English: President Barack Obama with the Nobel Prize medal and diploma during the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Raadhuset Main Hall at Oslo City Hall in Oslo, Norway, Dec. 10, 2009. Image has been cropped from original. The diploma reads (in English): “The Nobel Committee of the Norwegian Storting has, in accordance with the terms of the will set up by Alfred Nobel on the 27th of November 1895, awarded Barack H. Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009.” (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
It was an astonishing award to make less than a year after Obama’s historic win as the first black president of the US. At that time, it wasn’t yet clear how the elements of Obama’s foreign policy would play out. He had not yet hit his stride as President. Which is precisely why he never should have received the award.
It is always dangerous to give a sitting political leader such a signature award. Why? Because it could prove embarrassing when the real thrust of his foreign policy begins to emerge. The Nobel Committee should be feeling that embarrassment now.
Consider, for example, the drone (unmanned aerial vehicles) attacks in Pakistan. The attacks began under the leadership of George Bush and have escalated under President Obama to target Pakistani Al Qaeda and Taliban militants.
“Other commanders in chief have presided over wars with far higher casualty counts. But no president has ever relied so extensively on the secret killing of individuals to advance the nation’s security goals.”
“As a matter of international law the US drone campaign in Pakistan is therefore being conducted without the consent of the elected representatives of the people, or the legitimate Government of the State. It involves the use of force on the territory of another State without its consent and is therefore a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty.”
The non-profit, non-partisan think tank New America Foundation states that it aims “to provide as much information as possible about the covert US drone program in Pakistan in the absence of any such transparency on the part of the American government.”
So President Obama has been pressing ahead with a campaign resisted by Pakistan, and which has been killing hundreds of its civilians.
Now consider Obama’s current posturing on Syria. He had been pressing strongly for military action before managing to reach any international consensus on the matter, even before the official report of the UN inspectors regarding Syria’s alleged use of chemical weapons had been turned in (albeit on the basis of his own intelligence.) Even as the British Parliament voted against military involvement, even as the issue divided leaders at the G20 Summit concerned about the possible impact, President Obama remained clear that his intention was to proceed with military strikes.
With armed conflict looming, Amnesty International issued a call to protect civilians to the greatest extent possible. This is because, well, civilians tend to get killed in these “strikes.” Refer here to previous accounts of the deaths in Pakistan.
“Following the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons to kill more than 1,000 men, women, and
Nobel Committee Chairman Thorbjorn Jagland presents President Barack Obama with the Nobel Prize medal and diploma during the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony in Raadhuset Main Hall at Oslo City Hall in Oslo, Norway, Dec. 10, 2009. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
children on August 21, I decided that the United States must take action to deter the Syrian regime from using chemical weapons, degrade their ability to use them, and make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use. In part because of the credible threat of U.S. military force, we now have the opportunity to achieve our objectives through diplomacy. “
But the threat of force is not off the table, because according to President Obama:
“…if diplomacy fails, the United States remains prepared to act.”
“Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts.”
Really? Does that sound like the 2013 President Obama? A strong, decisive US president? Maybe. A Nobel Peace Prize recipient? Not in my book.
As US President Barack Obama prepares to face everything that comes with a second term in the White House, and even as the “Why Obama Won” and “Why Romney Lost” analyses are in high gear, I think I’ll just pause and savour my own take-away from all this.
I have a memory years ago of Jesse Jackson saying that the day a black man became President of the United States there would be no more impossible dreams.
The political career of Barack Hussein Obama is the embodiment of the impossible dream. Ten years ago, no one had heard of Barack Obama. His 2004 keynote address at the Democratic National Convention marked him as one to watch, but even then, he was only a state senator and a candidate for the US Senate.
He became one of only a handful of black people ever elected to the US Senate in 2004, and went from a barely noticed entrant
With his family by his side, Barack Obama is sworn in as the 44th president of the United States by Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts, Jr. in Washington, D.C., Jan. 20, 2009. More than 5,000 men and women in uniform are providing military ceremonial support to the presidential inauguration, a tradition dating back to George Washington’s 1789 inauguration. VIRIN: 090120-F-3961R-919 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
into the 2008 Presidential race to being sworn in as the first black president of the United States, in a ceremony that we all watched, in awe, around the world.
And he has survived! Survived rank racism, the forces of the conservative and extreme right, withstood the millions of dollars mustered to defeat him, a terrible economy which he and his administration have struggled to mend, and endured vicious attacks on the health care reform that will forever bear his name. He fought back after a disastrous first debate which I wrote about here, which had supporters and donors worried. And after all that, he has come out on top. Again!
At this moment I am not debating his policies, successes and failures, political strategies, or the uphill task that faces all second term Presidents ready to think about their legacies.
I’m just taking a minute to look at him and say “Wow! Really?” Maybe what we’re all trying to accomplish on much smaller stages can be done as well. It’s certainly worth a try. After all, it’s not like we’re trying to do anything hard like, you know, become elected or re-elected as the first black US President!
Mitt Romney at one of his presidential campaign rallies. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I don’t think anybody could seriously disagree that Mitt Romney won the first, highly anticipated presidential debate in the US 2012 election campaign. He was sharp, on point, and seemed super prepared.
Obama had many good points, but failed to hammer them home and claim the advantage he should have had. The long rambling story telling style he adopted was a bad move and cost him time. The responses couched in that format were a terribly inefficient way of answering questions. Even the good points he did make were often lost because of his failure to make them concisely, consistently and sharply.
Think of George Bush hammering away at Al Gore with the phrase “fuzzy math.” That is certainly what viewers came away with in 2000. Al Gore had fuzzy math. Obama had a similar opportunity to nail Romney on two of his weakest points – a refusal to go into detail about his plans, and his constantly shifting positions.
He did make those points –but never capitalized on them effectively and never drove them home repeatedly. He should have had one or two catch phrases that would have stuck with the viewers, or else found concise ways to repeatedly highlight the same themes. That never happened.
The 47%
Unlike many people, I had no problem with Obama not bringing up the 47% issue. This has been covered to death.
Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Romney has been crucified in the media, and is still being hammered in the ads. The damage has been done. He damaged himself. Why now give him an opportunity to recover? He certainly would have had a million prepared answers to try to make up ground he lost, both from the disastrous comments themselves, and also from his ineffectual responses in the wake of the video’s release. This is especially so with the release of a new poll with nearly half of respondents saying the issue received too much coverage. No, I think Obama played that exactly right.
What he didn’t play right was the style of his responses. Short, precise statements of his position, why those positions would be better for the country, and a vivid contrast immediately with Romney’s position, along with frequent reminders of Romney’s position shifts and lack of detail could have been devastating.
Whoever thought the long-winded story telling was the way to win a debate needs to be put out to pasture. If it was Obama’s idea, he needs to acknowledge that he is out of practice and needs guidance. And speaking of retirement, it is more than sad to see the (well-deserved) flak the much-respected Jim Lehrer has been getting. At 78, he should have been home with popcorn watching the debate, in preparation for a thoughtful column or commentary the following day. The debate needed a younger, more aggressive moderator to take control of the proceedings.
Supporters are claiming that Lehrer did exactly the right thing by staying out of the way entirely. If that was the aim, why bother have a moderator at all if he’s not going to keep to time, not going to keep the debate on track, not going to ask follow up questions? Why not just send the candidates out there by themselves to play bat up and catch? Viewers were not well served by Lehrer’s ineffectual approach.
Jim Lehrer (Photo credit: wfuv)
The free-wheeling format was interesting to watch, given the rigidity of our own debates here in Jamaica. If the format is going to be more relaxed, however, with more latitude given to the moderator, it seems a shame not to use it. Sure, he would then be open to charges of excessive interference, but would it really be such a bad thing to have someone who can say “You haven’t answered the question” or “Your answer doesn’t tell the public how you will do such and such, or where the money will come from?”
Without anyone to at least ASK follow-up questions, or point out that questions have not been answered, you get the candidates talking at each other all night, without any further clarity on the issues being debated.
CNN reported that “tight” rules had been set for the debate. The moderator was to ask a question, followed by two minute answers from each candidates. The moderator would have the rest of the 15-minute segment for follow-up and discussion. That’s funny. They have no idea what “tight” rules are.
Debate Format
I actually like the format, though, which comes across much more like a debate than the tightly scripted structure we have in Jamaica with rigid time limits, and a format that severely limits the follow-ups which are essential to at least try to press the candidates on the issues.
I don’t think there’s a chance in hell however, of this kind of format ever being accepted by our local politicians. In particular the ability to ask follow-up questions (although not effectively utilized by Lehrer) would be very valuable. Each journalist asking a question in our political debates is currently allowed ONE follow up question per candidate for the entire debate. I don’t see the parties agreeing to any significant changes there. Pin the debaters down? Point out (more than once) that they aren’t answering the questions? Real cut and thrust? Not gonna happen, although I wish it would.
Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
It’s campaign season in the United States and US President Barack Obama and his opponent Mitt Romney are edging closer to election day. Many Jamaicans are following the campaign and enjoying the spectacle. While we do so, there are some things we can take from the Americans.
1. “Democracy doesn’t have to be a blood sport.” – This was said by former US President Bill Clinton at the Democratic National Convention. Well, the truth is that US politics is often vicious, and campaigns can leave blood in the water. Given how close this election could be, it will be interesting to see if the Obama campaign can stick to the high ideal expressed by Clinton. The thing is though, he was speaking figuratively. Too often for us in Jamaica, those words could be taken literally. Yes, we’ve come a far way in curbing political violence, but we’re not there yet.
2. Lay it all out there. The candidates are subjected to a thorough vetting process. Between debates, media interviews, town hall meetings, it’s hard for candidates to dodge the issues and the tough questions. Too often our politicians manage to do just that. Between releasing manifestos on the very eve of the election, and restricting media interviews, too many politicians are able to slide into office without us having any clear idea of their positions on major issues, or without having those positions subjected to rigorous analysis and scrutiny.
3. Debates are good. The US Presidential candidates debate extensively at the primary stage and there are debates between the presidential nominees and even a vice-presidential debate. In fact, some people were complaining that the Republicans debated too much! Part of that of course, is
Mitt Romney & The Republican Team Event (Photo credit: mnassal)
due to their wanting to make an impact in the different states. We don’t have that issue, and we are a whole lot smaller. Still, we could do more. It’s good that we do have political debates, but it would be nice to see us step it up. Three leadership debates, for example, would be a good start, with different formats for each. Also, the public should be able to see the candidates for party leadership debate. The argument that party leadership elections are an internal matter is clearly nonsense, as the parties then use the parliamentary structure to catapult the new leader into the position of Prime Minister, as we saw with both the PNP’s Portia Simpson-Miller and the JLP’s Andrew Holness.
4. Country first. Whatever problems you may have with the Americans (and the list is probably endless) one does get a deep sense of commitment to country from their candidates. Love of country and patriotism is one of the things the Americans do best. Too often, from our politicians, I get a clear sense of party first.
5. Campaign reform is hard. Big money has always wielded a heavy influence in politics, and the US’s efforts to limit that influence have had very mixed results. That’s not to say we shouldn’t try. But we should study their history closely. At the very least, we may be able to get an understanding of what doesn’t work.
News and Views by Dionne Jackson Miller 
Recent Comments