I still don't understand why the right is giving O any public praise for this. I would've expected the right to quietly toast and gloat, but continue its public criticism of of O and the Oslo speech on whatever trivial or manufactured grounds it could come up with.
I don't see what the right gains tactically from publicly praising a Dem prez for a war speech, when the Repubs have gotten so much mileage for decades on asserting ownership of national security.
Someone 'splain, please? (ironwood, response to post, “The strange consensus on Obama’s Nobel address, Glenn Greenwald, 11 Dec. 2009)
Left vs. right is in a process of re-sorting into war-craving, sacrifice desiring, and the genuinely peaceful. The war-craving understand that Obama is the right cover to legitimize sadism on a scale that Bush could never accomplish, owing to his whole aesthetic seeming about 20 years out of date. For many Republicans, Obama is the new Israel, in a way; and the left that just cannot believe that the greatest threat, the most insidious traitors, in this America with a black democratic president, will increasingly turn out to the THEM, will be the Palestinians, routed from their homes for suspicious conduct.
Cheney et al. love for people to think of them as conniving, of motive -- they need to think they're Cartesian, mind in charge. But in reality they're the most prone to lose themselves to the sacrifice dance. Republican party is full of people like that; but, to a lesser extent, there's plenty on the other side too. Watch carefully: even Jon Stewart and Colbert will at some point start banging drums. I'll be curious to see what happens here at Salon. Hopefully we'll all help each other stay sane and good.