Friday
Mar062009
Obama and Brown: So long, and thanks for all the DVDs
Friday, March 6, 2009 at 12:50 
There is perhaps no stronger indictment of UK Prime Minister Gordon Brown's recent visit to the White House and Congress than this morning's slow-news-day-controversy over President Obama's gift to the PM. Brown's presents for the new president were carefully considered, symbolic offerings- a pen holder carved from the oak of HMS Gannet, which took part in anti-slavery operations (and whose sister ship became the Oval Office's desk), and a first edition Churchill biography. Obama, on the other hand, gave Brown some DVDs- the diplomatic equivalent of Marks & Spencer vouchers. Brown's visit to Washington wasn't a failure, but it was about as meaningful and thought-provoking as that DVD boxset.Some are suggesting that Brown was snubbed by Obama, pointing to the brevity of their meeting as well as the lack of a formal dinner and the cancellation of a joint press conference. The truth is that the Obama administration, up to its eyeballs in economic and foreign policy crises, has no use for a lame duck British Prime Minister with close ties to the Bush-loving Tony Blair. Like an unwanted if generally affable houseguest, Brown was politely greeted, dispatched, and forgotten about.
Much the same happened at Congress. If you have a spare 34 minutes you can watch Brown's address:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W-AJRo5G4I[/youtube]
If you don't, let me summarise: "America is wonderful!" (applause). "We're knighting Ted Kennedy!" (applause). "America was a staunch ally in World War 2!" (applause). "We stood together after 9/11" (muted applause). "Terrorism and Iran are grave threats!" (applause). Then, the riskier content- "The economy and the environment must be fixed" (cautious applause). "America landed on the moon!" (baffled applause). "End the dictatorship of oil and tackle climate change!" (silence). Brown closed with a linkage between the Rwandan genocide, African poverty and- weirdly- "expensively funded madrassas teaching innocent children to hate us." Not Rwandan children, surely? No explanation was offered, but neither was one required. And Brown signed off (applause), ending what could be his last official visit to the US.
Reader Comments (13)
A set of DVDs.... What an insult. It just to goes show that Obama has no class at all. I understand that he is a left-of-Lenin politician, Muslim-born, sexually promiscuous, a Chicago thug, a liar and a cheat, but this is absolutely unforgiveable. And he didn't arrive at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue from the poor house either. He's worth millions. What a despicable individual. Gordon Brown should not have accepted this 'gift'.
DVDs-Absolutely hillarious!
I think Brown should have taken the trip to the airport wearing the fur-trimmed brown leather bomber jacket Bush gave him in 2007.
Depends on the DVDs I guess.
If he gave him a 'previously viewed' copy of Big Momma's House then yes, that's unforgivable. A blue-ray copy of "Good Night and Good Luck" on the other hand...
Well, if this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VH4nVMJEopU is one of the films included in the set, then maybe it's not so bad... At least the Englishman gives a few good punches.
Another good choice -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3pvCwC2rsg
"he is a left-of-Lenin politician, Muslim-born, sexually promiscuous, a Chicago thug, a liar and a cheat" What a petty, ignorant and slanderous post. The idea that Obama would personally select such a gift is ridiculous. As for his millions, what's your point?
Heh, I had a "special relationship" with a girl like this before. She gave me something very, very special and I...y'know...gave her some DVDs. ;)
As for his millions, what’s your point?
********************
He could have gotten him a better gift. That's all. Maybe an old printing of Anglicanism's 'Thirty-nine Articles of Religion' from the revolutionary era or some other artifact used in the Colonies. He could have bought him a nicer gift. A John Gould painting would have been nice. One of them hangs in the White House.
http://www.bethlehemartgallery.com/johngouldprints.htm
As for my 'slanderous' remarks -- Look at the people he surrounded himself with. Take a look at his voting record. http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/voteratings/
Do you think the president buys other leaders gifts? Do you think Brown bought the gift for Obama? I fail to see your point. And how does calling him "sexually promiscuous" have any relevance beyond petty name calling. Indeed, there's a much deeper racialised connotation to the use of such a phrase with respect to African Americans. And the National Journal rating has not been replicated elsewhere even in previous years by the National Journal. And, again, what's your point? The biggest destroyer of capitalism has been the Bush administration. Perhaps you should look into his background because it was during his term in office that the system reached the point of collapse.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/sep/26/john-mccain/several-ratings-rank-obama-lower/
Do you think Brown bought the gift for Obama?
And how does calling him “sexually promiscuous” have any relevance beyond petty name calling. Indeed, there’s a much deeper racialised connotation to the use of such a phrase with respect to African Americans.
*********************
That's not the issue.
He had an affair with a Vera Baker. The media refused to report on it during the run-up to the election, of course.
There's absolutely no way you could know that and even if he did
a. it's not relevant
and
b. does not make him "sexually promiscuous".
There's a long racist discourse of using such terminology to describe African-American men.
Why don't you try engaging with the wider issues instead of offering the kind of gossip one would find in the National Enquirer.
There’s a long racist discourse of using such terminology to describe African-American men.
******************
You brought that up. I didn't. Whites cheat, last I checked. And I know you're trying to trap me.
You think Bush is the biggest destroyer of capitalism? The stock market has declined at an accelerating rate under Obama. And Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund is down 50% since he took the lead in the presidential polls. If there was consensus that Obama's stimulus plan was good, it's highly unlikely that the stock market would have declined at an almost unprecedented rate. And you haven't see anything yet.
Obama will turn America into an impoverished country.
If this quote in the Telegraph is anything to go by, the snub might be explained by apparently inexperienced State Department staff failing their first foreign visit challenge. The statement is an over reaction to the criticism of their mishandling Brown's visit (I disagree with the Telegraph's conclusion but quote this as the fact such an undiplomatic answer was given clearly shows inexperience, IMO). Obama is also said to be too overwhelmed by economics business to give any attention to the details (which in any case isn't his but the State Dep's job). The Telegraph article also recycles the Obama-is-not-strong-enough-to-be-President claims that abounded during the campaign, bemoaning that the President looks exhausted/is too tired.
"The real views of many in Obama administration were laid bare by a State Department official involved in planning the Brown visit, who reacted with fury when questioned by The Sunday Telegraph about why the event was so low-key.
The official dismissed any notion of the special relationship, saying: "There's nothing special about Britain. You're just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn't expect special treatment." The apparent lack of attention to detail by the Obama administration is indicative of what many believe to be Mr Obama's determination to do too much too quickly."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4953523/Barack-Obama-too-tired-to-give-proper-welcome-to-Gordon-Brown.html
"You brought that up. I didn’t. Whites cheat, last I checked. And I know you’re trying to trap me." No, you referred to the President of the U.S. as "sexually promiscuous". It was completely irrelevant to the discussion on this story and, as far as I can tell, completely without merit.