Noonan suggests what Obama "think[s] of America" is a mystery -- but he wrote a whole book on the topic
SUMMARY: In her column, Peggy Noonan asked of Barack Obama: "What does he think of America ... Who would have taught him to love it, and what did he learn was loveable, and what does he think about it all?" But Obama's latest book -- The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream -- is all about "[w]hat ... he think[s] of America."
In her April 25 OpinionJournal.com column, Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan claimed that "Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama's problem. America is Mr. Obama's problem," and asked if Obama has "ever gotten misty-eyed over ... the Wright Brothers and what kind of country allowed them to go off on their own and change everything? How about D-Day, or George Washington, or Henry Ford, or the losers and brigands who flocked to Sutter's Mill, who pushed their way west because there was gold in them thar hills?" Continuing with this line of inquiry, Noonan asked of Obama: "What does he think about all that history? Which is another way of saying: What does he think of America?" and "Who would have taught him to love it, and what did he learn was loveable, and what does he think about it all?"
While Media Matters for America did not identify specific instances of Obama's getting "misty-eyed" over the Wright brothers, the 1944 Allied invasion of Europe, George Washington, the 1849 California Gold Rush -- or Henry Ford, for that matter -- the title of his latest book, The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream, suggests that Noonan should have looked there before suggesting that Obama has yet to address "[w]hat ... he think[s] of America." She needn't have read past the prologue to find this:
I think America has more often been a force for good than for ill in the world; I carry few illusions about our enemies, and revere the courage and competence of our military. I reject a politics that is based solely on racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, or victimhood generally. I think much of what ails the inner city involves a breakdown in culture that will not be cured by money alone, and that our values and spiritual life matter at least as much as our GDP.
Or she could have just skipped to Obama's final sentence: "My heart is filled with love for this country."
From Noonan's April 25 column:
Main thought. Hillary Clinton is not Barack Obama's problem. America is Mr. Obama's problem. He has been tagged as a snooty lefty, as the glamorous, ambivalent candidate from Men's Vogue, the candidate who loves America because of the great progress it has made in terms of racial fairness. Fine, good. But has he ever gotten misty-eyed over ... the Wright Brothers and what kind of country allowed them to go off on their own and change everything? How about D-Day, or George Washington, or Henry Ford, or the losers and brigands who flocked to Sutter's Mill, who pushed their way west because there was gold in them thar hills? There's gold in that history.
John McCain carries it in his bones. Mr. McCain learned it in school, in the Naval Academy, and, literally, at grandpa's knee. Mrs. Clinton learned at least its importance in her long slog through Arkansas, circa 1977-92.
Mr. Obama? What does he think about all that history? Which is another way of saying: What does he think of America? That's why people talk about the flag pin absent from the lapel. They wonder if it means something. Not that the presence of the pin proves love of country - any cynic can wear a pin, and many cynics do. But what about Obama and America? Who would have taught him to love it, and what did he learn was loveable, and what does he think about it all?
Another challenge. Snooty lefties get angry when you ask them to talk about these things. They get resentful. Who are you to question my patriotism? But no one is questioning his patriotism, they're questioning its content, its fullness. Gate 14 has a right to hear this. They'd lean forward to hear.
This is an opportunity, for Mr. Obama needs an Act II. Act II is hard. Act II is where the promise of Act I is deepened, the plot thickens, and all is teed up for resolution and meaning. Mr. Obama's Act I was: I'm Obama. He enters the scene. Act III will be the convention and acceptance speech. After that a whole new drama begins. But for now he needs Act II. He should make his subject America.
- Barack Obama, April 5, 2008
What is the mystery again?
Just goes to show no one actually does journalism anymore...had she read the book, she would have realized how silly her premise is.
If Peggy Noonan were ever to discover how wrong and out-of-touch she is on virtually every subject, she'd go hide in a cave somewhere....
The mystery is if Noonan thinks. What is loveable about America? I geuss they way she gazes deeply into my eyes while discussing unilateral pre emptive war.
Snooty lefties get angry when you ask them to talk about these things. (Noonan)
As a representative of Snooty Lefties Local 369, can I say that I love talking about these things? The point at which I get angry or resentful is only after I've spent several vlauable minutes of my life trying to talk about these things with someone who is incapable of listening to these things.
Say, for example, somebody who could read an entire book and consider the authors thoughts a "mystery". Like Joe Scarborough in a recent thread, another commentator who reminds me of the 2nd string trolls at this site, blaming her thick skull on everybody else for failing to penetrate it.
Snooty lefties get angry when you ask them to talk about these things. (Noonan)
To follow along the lines of things that you said Col, we snooty lefties get upset when our patriotism is questioned mostly because people like Noonan equate dissenting from what our President wants to do as siding with the terrorists, and or not being patriotic. I mean, jeesh, what is there to get upset about after all? It's not like we're being equated with radical terrorists who kill innocent people and all...
Ah, but see, here is where they "get you".
Because they were criticizing Clinton, but it wasn't during a time of "war", so it's apparently OK to criticize, and yelp and yell about the President, as long as there is no war on.
But, remember that talking point when Obama takes office, and the tirade from the republicans begin, because then, we can turn it around on them. How DARE they criticize a President during a time of war?!?! They might as well be selling arms to the terrorists for crying out loud!
Of course, you know how that would all end.
Ah, but see, that wasn't a full scale invasion / war. That was an action taken by Clinton I believe that was not authorized by Congress, or Clinton did not need to get authorization, but of course at the time, there were many republicans who were saying that if Clinton did send in troops, they would cut the military funding. So much for "supporting the troops" eh?
Anyway, this whole point is moot, since we are not technically at "war" anyway. There was no declaration of such a thing.
Correct me if I'm worng, but weren't the first US troops sent to Bosnia bush Bush41 in 1992? If memory serves (and it oftne doesn't) that would mean that Clinton inherited BUsh's mess (and got blamed for it) much the saem way Obama will (hypothetically) inherit Iraq. And (probably) be blamed for whatever happens in that lose-lose situation.
(Or was my history muddled?)
And the best line from her opinion column is how she says nobody is questioning his patriotism... When she just did the same thing she said nobody is doing.
What a hack...
This reminds of when some conservative will come and yell and scream about how "I bet the NY Times won't cover this story." normally it's something negative about a democrat of some sort, and sure enough, if one were competent enough to go to say, Google.com, punch in what they were yelling about the NY Times not covering, lo and behold.. BAM! There it is.
I'm guessing that Noonan didn't read Obama's book.
Sorry, my laptop decided to post that comment before I was done....and not just once, it appears!
Obama has a pattern of selective truth, and a vivid imagination in how he remembers much of his life. I read the recent cover article in Time Magazine on his mother. He likes to paint himself as the only son of a single mother, but read about her and she wasn't really single for most of his childhood, and his grandparents, who raised him for a few years, were comfortably affluent. His mother went to high school in the Seattle area. What Obama describes as "a small island in Washington state" is the upper class professional community of Mercer Island, and it always has been a place for those with money. There was more to question in this article, but too much to include here.
He certainly wasn't honest with us when he was asked what he really knew about Rev Wright's ideas. A news researcher, Kenneth E Lamb, has posted a great deal of information he uncovered when he researched the honesty of Obama's books.
This man wants to be our president. Any media willing to risk the fall-out for vetting him is welcome to do so, in my humble opinion.
ABC tried to give him the TV time and freedom to explain some of his recent statements, and they are still being vehemently criticized for it.
Hey, Bozo!
I just went to Kenneth E. Lamb's website and saw it's 'GOING ON MAJOR RECONSTRUCTION!!'. I personally like hearing stories of black kids growing up on Mercer Island without their dad but 'livin' it good with their grandparents'. Bill Gates may have heaters in his driveway, but you don't know what it takes to! Speaking of, do you know what high school skater slash rock band came out of Mercer Islansd? I do. I was there.
I find myself not just misty-eyed, but sobbing uncontrollably about the Wright Brothers at least twice a week.
Me too Colonel Beach, me too. But probably for different reasons. I hate to fly ;-)
As one of MMFA's a resident Cons, let me just add that I have never wondered about whether Obama loved America. This is just a dumb non-issue for Noonan & other dimwits to even raise. Do I smell a whiff of swiftboating?
I do more than just cry when I think of the Wright brothers, I get down and pray... sometimes twice a day. Why, just about 2 weeks ago, I was praying almost on the hour, thinking about the Wright brothers, while I was stuck at Chicago's O'Hare for a day and a half.
Are you telling me Rev. Wright has a brother?
Ford was an innovator. But, he made cars. And got rich off of the labor of poorly paid workers. There is nothing to get teary eyed over with Henry Ford.
Now, normal every day guys storming the beaches at Normandy? I can get teary eyed over that. And have you ever seen the cemeteries in France for American and Allied troops? I got teary eyed over that. Listening to my grandfather talk about his experiences during WWII, and liberating a concentration camp, yeah, teary for sure.
Henry Ford? The Wright Brothers? Great moments in American and industrial history sure. Tear worthy? Methinks not.
"Ford was an innovator. But, he made cars. And got rich off of the labor of poorly paid workers. There is nothing to get teary eyed over with Henry Ford."
Depends on how you define "poorly paid"...My understanding is that at some point he RAISED their pay, so his workers could afford to buy the cars they were making.
Depends on how you define "poorly paid"...My understanding is that at some point he RAISED their pay, so his workers could afford to buy the cars they were making.
He certainyl did, but he also did it to try an keep the unions at bay. It worked for awhile, but I guess a lot of people people didn't want to live in their car.
Much of what Peggy Noonan writes is thoughtful and interesting, I know many here disagree with her most of the time, but I find her provocative and I am in agreement with her more often than not, big surprise, ok.
However, in this instance regarding her impressions of Obama and the "snooty lefties", she is off base. She approaches it from that rather irritating platform that many on the right feel entitled to, or they have some inherent right to occupy the patriotic wing more than those "snooty lefties" that they look down upon. That somehow they value history and all things American more than those who don't bend to their ideological persuasion......the those "lefties" better straighten their paths and start appreciating what they do, they way they do, or else they deserve the marginalization and the skepticism concerning their "trueness". I do not subscribe a willingness to share that pompous pedestal, and those that feel their place there do not impress me when they condescend towards those they feel are not worthy of it.
Noonan is doing that in this piece, I disagree with her assessments and her reasonings. It's tiresome.
I can get on board with you on this one Tommy.
I think that's the battle we've been having with a lot of conservatives. If we don't fall into line 100% and rate high on their "Jingometer (thanks Col)", then we must NOT be good Americans at all. We must be radical leftist communist fascists who sleep with terrorists at night.
Good post, Tommy. I'm completely exhausted from all of the denouncing, renouncing, rejecting, condemning and plain old washing my hands of people and cutting ties.
That's why I like you, you're not like the typical conservative A-hole, you're more the type of A-hole that I am. That is, we'd both be bored out of our heads if everyone we disagreed with suddenly renounced (etc.) all of the stuff we differed on. What the hell would we beef about?
Thanks Colonel, agree. We have our disagreements because we both care enough to become engaged, that is a far cry from many who do not. To all those here, and elsewhere, regardless of their political ideology, I respect that.
I have just never been able to link intellectually those that want tax cuts vs. those that don't, those that want universal health care vs. those that don't, or those that are conservative vs. those that are liberal with one being more patriotic than the other. It's a cheap shot taken by many, in my opinion.
Egads; just like with Jeter above.
Conservative: "Grass is green." Liberal: "How true, how true! You are not like some conservatives! I love and respect you!"
steeve, I have my disagreements with Tommy(as with all conservatives), but I don't mind commenting when somebody with a different view than I have shows some insight that I like.
Besides, there's just a handful of sane conservatives here who have to withstand the "guilt by association" with some of the most embarrassing trolls imaginable. I salute them when I can.
Noonan is one of the flakiest of the conservative press cohort, and her views are frequently based on a bizarro mysticism (among other things, she claims to have received a prediction of the assassination of MLK in a dream). It's not surprising that her critique of Obama contains little in the way of fact and a healthy dose of mind-reading.
Iraq War, anyone? Recession, anyone? Tripled National Debt, anyone? $117 a barrel oil, anyone? Naaaaaaaah! The Amurikkin People don't care about that stuff.... they want to hear about FLAG F***ING PINS!
GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
Time for your happy place Nerz. I'll take over.
GGGGHHHHUUUUUUAAAAAAAGGGGGIIIIIISSSSSSTTTTT!!!!
May I suggest A Majority of One? A truly underated classic movie. Rosalind Russel and Alec Guiness.
El Cid, might have seen it. His history could support a few movies.
I've been thinking of putting J Men Forever, on the DVD. If nothing else the scene with the walking hot water heater bemoaning, "Nobody loves the metalman.", is histerical.
or Henry Ford, or the losers and brigands who flocked to Sutter's Mill, who pushed their way west because there was gold in them thar hills?"
So Noonan gets teary eyed remembering the good old days of worker suppression/exploitation at sweat shops and the thought of unbridled greed.
Typical Republican idealism. She makes me ill.
I read her column today. I must admit to total exasperation as I had no idea where she was going or what she was trying to convey.
as for the people coming for the gold, interestingly, the greatest numbers initially came from across the pacific, china and australia. and from latin america. their transport was much easier to arrange.
my wife had several antecedents who came here in the early days, built businesses in l.a. and s.f., and then went to galveston where they all perished in 1900.
John McCain carries it in his bones.
He better take care not to carry too much lest he break a hip.
I think America has more often been a force for good than for ill in the world; I carry few illusions about our enemies, and revere the courage and competence of our military. I reject a politics that is based solely on racial identity, gender identity, sexual orientation, or victimhood generally. I think much of what ails the inner city involves a breakdown in culture that will not be cured by money alone, and that our values and spiritual life matter at least as much as our GDP.
Unfortunately the Obama I have seen onthe campaign trail lately is not the same Obama who wrote that stirring passage. It leaves me (and obviously Noonan too) to wonder which is the real Obama?
Dems,
I agree with Solon here, Obama speaks of those things often in his speeches......his inclusiveness, not divisiveness, is what has attracted me to him for awhile now.
Next, this thing about patriotism: I recall that patriotism drove the Nazi party into it's rapid ascent and the lack of it, according to Adolf, it's downfall. I just watched Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece, "Paths of Glory" for a reminder of what "patriotism" meant to the French generals during WWI.
As the great Professor Irwin Cory would say, "Howevah!", the question of Senator Obama's patriotism remains. How on God's Green Earth can a man who was raised by his grandmother, in a rather affluent neighborhood, in Seattle no less (!) possibly be patriotic? Fool me once, I'm a dunce. Fool me twice, that ain't nice.
The message of Paths of Glory need not be limited to the French in WWI. It could be an allegory for so much, and not just military war alone. It is one of the most powerful movies ever made, with incredible performances by all involved.
There are so many great scenes. My favorite is the cockroach scene for the gallows humor.
Nice variation DM. You and Mercer Island have a history then?
Far as Tommy goes, he trys. On the occasion has excellent posts. More comonly, he's driving someone up a wall. Sometimes for fun,sometimes its a mystery. He is part of the top tier of conservatives on site.These are people you can have a good argument with. Not someone who drops a few talking points and ignores your replys to drop a few more talking points.
Like the Col and many other posters I appreciate the people who do make an effort, make points and accept them. Its not that comon a thing and is worthy of encouragement.
gas tax. just read that hillary like mccain wants to eliminate the gas tax for the summer. that would make gas cheaper so people could drive more and create more greenhouse gasses. these politicians tie themselves into knots.
hillary wants windfall profits taxes on the oil companies, so does obama. there are many reasons oil is so expensive now, but one of the most important is that government gets in the way.
in russia, anything over 24 bucks a barrel, the state takes 80%. as a result, the oil companies are not plowing bucks into rehabing old fields or developing new ones. they'd rather use their money to buy yachts and mansions in london. oil production in russia is down for the first three months of the year, the first time that has happened in a decade.
that same pattern is repeated throughout the world. mexico has plenty of oil, but the government controls it and does not have the 50 billion dollars necessary to develop new fields.
we have plenty of oil offshore, and in anwr, but can't drill it. even if we did, who would refine it. there is a refinery being expanded in louisiana, but that's it.
we need more infrastructure, and that takes money. take it away from the oil companies and refineries, and you won't get it. it's that simple.
forget about alternative fuels, the only ones that exist provide electrical power, not petrol that we need for trucks, planes and cars. gosh we are dumb.
Approaching reality Rumpy, keep trying.
Can't say I think either Hillary or John are on the right track their. If I'm willing to believe you about Hillary's position. Hillary, if really agreeing with John could be argued into a different position. John less so, lobbist's supply him with his positions in this area. I don't see him taking input, or even getting it though his handlers.
A little evidence of this oil loving administration somehow interfering, getting in the way of record profits for how many years in a row.
I see no cause and effect in your words on Russia. Buying Mega Yachts and/or Mansions in London is not much different in finacial load, from investing in your company. Investmentwise there has to be more than involved than tax rate. Again assuming your information is correct.
So mexico's only option is to sell its oil reserves to a pathological interchangable set of American businesses? Sure there's no other option, in your brain anyway.
The amount of recoverable oil in the anwr has been pointed out to you repeatedly. Yet the information refuses to penetrate you. Teflon coated brain? Some major strikes in the South Atlantic also have failed to make an impression on you. You claim somehow to speak with authority on this subject. Cherry picking seems to be a better description.
So the record profits mentioned above are somehow insuficient to support business expansion. This is a sucessful business model? Seems more like coasting on someone elses sweat.
gosh we are dumb. You offer nothing but more of the same. The same is not supportable. I'm sure the "important" people if they bother to notice your efforts to further push the economic disparity in this country beyond the example of the late 1920's, will offer something along the lines of Drafted in 68's tag line.
Goood Puuupppie!
all administrations love oil, because without it our country would not run.
i have never set myself up as an oil maven, i only know what i read.
i don't understand your point on mexico. my point was that pemex, the governmental corporation that owns all of mexico's reserves, is a horribly run inefficient business. here's what the houston chronicle has to say about pemex.
The United States imports about 15 percent of its oil from Mexico. Pemex sells more debt than any other oil company, with about $37 billion in bonds held by investors around the globe.
Despite being one of the world's biggest producers, Pemex's reserves have been falling for 22 years. At current depletion rates, Mexico may have to start importing oil in a little more than decade.
They are not replacing their reserves!
I don't understand your point about Russia. oiigarchs buying mansions and yachts is not the same as maintaining oil fields and developing new reserves.
As for anwr, my understanding is that at 20-25 dollar oil, it could supply us with about 9% of the oil we now import. I don't consider 9% an insignificant number.
so what about new finds off brazil? it's not ours. i'm not even certain when that field will come online. it's going to take a lot of time and money to get to that oil.
one reason the profits are at an all time record is that the companies have consolidated, so they look bigger. but record profits do give them the wherewithal to maintain fields and develop new reserves. take the profits away, as hillary and obama want to do, and they won't have the money to do it. the result, fewer reserves, less infrastructure, and inevitably higher prices.
as for economic disparity, without doing the research, i bet the disparity was greater during the depression than during the roaring 20's.
Not bad R. Still why do you only accept and worry about oil. And that only from american companies. Seeking an energy equalibrium with much less use of oil is not a hard thing.
I'll grant mexico's national oil company is not a good business model. I don't believe selling it will be of any benifit to anyone but the upper management of that company.
Have you priced a mansion in London recently or a yacht?
The politics and economics of scarsity lend their benevelence to the already rich and powerful. Everybody else packs sand. This would seem to be the game plan for the Oligarchy which runs Russia these days
Someone, and no I can't remember who, compared the spread of wealth in the late 20s with today. I don't see haggeling over the amount of difference. I don't see following the current finsncial game plan till it does similar damage. It is not a good policy. It is to the benifit of again that population which already owns most of the money and power.
Ah notes; 1980 to 2005.
The portion of the national income accruing to the richest 1% of americans has doubled. The share going to the richest one tenth of 1% has tripled. Those folks in the one onehundreth of 1% has quadrupled.
In 2005 the wealthiest 1% of the country earned 21.2% of all income. The bottom 50% earned just 12.8% of all income, down from 13.4% a year earlier.
In the 60 years since these records have been kept, this is a record for economic inequality. Since 2000 the number of americans living below the poverty line has increased by nearly a third.
This isn't a healthy economy. An unhealthy economy makes for an unhealthy nation.
Figures from Alterman's Think Again Colunm of Apirl 24, 2008, curtesy of the IRS.