In a word, yes.
Yes, Curtis Sittenfeld, you are the last person in America who adores Obama. Even Chris Matthews, liberal rat he is, has jumped off the sinking Love Boat that is the Obama administration.
Let’s start with a few quick, slobbering, try-to-hide-the-bulge-in-your-pants (oh, wait, we forgot that “Curtis” is a woman) comments before we get to the heart of Curtis’ paean:
Two years after voting for him, I’m just as exhilarated as Oprah Winfrey was in Grant Park on Nov. 4, 2008. … I’ve remained in the tank for Obama … the thrill still hasn’t worn off for me of once again having an intellectually nimble president, not to mention one who doesn’t pride himself on going with his gut when it comes to foreign policy … when I see Obama on television, I’m unfailingly struck by his intelligence and charisma, by his easygoing humor, by the magnificence of his megawatt smile. He just makes me proud … my Obama admiration is a kind of emotional inverse of the right-wing Obama antipathy…
Consider that a mere warm-up, because we’re getting to the main event. Now Curtis begins working herself into a frenzy that can only end with an explosion of bodily fluids:
I like that he’s married to—and seemingly still quite taken with—a strong, opinionated, gorgeous woman, and that he has two ridiculously cute daughters. I like his mind-bendingly multicultural extended family. I like that in a campaign interview in Glamour magazine, he could fluently and unabashedly talk about Pap smears. I thought that the beer summit of 2009 was delightful. I was even excited when Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, not realizing until pundits explained otherwise that I was supposed to be aghast at its prematurity … I was one of those Democrats who thought it’d be nice to have an entrée of eight years of Hillary, with Obama as a vice-presidential side, followed by eight years of a more seasoned Obama as the main course. I was always an Obama admirer, but maybe the fact that I was initially rooting for Hillary has prevented me from feeling the disappointment in his presidency expressed by certain Obamamaniacs. So swoony and ardent was their Obama love during the campaign that it couldn’t be sustained; my more measured affection, by contrast, has grown over time.
At this point, I love Obama so much that I recently thought if it were 1961, I’d probably display a bust of him in my living room. Then I realized I’m already displaying the 2010 equivalent: On my living room wall, I have a framed version of that famous November 2008 New Yorker cover of the O moon over the Lincoln Memorial. Meanwhile, on my desk, I keep a printed-out photo I first saw on the Huffington Post in May 2009, of Obama in the Oval Office, bending over so a little African-American boy could rub his head. The boy, it turns out, was the child of a White House staffer, and the reason Obama was bending was, according to the caption in the White House’s Flickr account, “The youngster wanted to see if the President’s haircut felt like his own.”
I don’t care if it’s good PR—the picture still practically brings tears to my eyes. It reminds me of the sense of excitement and possibility I felt in November 2008, as if in electing Obama, we Americans were acting as our best, smartest, least racist selves, as if there really was change we could believe in. And, OK, so it’s been a long two years since then, and for a lot of people it’s been an undeniably hard two years. But I’m just not convinced that’s Obama’s fault.
For god’s sake, Curtis, get a room. You know, one of those rooms that rent for an hour where they don’t change the sheets between customers. Send us the bill.
Source: Slate.com
This post was last modified on November 9, 2010
View Comments (55)
This Curtis twit should be put to sleep.
Sounds like she already is. Definitely dead between the ears.
At least he lowered your taxes ;)
No. Raising taxes on rich or ultra rich people (and businesses) who can afford to hire me does not make it easy for me tax wise. In fact all that will trickle down to me. My life is not going to get easier it is going to get worst and it is possible that my job will be MORE insecure now because bosses may start thinking about going overseas. When things get more taxed, they get more expensive that takes MORE money out of my pocket BUT my salary does not get higher. You see the problem?
What rich has he raised taxes on?
The only *increase* in taxes imminent is due to PLANNED expiration of Bush's taxcuts (done in reconciliation 10 years ago)
The trickle-down you imagine did not occur, either, due to said taxcuts. The ultra rich do not immediately take a windfall and decide to create a job with it. They tend to invest it more and more overseas (a natural consequence of globalization)
Allowing the Fed to print money with nothing to back it up is really a tax on the people in the form of higher prices for everything. Have a look at fuel prices & food prices. Notice how they are on their way up? That is a direct result of the Fed printing money, not that the actual cost of fuel & food is going up. The US dollar is worth less now then it was before, so when we get hammered with inflation, that is a form of taxation. Without representation of course.
Liberalism:Ideas so good that they need to be mandatory.
Andrew Wilkow
Alrighty, since the prevailing view here seems to be that this is all Obama's fault, I offer the WSJ, circa Obama-not-quite-president yet (Dec08)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122973431525523215.html
Not at all, Bush43 sucked big time when it came to spending. He did'nt veto anything until stem-cell funding came up. So don't conufuse me with the Obama blame game. However, the Obama regime has spent at a rate this nation, or any other nation, has never seen in the history of the planet. But the biggest problem seems to be the unconstitutional spending...
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html
...if it ain't in there, they ain't supposed to do it. I love how we hear from idoit members of Congress, usually Dems, who either don't know this, or try to make the case for "stare decisis" since we have just accepted the idea of SocialSecurity, Medicare, & Madicaid, we have to accept ObamaCare. That's BS, & that's why so many on Capital Hill do not like the peasents reading the constitution. Those peasents BTW, are the TeaParty, & that's why they are under attack by the political & media "elites", because they threaten their place on the totem pole. This goes for RINOs as well, & they will be dealt with as well.
Liberalism:Ideas so good, they have to be maditory.
Andrew Wilkow
Obamacare will raise taxes on all aspects of life that will trickle down to everyone not just affect one group of people or businesses.
The proposed cap and trade would have done it as well and considering his speech on that, it seems that he will find a way to go around it and not call it cap and trade anymore.
When the taxes cuts if they do expire it will increase taxes on the rich which in the end will increase the taxes on everyone else. Many businesses will stop hiring or consider letting people go, to make up for the taxes on them they will raise the price on products and/or services which the consumer will pay along. Even though not called a tax it can be considered as such. The investments overseas will only skyrocket once people realize they will be taxed to death here.
Based on your other statement regarding Reagan, you are probably too young to remember cap-and-trade successfully addressing acid rain problems in the northeast. Cap&Trade was supported by republicans, free market thinkers, and business leaders as a market-based alternative to overt government regulation. Its current demonization is puzzling
I was not living in this country in the 90's and I probably wouldn't have heard of it nor cared if I was as I was a child/teen still. However if it was successful I can only say that it benefitted businesses and the environment in equal measure.
Perhaps it wasn't an imposition but a program that companies could opt in and out (?) depending on the type of businesses they were. So the cap and trade was based and tailored to the business. My understanding is that won't be case with Obama's proposition. He would like to make an imposition on all businesses even if their practices, services or products do not affect the environment in any equal measure as a company that is larger and deals primarily with energy. It would be a tax pass to all businesses regardless of what they do and are about in order to add an additional tax to businesses that will be passed on to customers. I can understand cap and trade for businesses whose products or practices seriously damage or have the potential of damaging the environment around them and if they are beneficial to them in the sense that it is not a tax imposition but a way for them to do good for the environment and get savings and then pass those on to their customers, but taxing smaller or irrelevant businesses alike is not a good idea.
If I am wrong (and I could be) please pose verifiable links not wikipedia. Anyone else can add to this if there is something to add as well.
It was 1990 and part of the Clean Air Act Ammendments. Title IV. Mandatory and market-driven and highly successful. Signed by Bush the Elder
...and raised our debt.
as did GWB, Clinton, GHWB, and Reagan
but at least you acknowledge what most don’t know. Obama lowered just about all your taxes
Indeed, however they didn't do it at the massive and increasingly frightening level as Obama has done. In many ways we will not be able to get caught up with the inflation. That is a serious problem. And no... he hasn't lowered taxes. There is tax on EVERYTHING from things bought to things owned already.
Not even remotely true
Reagan nearly TRIPLED the debt.. since that was decades ago, you can imagine the interest compounding.
GWB added many trillions, and even tried to muddy the numbers via several emergency war funding requests that occurred outside of normal budget planning.
Fiscal 2009 started in October 2008.. the TARP numbers are often misinterpreted and wrongly attributed to Obama. When he ENTERED office, the 2009 defecit was ALREADY at $1T and more.
You might try to argue with numbers, partisan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
Yeah you know you could have made a point if you have shown something else other than wikipedia... I mean really? wikipedia the lazy college student's guide? *yawns*
Someone else can refute the claim about Reagan. I was barely alive when he was president. Although I do know that all presidents in one way or another regardless of party have raised the debt it is an actual fact that Obama has done it more quickly than any other President in the history of this country.
George W Bush added more to National Debt than any other President. Reagan increased the debt by the greatest percentage, and triggered its upward trajectory in terms of GDP share. Reagan requested more in his budgets than Congress eventually passed.
http://conservapedia.com/National_debt
http://zfacts.com/p/318.htm
Your assertion only works if you blame Obama for the deficit already accruing the FIRST day he stepped into office. Remember, the 2009 numbers START in OCTOBER 2008 (these are fiscal years). He has inherited the defecit creation framework put into place by Bush and his Republican Congress (big tax cuts, massive increase in spending)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20000576-503544.html
Bush touted a quarter-trillion dollar defecit as a milestone (after inheriting surpluses). Recall that Cheney is said to have proclaimed "defecits don't matter" by Treasury Secretary O'Neill. Growth of debt has been greatest under Republican Presidents since Carter & Reagan
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,219745,00.html
(i realize the short-hand we are all engaged in here: Congress passes the budgets, and President's sign them..)
No response to 4 non-wikipedia links? How 'bout a vote down? I collect vote downs from blind partisans
cowardly to vote down a statement of fact.. Can you counter?
“Am I the last person in America who still adores President Obama?”
Yes you are! You win a cookie, a lifetime of crushing debt and a free upper cut to the vagina by someone who can beat Michelle in arm wrestling.
Ewwwwww.... gross! She is insane and unless I am proven wrong, obviously a very lonely individual. Sad and depressing for her to exist. See a psychologist Ms "Curtis" you need help.
Just another homely white ho that's hot for "well endowed" males of color. Any surprise there?
Way kewl !! First thumbs down in a long time. I was afraid I was losing my touch for offending the "Progressives" among us. Glad to see I finally struck a nerve.
Neener, neener, neener. ;-)
I think it is more that the progressives aren't coming here anymore. The comment section on this site can be rather brutal on those that disagree with the posts XD.
Wait wait wait. I've seen the pictures posted on this site! Michelle looks more well endowed then her husband...
No matter how much Sittenfeld thinks she loves Obama, she will never love Obama as much as Obama loves Obama. He loves himself a little too much, & not in a healthy way.
Easy on that bong Curtis. That's more than weed you got in there.
Curtis, get a grip. Your article reads like something out of Tiger Beat. Maybe you've confused Barack Obama with Justin Bieber.
This chick is pathetic!
- "I like that he’s married to—and seemingly still quite taken with—a strong, opinionated, gorgeous woman, ..."
- So is my husband. Can he be president next?
-"I like his mind-bendingly multicultural extended family." WHAT?????
- " I like that in a campaign interview in Glamour magazine, he could fluently and unabashedly talk about Pap smears"
OMG!!!! This doesn't even make sense and- oh yeah - why was he talking about Pap smears and why, oh why, would anyone ask him about Pap smears?/!!! Argh!! Why are these women allowed on Earth with us?
Your entire post was funny but this just cracked me up:
"Why are these women (and I would add man) allowed on Earth with us?"
Overall that is a question for the Almighty, but I see where you are coming from... I wish I could live in a world where people like this are not invited to participate in. As far as my own faith is concern I believe that such a world will exist hopefully soon.
Women like this give women everywwhere a bad name. People start thinking we are all airheads, who base our votes on appearance only. A great many men are married to gorgeous, COMPETENT women. Obama has absolutely nothing to do with his multicultural, extended family, and seems to want to forget they exist. And why his knowlege of and willingness to discuss papsmears has anything to do with his ability as a leader, I am failing to identify. I get asked more weird questions about more weird stuff than anyone I know, and am willing to discuss/instruct them about their questions. Can I be president next? What a moron. Stick a sock in her mouth for her own safety. Michelle may send the Secret Service her way.
Hahahaha... I wish I had more than one thumb Deb!
Hey now... I think it's going pretty far calling Michelle Obama gorgeous. Maybe it's the attitude, but I thought Laura Bush was far more attractive then Mz Obama.
I'm sorry: I could not tell you about pap smears. But i think I could run the country better then Obama could...
Of course I think a Monkey could, so that ain't saying much.
she should seek medical help fast
Psychiatric help, too.