Barack Obama-so far..

trapsagenius

Well after a year in the job what are your opinons on Obamas' presidency, especially on key areas such as health, the economy, foreign policy etc.?Personally, i think he's done his best so far but had underestimated how difficult it would be in coming to terms with problems such as the economy. Also, the opposition to his health care plans by conservatives who seem to equate socialism with communism has been pathetic.They really are impeding progress.But what do you think?

Overheal

How come every single US-related thread in the last couple days has been mis-spelled? And I dont mean in a tomato-tomato sort of way.

JeanClaude

Well he did give himself a B+ a few weeks ago,he was gonna give himself an A but didn't want to appear too stuck up his own hole.

Obama was the savior 12 months ago, Quantanimo was to be closed by now, more transperency of Government, wanted to work with the Republicans more closely (bi-partisanship)etc. etc. Barack said what people wanted to hear, and articulated very well but people are starting to see it for what it was, a load of B.S.

MagicMarker

Overheal wrote: »

How come every single US-related thread in the last couple days has been mis-spelled? And I dont mean in a tomato-tomato sort of way.

Isn't Brarck the sound a crow makes?

BRARCK!!!

trapsagenius

Overheal wrote: »

How come every single US-related thread in the last couple days has been mis-spelled? And I dont mean in a tomato-tomato sort of way.

**** sorry missed that i'll try and change it.

Overheal

He promised way too much, and delivered nothing.

A year ago yesterday, he promised Gitmo would be closed. Not even close. Middle East withdrawal? Surge 2.0, 30,000 additional troops.

Dont even get me started on the healthcare and economy. He's accomplished: Zilch as far as any of his campaign and inaugural pledges go.

greendom

It was always going to be tough for him with the expectation he had on his shoulders.

Reality setting in a bit now but I still think he'll make a good president.

Truthrevolution

trapsagenius wrote: »

Well after a year in the job what are your opinons on Obamas' presidency, especially on key areas such as health, the economy, foreign policy etc.?Personally, i think he's done his best so far but had underestimated how difficult it would be in coming to terms with problems such as the economy. Also, the opposition to his health care plans by conservatives who seem to equate socialism with communism has been pathetic.They really are impeding progress.But what do you think?

In his first year he has been exposed as the fraud he really is.Breaking his promises to close down guantanamo bay and pull troops out of Iraq he has actually done the complete opposite and extended the US industrial military complex, expanding into Pakistan with threats of invading Iran and Yemen.And what about his promises of no taxes for the lower paid?? His health care bill is a glorified bailout for the insaurance corporations and i cant see how it is going to be financed given the current global economic conditions

Overheal

greendom wrote: »

It was always going to be tough for him with the expectation he had on his shoulders.

Reality setting in a bit now but I still think he'll make a good president.

Im not saying it wasnt tough and isnt tough. But he is still entirely unrealistic about what he can get accomplished. He started out trying to fix the economy, that wasnt working, he got bad press, so they shifted gears, spent 6 months trying to fillabuster an Entire Healthcare overhaul through govt, that failed, he got negative press, lost his fillabuster, and now he's shifting gears into Bank Reform Overhaul.

When is he going to get the message?

All he's done is copy and pasted 1950s solutions to the great depression. We dont live in the same era and dont have the same conditions at all, aside from one or two markers, like the stock market. Otherwise its a completely new ballgame and requires a new approach. To ironically quote Biden: "Thats not Change: Thats More of the Same"

trapsagenius

I have to agree with your posts criticising the troop surge and lack of progress on Gitmo.They really were a complete shambles with regards Obama's leadership.

greendom

Overheal wrote: »

Im not saying it wasnt tough and isnt tough. But he is still entirely unrealistic about what he can get accomplished. He started out trying to fix the economy, that wasnt working, he got bad press, so they shifted gears, spent 6 months trying to fillabuster an Entire Healthcare overhaul through govt, that failed, he got negative press, lost his fillabuster, and now he's shifting gears into Bank Reform Overhaul.

When is he going to get the message?

All he's done is copy and pasted 1950s solutions to the great depression. We dont live in the same era and dont have the same conditions at all, aside from one or two markers, like the stock market. Otherwise its a completely new ballgame and requires a new approach. To ironically quote Biden: "Thats not Change: Thats More of the Same"

Well as the saying goes plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose; the important thing for me is that he has the right attitude and is trying to do the right thing.

He has come up against the reality of American and World politics and now he knows (if he didn't before he was elected) that things can't be changed as quickly as he would like, but as long as he doesn't completely lose the faith of the American people, I'm sure his presidency will eventually be seen as a major improvement from his predecessor.

mike65

"Don't believe the hype".

kev9100

Maybe I'm just naive, but I really do believe if Obama had gone in to the White House and said "Look, I have just won a huge electoral mandate from the American people to enact a strong, progresive agenda and that is what I intend to do. Of course, I am willing to negotiate and reach a compromise with my Republican colleagues but I expect them to the same as well. If the Republicans do not come to the negotiating table in good faith then I will go on without them" he really could have changed things. Unfortunately, he compromised and compromised. And in return, the Republicans called him a Muslim, a Socialist and anything else that popped into their tiny little brains.

I'm still hopeful that he can turn things around, but he has to act soon.

SLUSK

Obama is still waging war in Iraq and Afghanistan. His thugs are still killing innocent people in this country. He is no different from George W. Bush.

But killing and torturing innocent people is ok because it's not wrong when the US Military does it.

southsiderosie

trapsagenius wrote: »

Well after a year in the job what are your opinons on Obamas' presidency, especially on key areas such as health, the economy, foreign policy etc.?Personally, i think he's done his best so far but had underestimated how difficult it would be in coming to terms with problems such as the economy. Also, the opposition to his health care plans by conservatives who seem to equate socialism with communism has been pathetic.They really are impeding progress.But what do you think?

I'm from Chicago, and I've supported Obama since his early Congressional run, but he lost me when he appointed his economic team. Geithner and Summers? Talk about the foxes guarding the hen house...

He put Goldman Sachs in charge of economic policy and insurance companies in charge of health care policy. It's not clear at all who is in charge of foreign policy. And he doesn't have the kind of juice he needs in the Congress to push his agenda through. The last Dem to make sweeping social changes on the scale that Obama is trying to get to was LBJ, and, as Robert Caro's (really really) good book notes, he was a Master of the Senate. Obama can't pick up the phone and threaten people or arm-twist because he doesn't have enough chips to cash with opposition members. And he's rapidly losing his base. So I think he's kind of screwed. I'm not happy about the current political situation, but to be honest I'm not really surprised by it either.

Truthrevolution

Heres an interesting video which gives a rare insight into Barack Obamas last 12 months in the white house

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

irishh_bob

many at this stage are suggesting that hillary may run against him for the democratic nomination in 2012

Overheal

That whole notion would be eaten alive by punditry.

nesf

Truthrevolution wrote: »

Heres an interesting video which gives a rare insight into Barack Obamas last 12 months in the white house

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VebOTc-7shU

Don't just post a video, add some commentary about it explaining why it's relevant in a thread.

Manic Moran

Personally, i think he's done his best so far but had underestimated how difficult it would be in coming to terms with problems such as the economy.

Did he even try? Outside of a bill early on in his tenure, I've noted almost nothing except healthcare, healthcare, healthcare. Congress has been absolutely locked by this thing, when perhaps a little more attention to the economy might be nice.

Now, granted, Obama does not control Congress, but it's his own party, you might think he has some leeway.

Middle East withdrawal? Surge 2.0, 30,000 additional troops

In fairness to the man, I never heard him say anything about not trying in Afghanistan, and Iraq is starting to wind down, though the latter isn't really any fault of his own.

the important thing for me is that he has the right attitude and is trying to do the right thing.

OK. He gets points for aspiration. That's what the Nobel peace prize was for. When it comes to the next round of elections, he's going to have to do better than 'aspire.' If it means either bringing the Democratic Congress to his heels or shifting gears to do what Congress wants, either is valid, but consistently headbutting his own party is not going to get him very far.

Also, the opposition to his health care plans by conservatives who seem to equate socialism with communism has been pathetic.They really are impeding progress.But what do you think?

Bearing in mind the distinction between conservatives and Republicans, it remains the fact that his party could, if it actually agreed on something, force it through no matter what the opposition wanted or didn't want. Democrats who are concerned about their seats obviously think that their voters do not want the health care reform in its proposed incarnation. Plus you have all the kickers and riders that have been attached to this God-awful bill. "A few billion for this Senator's project to get his vote, an exemption on taxes for that Senator's constituents..." If the reform is that important, it's imporant enough to vote for it on its merits, not to extort concessions.

There comes a point that you realise that repeatedly walking into the wall isn't working, and you should start looking for a door.

NTM

nesf

Manic Moran wrote: »

Bearing in mind the distinction between conservatives and Republicans, it remains the fact that his party could, if it actually agreed on something, force it through no matter what the opposition wanted or didn't want. Democrats who are concerned about their seats obviously think that their voters do not want the health care reform in its proposed incarnation. Plus you have all the kickers and riders that have been attached to this God-awful bill. "A few billion for this Senator's project to get his vote, an exemption on taxes for that Senator's constituents..." If the reform is that important, it's imporant enough to vote for it on its merits, not to extort concessions.

There comes a point that you realise that repeatedly walking into the wall isn't working, and you should start looking for a door.

NTM

It should also be noted that there hasn't been any real effort at bipartisian effort with this bill. The Democrats are pushing for a Democrat only bill and the riders etc reflect this. Giving some centrist reforms to moderate Republicans could have allowed the Democrats to be able to give less ground to the more heavily left wing of the Democratic party.

People often forget just how complex the make-up of Democrats and Republicans are and how much crossover there is in the centre between both parties in terms of politicians. Obama promised to rule from the centre not the hard left, which was much of his appeal, but so far he's left the hard left of his party have their way which is what's gotten independents so much against this Health Bill and why the Mass. seat was lost. Independents voted 4:1 against the Democrats, that says something about the attitudes of the non-aligned which are crucial in elections etc.

kev9100

nesf wrote: »

It should also be noted that there hasn't been any real effort at bipartisian effort with this bill. The Democrats are pushing for a Democrat only bill and the riders etc reflect this. Giving some centrist reforms to moderate Republicans could have allowed the Democrats to be able to give less ground to the more heavily left wing of the Democratic party.

People often forget just how complex the make-up of Democrats and Republicans are and how much crossover there is in the centre between both parties in terms of politicians. Obama promised to rule from the centre not the hard left, which was much of his appeal, but so far he's left the hard left of his party have their way which is what's gotten independents so much against this Health Bill and why the Mass. seat was lost. Independents voted 4:1 against the Democrats, that says something about the attitudes of the non-aligned which are crucial in elections etc.

How can you possibly say that Obama has governed from the hard left? On almost every single issue he has compromised and all in the name of "Bipartisanship". Hopefully after the massachusetts debacle he will realise that he has to forget about the Republicans and just get some things done.

amacachi

kev9100 wrote: »

How can you possibly say that Obama has governed from the hard left? On almost every single issue he has compromised and all in the name of "Bipartisanship". Hopefully after the massachusetts debacle he will realise that he has to forget about the Republicans and just get some things done.

Not really, his proposals tend to be from the hard left (in American terms) and the compromises so far have been forced by democrats and independents.

kev9100

Name one of his proposals that is hard left please.

Overheal

kev9100 wrote: »

Name one of his proposals that is hard left please.

socialized medicine.

Manic Moran

To give him a little credit on the matter, he has proven willing to negotiate on the public and single payer options, which is more than can be said for some other senior Ds such as Pelosi.

This just came out from Rasmussen today.



Whatever he's doing, he needs to change the -perception-, be it true or not.

NTM

irishh_bob

nesf wrote: »

It should also be noted that there hasn't been any real effort at bipartisian effort with this bill. The Democrats are pushing for a Democrat only bill and the riders etc reflect this. Giving some centrist reforms to moderate Republicans could have allowed the Democrats to be able to give less ground to the more heavily left wing of the Democratic party.

People often forget just how complex the make-up of Democrats and Republicans are and how much crossover there is in the centre between both parties in terms of politicians. Obama promised to rule from the centre not the hard left, which was much of his appeal, but so far he's left the hard left of his party have their way which is what's gotten independents so much against this Health Bill and why the Mass. seat was lost. Independents voted 4:1 against the Democrats, that says something about the attitudes of the non-aligned which are crucial in elections etc.

the republicans have had one policy and one policy only since obama got elected , wreck everything , any attempt by obama at reaching across the isle has been quickly thrown back in his face , the gop has moved considerabley further to the right this past 15 years and while the democrats have moved slightly to the left under obama , they could hardly be categorised as hard left , personally speaking , if i lived in the states , i would be solid democrat , i just cant appreciate the republican parties DUP style

trapsagenius

irishh_bob wrote: »

while the democrats have moved slightly to the left under obama , they could hardly be categorised as hard left

Agreed.Americans seem to think any sort of liberalism or socialism is only one step away from communism.For example, if someone tried to introduce Obama's policies to Ireland, they'd hardly be labelled 'hard left', would they?

kev9100

Overheal wrote: »

socialized medicine.

Ronald Reagan just called, he wants his propoganda back.


Seriously though, can you show me one example of so-called "socialised medicine" in either the House or Senate's bills? The House bill has a public option which no one would be forced to use and the Senate bill has no public option.

bonkey

Moved to US Politics.

axer

Obama under-estimated the importance of perception. He has all the right intentions but the problem is the democratic party are not staying on message and keeping it simple while the republican party are great at that.

Things will not change until Obama learns that people want a clear slogan for everything. A simple one line catchphrase that will stick with the people like he did when running for president. It is sad but true.

astrofool

Guantanimo is on the way to being closed, and troops have a time schedule for pulling out of Iraq, insuring it doesn't turn into a blood bath on the way out. Throughout his campaign, he repeatedly said that Afghanistan was the problem, and he would concentrate the military there.

I don't see him having broken any pledges, just taking longer to get there, but what did people really expect given the republicans intransigence to anything.

nesf

trapsagenius wrote: »

Agreed.Americans seem to think any sort of liberalism or socialism is only one step away from communism.For example, if someone tried to introduce Obama's policies to Ireland, they'd hardly be labelled 'hard left', would they?

American hard left is practically slightly left of centre in European terms if even that far. Any comments I make on the left/right in a thread about Obama are in American terms not European. The "centre voter" in American Politics is a fair bit to the right of FG in this country.

Pocono Joe

I think Barack Obama is doing a bang up job. An A++ in my opinion on the economy, jobs, healthcare, transparency, bipartisanship, and his new puppy.
(I've also discovered a post-op self regluating morphine drip button to be man's newest best friend).

GuanYin

To be perfectly fair, there is very little he could accomplish in a year with the state of the US and fiscal problems he inherited.

Don't get me wrong, I'd have preferred McCain (without Palin) but the truth is, Obama has succeeded in raising goodwill towards the US on the international front, which is more important than the US public realize (especially the way world economic power is shifting).

If anything has been exposed, it is how naive and inexperienced he really is (something McCain's campaign highlighted). Like all politicians, it's easy to make promises and plans on ideals, it's very different to do so when you have the CIA projection dossiers in front of you.

I think the real take will be in a year from now.

LostinKildare

nesf wrote: »

It should also be noted that there hasn't been any real effort at bipartisian effort with this bill. The Democrats are pushing for a Democrat only bill and the riders etc reflect this. Giving some centrist reforms to moderate Republicans could have allowed the Democrats to be able to give less ground to the more heavily left wing of the Democratic party.

People often forget just how complex the make-up of Democrats and Republicans are and how much crossover there is in the centre between both parties in terms of politicians. Obama promised to rule from the centre not the hard left, which was much of his appeal, but so far he's left the hard left of his party have their way which is what's gotten independents so much against this Health Bill and why the Mass. seat was lost. Independents voted 4:1 against the Democrats, that says something about the attitudes of the non-aligned which are crucial in elections etc.

kev9100 wrote: »

How can you possibly say that Obama has governed from the hard left? On almost every single issue he has compromised and all in the name of "Bipartisanship". Hopefully after the massachusetts debacle he will realise that he has to forget about the Republicans and just get some things done.

I'm with kev9100. The charge that Obama's governed from the hard left is ridiculous. The Left has so far gotten NOTHING that they want.

In terms of the healthcare bill, the Left wanted a single-payer system, which was taken off the table before negotiations even began. They grudgingly settled for a public option, then an opt-out public option, then Medicare expansion. Instead they're expected to gratefully accept a bill that requires everyone to buy insurance in a big crappy giveaway to the private insurance industry. Obama abandoned his commitment to drug reimportation and his promise to conduct negotiations in public -- both promises to his leftist base. So, pray tell, where exactly did Obama hand healthcare over to the Left?

And besides healthcare, where has Obama "let the hard left have its way"?

* Larger stimulus recommended by left-leaning economists? NO
* Genuine reform of financial industry? NO
* Nationalization of banks? NO
* Programs to help homeowners with foreclosures? NO
* Withdrawals from Afghanistan and Iraq? NO
* Reversal of policies of indefinite detention, military commissions and state secrets, and closure of Guantanamo in Obama's first year? NO
* Prosecutions of Bush, Cheney et al for war crimes? NO
* Immigration amnesty? NO
* Repeal of DADT and DOMA? NO

Yes the US has a Left, but it hasn't got any real power. It does serve as a convenient whipping boy for both parties -- remember during the Bush years that the Left was blamed for not supporting the Republican administration in the faltering war in Iraq (unpatriotic!), now blamed for not supporting the Democratic administration in its timid wishywashy coffee klatsch with corporatist interests (within and without both parties). Funny how they don't get credit for standing up for their principles.

Sure, Left voters are never gonna support Republican candidates, but they're not going to come out and work for and vote for Democrats either if they're completely demoralized.

Overheal

LostinKildare wrote: »

I'm with kev9100. The charge that Obama's governed from the hard left is ridiculous. The Left has so far gotten NOTHING that they want.

In terms of the healthcare bill, the Left wanted a single-payer system, which was taken off the table before negotiations even began. They grudgingly settled for a public option, then an opt-out public option, then Medicare expansion. Instead they're expected to gratefully accept a bill that requires everyone to buy insurance in a big crappy giveaway to the private insurance industry. Obama abandoned his commitment to drug reimportation and his promise to conduct negotiations in public -- both promises to his leftist base. So, pray tell, where exactly did Obama hand healthcare over to the Left?

And besides healthcare, where has Obama "let the hard left have its way"?

* Larger stimulus recommended by left-leaning economists? NO
* Genuine reform of financial industry? NO
* Nationalization of banks? NO
* Programs to help homeowners with foreclosures? NO
* Withdrawals from Afghanistan and Iraq? NO
* Reversal of policies of indefinite detention, military commissions and state secrets, and closure of Guantanamo in Obama's first year? NO
* Prosecutions of Bush, Cheney et al for war crimes? NO
* Immigration amnesty? NO
* Repeal of DADT and DOMA? NO

Yes the US has a Left, but it hasn't got any real power. It does serve as a convenient whipping boy for both parties -- remember during the Bush years that the Left was blamed for not supporting the Republican administration in the faltering war in Iraq (unpatriotic!), now blamed for not supporting the Democratic administration in its timid wishywashy coffee klatsch with corporatist interests (within and without both parties). Funny how they don't get credit for standing up for their principles.

Sure, Left voters are never gonna support Republican candidates, but they're not going to come out and work for and vote for Democrats either if they're completely demoralized.

The Truth is Nobody has gotten Anything they Want. It doesnt matter where you feel like pointing the finger. The Left hasnt gotten anything; the Right hasnt gotten anything. Nothing has been passed, nothing has happened, and meanwhile ~10% of the working population is Unemployed and Looking.

I wouldn't mind either way at this point: Left, Right, Middle; just do Something.

LostinKildare

Please. I'm not pointing a finger, I'm disputing the assertion made above (thanked by you, among others) that Obama's "let the hard left have its way." If your thanks for the post was an agreement with its substance, well then offer some evidence that he's been governing from the Left. I don't see it.

And yes, some people have gotten what they wanted. Obviously. If you didn't want comprehensive healthcare reform, well you got what you wanted. If you didn't want war crimes prosecutions, you got what you wanted. If you wanted to maintain most parts of the Patriot Act, you got what you wanted. Etc., etc.

Manic Moran

Instead they're expected to gratefully accept a bill that requires everyone to buy insurance in a big crappy giveaway to the private insurance industry.

Even at that, there's some dispute if they're really looking to fight the right fire.

Most of the voters were complaining about healthcare costs being too high. They wanted actions which would reduce the costs of healthcare, make it more affordable again.

They were not so worried about universal coverage and making sure every last Tom, Dick and Harry had some medical insurance program. Instead of focusing on what the voters wanted, the reform in pretty much all of its variants have attempted to solve an entirely different problem.

That probably won't help them in the polls next election either.

You can't blame Obama as much as you can the Democratic Party as a whole. They have had a huge majority for the last year, and utterly squandered it thus far. They've got about six months to make a difference.

NTM

walshb

I think he's doing fantastic, c'mon, a Nobel Peace Prize?

Manic Moran

As an additional point, his State of the Union speech is tomorrow, if I recall correctly.

I will be interested to hear how many times he talks about the 'situation [he] inherited.'

It's getting stale. Even when discussing the Scott Brown victory, he said "People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years." So they voted for the candidate of the party in power for seven of the last eight years because they're angry at them? Yeah, right.

It wouldn't be so bad if he had actually managed to take actions to address the situation inherited. If he had at least tried and still not made headway, then there might be something to it. But, for example, 2/3 of the 'emergency stimulus bill' passed almost a year ago has yet to be spent. (Now, granted, if you objected to the spending in the first place, this is a good thing, but that wasn't the plan.) Whether he inherited it or not, the question a year later is "And what have you done about it?"

So far, the answer has been predominantly "Blame Bush"

NTM

FatherTed

Manic Moran wrote: »

As an additional point, his State of the Union speech is tomorrow, if I recall correctly.

I will be interested to hear how many times he talks about the 'situation [he] inherited.'

It's getting stale. Even when discussing the Scott Brown victory, he said "People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years." So they voted for the candidate of the party in power for seven of the last eight years because they're angry at them? Yeah, right.

It wouldn't be so bad if he had actually managed to take actions to address the situation inherited. If he had at least tried and still not made headway, then there might be something to it. But, for example, 2/3 of the 'emergency stimulus bill' passed almost a year ago has yet to be spent. (Now, granted, if you objected to the spending in the first place, this is a good thing, but that wasn't the plan.) Whether he inherited it or not, the question a year later is "And what have you done about it?"

So far, the answer has been predominantly "Blame Bush"

NTM

I don't think the purpose of the stimulus bill was to blow a wad of money in a few months.

I'm an Obama supporter and TBH I've been very disappointed that he isn't Left enough. Overheal talks about "socialized medicine". But really those Senate and House Bills are a poor attempt. F the fillibuster, the Dems are so scared of the Republicans they fail to do anything meaningful in Congress. Now regarding the economy, if anyone expected the country to be cured of the recession after 12 months, they are smoking some good stuff. Anyone with a sane head on them knows it will take years for the US to turn around.

In any case, Obama and the Dems are doing a horrible job but still a better option than W/Cheney and McCain/Nutjob.

JohnMearsheimer

In fairness he has a big mess to clear up before he can really and truely push ahead with his agenda. I think the theme of change and success of his campaign left some people with expectations that are maybe too high and cloaked how divided America can be.

People had expectations Iraq/Afghanistan would end pretty soon. These things don't happen overnight. I'm really shocked at how Conservative Americans can actually be. Opposition to healthcare reform really hammered it home for me. The hype after his election would have had you believing everyone wanted to move in the same direction. Doesn't seem so.

Overheal

In any case, Obama and the Dems are doing a horrible job but still a better option than W/Cheney and McCain/Nutjob.

To be fair "Insnae McCain" wanted to Freeze Spending from the beginning. Something Obama is only wising up to 15 months later.

Manic Moran

FatherTed wrote: »

I don't think the purpose of the stimulus bill was to blow a wad of money in a few months.

It was if you were to listen to the politicians at the time. No time could be lost! The economy must be stimulated! The money isn't doing much stimulating whilst sitting in the Treasury's checking account.

I'm an Obama supporter and TBH I've been very disappointed that he isn't Left enough.

I'm really shocked at how Conservative Americans can actually be.

I think there's your answer. The Left might want Obama to be more Left, but Obama might want to get re-elected. And even if he doesn't, enough of the Democratic legislators who actually pass the laws seem to want to get re-elected that ideas from the further Left are a waste of time. Don't feel too bad: There are plenty enough Republicans who think that the solution to the problem of getting elected is to be even more conservative.

if anyone expected the country to be cured of the recession after 12 months, they are smoking some good stuff. Anyone with a sane head on them knows it will take years for the US to turn around.

This is why I said it wouldn't be so much of a problem for him to reference the situation he inherited if he had actually managed to even get anything much started. But he hasn't, really.

To be fair "Insnae McCain" wanted to Freeze Spending from the beginning. Something Obama is only wising up to 15 months later

There seem to have been quite a few instances of Obama moving to a McCainesque position since the election. This is probably a good thing: If, indeed, McCain was right, it means that Obama is not sufficiently detached from reality, or is not too proud, to do the right thing and change his position.

NTM

GuanYin

Manic Moran wrote: »

It was if you were to listen to the politicians at the time. No time could be lost! The economy must be stimulated! The money isn't doing much stimulating whilst sitting in the Treasury's checking account.

That's because most people probably used it to pay off credit card debt.

I think there's your answer. The Left might want Obama to be more Left, but Obama might want to get re-elected. And even if he doesn't, enough of the Democratic legislators who actually pass the laws seem to want to get re-elected that ideas from the further Left are a waste of time. Don't feel too bad: There are plenty enough Republicans who think that the solution to the problem of getting elected is to be even more conservative.

Indeed, that is a trend of almost all politicians. I maintain that if McCain had stuck to the more liberal republican values that made him a popular senator, he'd be sitting in the White House right now.

This is why I said it wouldn't be so much of a problem for him to reference the situation he inherited if he had actually managed to even get anything much started. But he hasn't, really.

No he hasn't. And I really don't buy the notion that "he's done as much as anyone could do". He has basically done as much as anyone could do without jeopardizing his political interests.

There seem to have been quite a few instances of Obama moving to a McCainesque position since the election. This is probably a good thing: If, indeed, McCain was right, it means that Obama is not sufficiently detached from reality, or is not too proud, to do the right thing and change his position.

Yes, agreed. The fact of the matter is, on a stand off on political merit, McCain was most likely the better candidate. Alas, political merit doesn't win elections. The GOP's interference and most notably Palin, coupled with the Democrat's far superior multimedia campaigning and the legacy of a certain GW Bush, all conspired against McCain. But Obama isn't a bad alternative (if he really can be considered an alternative considering I voted for him, but that was more out of misgivings on the GOP than anything else). and seems to be savvy enough to backtrack without looking bad.

The time to judge will be in about 12 months

Stephen_2010

GuanYin wrote: »

McCain was most likely the better candidate.

Cindy? You lost, get over it. Let's be honest, Johnny's only notable achievement in life was surrendering to the enemy. :rolleyes:

GuanYin

GuanYin wrote: »

But Obama isn't a bad alternative (if he really can be considered an alternative considering I voted for him

Stephen_2010 wrote: »

Cindy? You lost, get over it. Let's be honest, Johnny's only notable achievement in life was surrendering to the enemy. :rolleyes:

If you were interested in the subject and read my post, you'd see that I actually won, considering I voted for Obama.

Please read the forum rules and don't post such comments about political figures again.

JohnMc1

The concrete proof that Obama's chances of a second term are gone have now come to light.

Obama Girl is over her crush on him.

20Cent

I think he has been a bit weak. He's allowed the Republicans too much power reached out to them too much. He should just get on with it let them put up or shut up, get tough on the blue dogs as well.

Considering the hand he was dealt he's doing pretty well.

Overheal

20Cent wrote: »

I think he has been a bit weak. He's allowed the Republicans too much power reached out to them too much. He should just get on with it let them put up or shut up, get tough on the blue dogs as well.

Considering the hand he was dealt he's doing pretty well.

No, he overextending himself to win. He made a lot of promises when he ran. Plenty of which have already fallen through. But one of them was Bipartisanship. If he begins stonewalling the Republican Party, that would not only spell an end to the Obama Administration, but to the House, the Senate, and the widespread Democrat Chances for election for the next 8 years.

Much for the same reason though, the Republicans already have seriously diminished credibility much in thanks to the Veto Administration of GWB.