Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by B_RedDude, Nov 7, 2010.
What, Monica hanging around the White House again?
Nope.......I believe our President will(and should) remain Barack Obama 1.
He's got a long way to go, if he's going to....Clinton was much more politically adept !
If the question is, "Will Americans realize (as they do with Clinton) how great a president Obama is only after he's left office?"
Nah... they'll never give him his due.
I see no comparison whatsoever, but if he leaves the economy in the same shape GWBush inherited it, he'll be hailed as one of the top five greatest of all time*.
*NB: I find the likelihood of that happening insanely remote.
The Clinton presidency was, ultimately, all about the Clintons: love 'em or hate 'em. Obama's character is the polar opposite of all that. That's not to say that he's without ego (no one can be POTUS and not have a monster ego), but I think that the worst excesses of Clinton's id are unlikely to be repeated during his administration(s).
Clinton also openly lauded the two-fer aspects of both his candidacy and his administrations. Michelle works studiously to remain as deeply traditional a First Lady as she possibly can. You will never see her submitting proposals on policy to congress: that I can guarantee.
I'm really talking about Obama moving more to the right to accommodate the Republicans in Congress and what some people say is the "will of the American people". As an example, it was Bill Clinton who signed the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act (Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999) which had its roots in the New Deal and was co-sponsored by that ultra-liberal, Phil Gramm of Texas. Even before now, Obama, in his timidity, has seemed to try to accommodate the conservatives.
I just had it really, really knocked into my head last Tuesday, maybe for the first time, that we do not live in a liberal country. Even politicians who are described as liberal by the right/conservatives are not that liberal (including my congresswoman, "Pearls" Pelosi). Being beholden to corporate interests (banking, insurance, agriculture, et al.) is not liberal.
I'm using the term "liberal" rather than "progressive", because when I use the term, I am thinking of the New Deal social outlook and perspective in the management of the economy. Conservatives like to use the term liberal or ultra-liberal to comment derisively on politicans who are "progressive" on issues such as same-sex marriage, etc. If anyone thinks that Bill Clinton is really a liberal, I've got some real estate in Florida I want to show you (no offense, Bbucko--also I was writing this post about the same time you were posting yours below (above?)).
No. He will become Jimmy Carter.
Your assumption is that Obama is a "liberal" which, most unbiased observers had long since concluded, has never been true (by any accurate definition of the word). In fact they described him as being rather centrist from the "get".
He is called a liberal by conservatives, those on the right, Republicans, and just about everyone who never quite got used to the idea of his being President.
If you recall he spoke from the start of bipartisan agreement on legislation and other issues, and already had made compromises, in his healthcare reform legislation, for example (compromises that garnered only criticism from supporters of healthcare while STILL not gaining him any cooperation from those on the right).
So frankly I don't have any idea what you mean by suggesting his "moving more to the right" to "accommodate the Republicans" - other than his saying, "Fuck it, I'll just do what Y'ALL want me to do."
I didn't mean to imply that Obama himself is a liberal, just that the country isn't.
I think there's some middle ground left there with the Repubs in Congress. Not that I'll necessarily like the results if it's found and implemented legislatively.
No thats being too kind. he's a whole different class of ass.
And you, sir, are in an ass class all your own.
LMAO @ ass class :booty:
I have and will still admit that I am basically "politically ignorant", meaning that I don't know a lot of details, mainly what is publicly available. I don't have the time to be a political major :tongue:
However, even as a lifelong voting republican, unless someone unknown at this time, who really changes my view comes along, I will be voting to re-elect Obama.
In my view, he has at least tried to do what he said he would do while running for President. I don't even agree with some of the stuff that he has done, but that's a minority. I think he has done the best job he possibly can.
For those reasons, I believe he is the best choice
Obama makes George W Bush look like a political genius. At least dubbya had the honesty to admit when he was out of his depth (always), Obama is far to vain to tell the public what they already know; he hasn't got a clue and he's going to run the U.S into an iceberg.
In his autobiography Greenspan noted that the Clinton administration left the U.S in a position to totally wipe out the national debt, in contrast Obama won't even be able to stabilise debt levels; indeed like the good Keynsian he is he believes that gov't stimulus is the solution.
I feel sorry for those that have been sucked in by his charm.
Trust me when I tell you that the USA has no need for you to "feel sorry" for those citizens who support Obama. I suppose I should "thank" you for your concern. But actually, from what I've observed in your posts, you're better off ignored by just about everyone.
Who knew a white male from Kent could be so much wiser than a US politician handed a complete wreck of a country upon his inauguration and is expected by "global minds" such as yours to fix everything in two years. If I were you, I'd be more more worried about the UK economy and the stringent measures expected of the Queen's subjects over the next several years.
Maybe you should start a restaurant or some other enterprise in your "free economic zone" and let us know how swimmingly you succeed in two years. A little fish and chips shack, maybe? :biggrin1:
I feel more sorry for the innocent bystanders that are getting caught up in the mess Obama and his supports are inflicting upon them. When their living standards fall through the floor please don't start preaching socialism as the answer.
The mistakes that Obama is making transcend geography and the traditional battles between left and right, the fact that Spain is suffering from EXACTLY the same problems escapes you? Don't come crying to the UK looking for a bailout package.
Already in the pipeline thanks, and unlike your businesses I'll be seeking to make a handsome return, not run it as some sort of psuedo-charity.
Where on earth do you get the idea that Obama is clueless? He's probably the smartest president we've had in a long time. But then, Bush wasn't clueless either. It's fun to watch his early Texas Gubernatorial debates and see him use words that you would never expect to come out of his mouth. The "good ole boy" shtick was an act.
On the hand, Obama is pretty conservative and apparently doesn't have much of an interest in doing more than make half-assed attempts at dealing with problems, so he is a bad president. He's arguably worse than Bush because he's managed to get a whole bunch of nominally liberal types to defend him for things that would have screamed about from Bush. I can't wait for liberals to start telling me how it's so very important for us to reform Social Security.
Obama isn't remotely a Keynesian. All his economic advisors are not, nor has he been doing what Keynesian economics would dictate. He taught at the University of Chicago and wanted to balance the budget during a recession, for fuck's sake.
Don't throw around terms that you don't really understand. And quoting Greenspan on basically anything in the last 20 years is a good start at indicating you don't know a lot about economics.
I'll agree with you here. He's quite a politician.
Are you trying to say Obama is a socialist? That's like saying "I have no idea what words mean or what Obama does, yet I'm still talking".