nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Has There Ever Been A More Popular Politician Worldwide Than Obama??

SharpshooterTom

Has there ever been a more popular politician than Barack Obama worldwide?

I find his popularity absolutely extraordinary. I wouldn't really call myself a fan, but I do admire his seemingly huge popularity worldwide, however he gets it. I don't think there has ever been a more popular politician than him ever, I really don't.

The coverage the US election is getting in Ireland, the UK with Sky News is staggering. It seems people are more interested in this election than they are with local elections here, UK elections, or any other elections in europe. China are arguably as big as a superpower as the US, they have elections shortly and its not getting anywhere near the coverage.

So I think a lot of it is to do with Obama and his personal popularity, am I right? The guy is clearly hugely media savy, more popular than Jesus sometimes the way people rave about him.

Like I say I'm not a fan but I don't recall Clinton, Gore or Kerry getting anywhere near the amount of good luck messages Obama is getting. I assume when he goes in 2016, the election hype wont be quite the same.

In addition he was the first person to get 10 million twitter followers, beating Lady Gaga and Justin Bieber. :pac:

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

who the fug

Zebra3 wrote: »

Dying young helps.

yeah , thats why bubba is being left alone.

The_Kew_Tour

Dam was hoping he be beat. The most overrated President ever maybe.

kincsem

That guy that died in North Korea. Everyone was bawling.

CrazyRabbit

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Kim Jong Il, the glorious leader that he is.

False. Kim Jong Il is a God, not a politician.

[Deleted User]

In terms of having zero critics outside her country, Aung San Suu Kyi is close to the top.. But only in terms of how many people know about her and how many of those like her.

Father Damo

Tony Blair was ridiculously popular in the USA after 9/11 for giving the biggest world support to the following wars.

Within Britain, and Ireland, I doubt there was ever a more hope invested candidate than Blair. The only comparable wave of hope and optimism would be the campaigns of those two.

Of course, with Obama he turned out to be the real deal. With Blair the public realised within a few weeks they had a complete kunt on their hands.

theUbiq

Surely the OP was taking the piss?

Grayson

More popular policician than Obama... How about Gandi. There are very few people that are more popular than hin. Mandela would be popular too.

In south america it'd be Bolivar. maybe Evita in certain circles. Even Che Guevara could give Obama a run for his money.

For the US it would be JFK or FDR (My personal choice would be FDR.

I like obama, but he's no Gandi or Mandela.

MetalDog

squod wrote: »

That English lad. Conservative.... used to hate miners, ah what's his name.....
wore wimmins clothes a lot....... invaded Argentina, can't think....

Jimmy Savile?

megafan

Brian Cowan

Lingua Franca

JFK is only popular because he was assassinated. If he'd not been killed in such a manner, he'd have ended his presidency in ignominy and his legacy would be one of disgrace. He was up to his neck in scandal, illegal operations, organised crime and really messy wars. He left Lyndon B Johnson with a lot of cleaning up to do.

Father Damo

MetalDog wrote: »

Jimmy Savile?

He said invaded Argentina, not invaded underage Tina.

LincolnsBeard

Father Damo wrote: »

Tony Blair was ridiculously popular in the USA after 9/11 for giving the biggest world support to the following wars.

Within Britain, and Ireland, I doubt there was ever a more hope invested candidate than Blair. The only comparable wave of hope and optimism would be the campaigns of those two.

Of course, with Obama he turned out to be the real deal. With Blair the public realised within a few weeks they had a complete kunt on their hands.

Yet he still somehow managed to win three elections, and probably would have won a fourth.

Tony Blair has proven himself as a capable statesman much more than Barack Obama has.

opinion guy

kingtiger wrote: »

Nelson Mandela would definitely take the crown

Most popular politician worldwide ?

Has to be between Nelson Mandela and Ghandi.

who the fug

LincolnsBeard wrote: »

Yet he still somehow managed to win three elections, and probably would have won a fourth.

Tony Blair has proven himself as a capable statesman much more than Barack Obama has.

Like Maggie before him, he did not have an opposition to challenge him and a fourth win is very unlikely.

By statesman, if you mean don't upset the Americans then he was capable, but he stood over a government that spunked allot of dosh on a welfare system with marginal benefits and the PFI system which he embraced is going to bite for along time.

Could have and should have done better

Father Damo

LincolnsBeard wrote: »

Yet he still somehow managed to win three elections, and probably would have won a fourth.

Tony Blair has proven himself as a capable statesman much more than Barack Obama has.

Blair is a fraud and a sell out. A corporate, capitalist cock sucker who served his nations sovereignity to the EU on a platter. A man who persistently lied to his own people. A man who brought us New Labour, essentially just a more politically correct version of the Tories. He was only a few weeks in office when he scrapped free third level education!

How did he win? Equally awful opposition to choose your vote from, coupled with the UK being a country where more people under 30 were voting on the final of Big ****ing Brother than bothered voting in the elections.

Thus far Obama has halted the unemployment increase, slowly created more and more new jobs month after month, saved the auto industry, ended one war.....how much more do you need from the guy?

steve9859

who the fug wrote: »

Like Maggie before him, he did not have an opposition to challenge him and a fourth win is very unlikely.

By statesman, if you mean don't upset the Americans then he was capable, but he stood over a government that spunked allot of dosh on a welfare system with marginal benefits and the PFI system which he embraced is going to bite for along time.

Could have and should have done better

Sounds exactly like Obama to be honest!

who the fug

steve9859 wrote: »

Sounds exactly like Obama to be honest!

Yes, but I started with very low expectations of Obama, so he has impressed

asherbassad

Agricola wrote: »

What a waste of a post more like. Expected him to pull out of Iraq on day one back in 2008 did you? Expect him to solve what many people would class an unsolvable situation in Israel, in his first term? I think your confusing Obama with Jesus Christ! If only politics was as simple as you seem to think it is, what a great world we would live in.

I don't remember him sending over US troops to help Gaddafi either???

As for why he is popular, well how many politicians anywhere in the world, could a 25 or 30 year old Joe Soap contemplate shooting the breeze with? Not many. Obama is hugely media savvy, people from all over the class divide identify with him, and he seems to be decent man anyway, many Americans who intend to vote for him quote his 'values' as the main reason. Also he came in after an abysmal Bush era, where the Presidency became a running joke. Most people in his position are older, are career politicians, and have spent so many years in the political bubble that they are almost as out of touch with the reality of life for normal people as the British royals. Obama is the anthesis of this. Or his PR is so good, thats the way he appears anyway!

Ah bollocks, excuses, excuses and more bloody excuses. He could have closed Guantanamo with the click of his fingers. Didn't even have the balls to do that like he promised he would.

Father Damo

The thing about Obama is he has stuck to most of his promises, unlike quite a few previous candidates. Bush Sr flipping on his no more taxes. Bush Jr vowing in the days after 9/11 that Bin Laden would be caught, and then, when it looked like BL had cut himself off so well that he could never be traced, he started talking it up that rendering AQ unworkable was far more important than catching Bin Laden. Clinton and the whole Lewinsky lies (though I did like the bloke mind)

The only ones he has failed on are the ones which the GOP house reps refuse to play ball on. You could list out a million and one lying, flip flopping chancers who claimed and appeared to be the real deal. Blair being the most glaringly obvious one. Boris Yeltsin would be another would be hero who ended up being a disaster. Even Mandela had some atrociously shady, self interested lads in his ranks, South African blacks arguably have a worse lifestyle now than they did under apartheid thanks to mismanagement of law and order and health (Aids) policies. Obama never promised anybody he would change the country over night, I distinctly recall him saying it was unlikely everything would be ship shape in four years. He is one of the few good guys in an industry full of self serving **** in their old boys club.

steve9859

Father Damo wrote: »

The thing about Obama is he has stuck to most of his promises. The only ones he has failed on are the ones which the GOP house reps refuse to play ball on. You could list out a million and one lying, flip flopping chancers who claimed and appeared to be the real deal. Blair being the most glaringly obvious one. Boris Yeltsin would be another would be hero who ended up being a disaster. Even Mandela had some atrociously shady, self interested lads in his ranks, South African blacks arguably have a worse lifestyle now than they did under apartheid thanks to mismanagement of law and order and health (Aids) policies.

There is a lot about blaming the GOP for blocking tactics. But they represent 50% of the population, who voted against Obama's policies, so it is their job to get Obama policies watered down, ang try to get in some of their own. That is how it is supposed to work. The bigger your majority, the more of your own agenda you can get through, and the less of the oppositions that you have to recognise

The problem is that US politics has become completely binary.....and Obama has just furthered that trend. The approach is that it is 100% my way,or not at all. There is no spirit of compromise any more from either side. So you can't just blame the GOP. You have to also blame Obama and his failure to effectively negotiate and compromise.....to offer incentives to the guys that represent the other 50% of the people. In that respect I think he has failed utterly. He is not an effective politician.....he is one for the big speeches and grand gestures

Wacker The Attacker

My name is URL wrote: »

http://whattheheckhasobamadonesofar.com/

I said notable achievements.

Father Damo

steve9859 wrote: »

There is a lot about blaming the GOP for blocking tactics. But they represent 50% of the population, who voted against Obama's policies, so it is their job to get Obama policies watered down, ang try to get in some of their own. That is how it is supposed to work. The bigger your majority, the more of your own agenda you can get through, and the less of the oppositions that you have to recognise

The problem is that US politics has become completely binary.....and Obama has just furthered that trend. The approach is that it is 100% my way,or not at all. There is no spirit of compromise any more from either side. So you can't just blame the GOP. You have to also blame Obama and his failure to effectively negotiate and compromise.....to offer incentives to the guys that represent the other 50% of the people. In that respect I think he has failed utterly. He is not an effective politician.....he is one for the big speeches and grand gestures

That, IMO, is more the fault of the system.

In Ireland, we elect the party that a majority, or biggest minority, reckon will do the best job. They pass bills, get it signed into law by a Seanad/ President who rarely, if ever, veto the bill. They generally do what thay are told to do by the party the public elected.

Same in the UK, has the Queen ever actually refused to sign a bill? (mind you, if he is does become king, Prince Charles seems like the type who would take a stand against a bill he disagreed with). The US hs an odd system but the house republicans really ought to play more ball with the president that the majority have decided generally has the best gameplan.

Beefy78

David Palmer.

Father Damo

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

I said notable achievements.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/07/us-jobless-unemployment-data

How much more notable were you looking for? Four years in and unemployment is at a level that the Republicans seemingly considered semi acceptable in early 2008. If an Irish candidate came to power and brought our current unemployment even anywhere near the 4% of the CT years, even 8% they would be considered somewhat of a success.

Did people actually think that when he took office unemployment would freeze, then go backward?

Do people think he promised that would happen?

If so, again, they should not be allowed to vote based on their cretinous IQ.

who the fug

Father Damo wrote: »

That, IMO, is more the fault of the system.

In Ireland, we elect the party that a majority, or biggest minority, reckon will do the best job. They pass bills, get it signed into law by a Seanad/ President who rarely, if ever, veto the bill. They generally do what thay are told to do by the party the public elected.

Same in the UK, has the Queen ever actually refused to sign a bill? (mind you, if he is does become king, Prince Charles seems like the type who would take a stand against a bill he disagreed with). The US hs an odd system but the house republicans really ought to play more ball with the president that the majority have decided generally has the best gameplan.

The difference in the UK is the House of Lords which has been an effective brake on the lower house, unfortunately the ****wits in the Commons are now trying to turn it into a Common lite :mad:

youreadthat

Obama is popular because Bush is still fresh in the memory, people know things could be a lot worse, financial crisis or not.

Wacker The Attacker

Father Damo wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/oct/07/us-jobless-unemployment-data

How much more notable were you looking for? Four years in and unemployment is at a level that the Republicans seemingly considered semi acceptable in early 2008. If an Irish candidate came to power and brought our current unemployment even anywhere near the 4% of the CT years, even 8% they would be considered somewhat of a success.

Did people actually think that when he took office unemployment would freeze, then go backward?

Do people think he promised that would happen?

If so, again, they should not be allowed to vote based on their cretinous IQ.

Who said that?

Father Damo

Wacker The Attacker wrote: »

Who said that?

Most Romney backers seem to think Obama lied because unemployment did not immediately stop growing on Jan 20th 2009.

TheStook

Stalin has a load of followers on the Twitterer sure