad ills, it will not be done through contrite kumbaya speeches about how we are all one world and how we should all coexist peacefully, no matter whether the remarks are delivered in Cleveland or Cairo. It will be done by leading through example, by righting the many wrongs here at home, by seeking justice and fairness for all, by doing what is right, not saying what sounds pleasing to the media elite and the pliable punditocracy."

TAPPED's Dana Goldstein agreed: "I have to agree with Daou that Obama missed an opportunity to more strongly stand up for Muslim women's rights around issues like genital mutilation and rape."

TAPPED's Tim Fernholz made a similar complaint, although he liked the rest of the speech: "[M]y least favorite part of the speech was the discussion of democracy and human rights. It started off well by discussing of America's role in promoting democracy, but notably lost its truthiness by declining to point out America's role in promoting authoritarian governments, particularly Egypt's own regime. (Millions of dollars in democracy promotion aid were eliminated this year). It's not hard to understand why he chose to go the diplomatic route on democracy promotion, given recent history and his administration's tendency to avoid outright hypocrisy on foreign policy issues by remaining silent while pursuing realist policies, but it was a discordant moment within an otherwise blunt speech."

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Going Beyond Sound Bites

Think Progress' Matthew Yglesias offers some thoughts on Obama's Cairo speech:

"[T]he execution first and foremost reminded me of why Obama has always been the writers' candidate in American politics. This is a guy who's not afraid to try to express complicated or difficult ideas. He wasn't afraid to do it in Dreams From My Father and now that he's long past writing his own material as a solo act, his whole team is clearly imbued with the same spirit and that same mandate to try to really explain the complicated and difficult ideas rather than sweep them under the rug.

This seems connected to me to the remarkable way in which this speech is being pushed out in multiple media -- on television, but also on Twitter and on Facebook and via SMS and all in multiple languages -- to a global audience. Part of the rise of Obama is the rise of a post-television, post-sound bite technological paradigm. You can deliver a speech at 7 AM Eastern Time and know that even though relatively few Americans will be up to see it, anyone who's interested will be able to Google up a transcript. And if people like the speech, it'll become a YouTube classic. It creates a whole new world from one in which the point of a speech is just to field test a couple of zingers in hopes that one or two of them gets picked up for the evening news."

LEST WE FORGET: Kim Jong-Il: 'Time to Pass Torch to New Generation of Madmen'

The Huffington Post's Andy Borowitz:

"North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il today named his son, Kim Jong-un, to succeed him as president, but reassured his nation, 'Our rich tradition of lunacy and megalomania will continue.'

The mercurial Kim had kept Western observers guessing for years about a possible succession plan, but in naming his son the North Korean tyrant declared, 'It is time to pass the torch to a new generation of madmen.'

According to a source close to the dictator, the young Kim Jong-un had long been considered a dark horse to replace his father, 'but then in his twenties he showed signs of being a straight-up bananahead.'

In making the switch, Kim Jong-Il is hoping that his son will appeal to a coveted demographic group, lunatics between the ages of 18 and 25."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at June 4, 2009 12:28 PM