What Do We See in Obama?

[ProfessionalLeftist]

. . .

The persistence of the fantasies among liberals is more surprising. It seems that any attempt to discuss Obama’s record must first be tempered by some speculation about what he would have done (were it not for political obstacles) or could not do (because the office would not permit it). As Aileen, a caller in an NPR discussion about civil liberties, said, “Sometimes on the left we can be very naïve because after he stopped being a campaigner and became the president and was privy to information that we do not see, he changed his mind on a number of issues, because his primary responsibility is to protect us.”

While we cannot divine his intentions, his record, clearly, is a mixed bag. The claim that he’s achieved nothing is as untenable as that America would be like Sweden right now if only the Republicans hadn’t gotten in his way. Obviously, like any elected politician he must navigate the situation he inherited. But that doesn’t stop people from deluding themselves that he was more worthy of the wave of optimism that swept him into power than he ever was. As one person told me while leaping to the president’s defense over the escalation in Afghanistan, “You don’t know what’s in his heart.”

“True,” I replied. “Only his cardiologist can know that. But that knowledge would make little difference to the people of Afghanistan.”

Obama is no mere passive recipient in this process. While he does not control it, he has at times tried to leverage and game it. Rhetorically, at least, he projected a far more dynamic, idealistic and populist campaign than the one he was really running. But when it came to matters of substance, far from raising expectations too high, he set them quite low. Some of his first actions in office at a time of war and economic crisis were to keep Bush’s defense secretary, reinstate Bill Clinton’s economic team and put in a banker at the Treasury.

The man is not a radical. He never was. Nor did he say he was, though he was happy for some to think he might be. If he had been, he would never have won. A winner-take-all voting system where both parties are corporately financed, Congressional districts are openly gerrymandered and 40 percent of the upper chamber can block anything is no vehicle for radical reform. Nor is the presidency.

This doesn’t mean there’s no difference between Obama and his Republican opponents. It means we should not make excuses for him. He’s the best that could be elected last time, and this time. And that’s the problem.

http://newblackman.blogspot.com/2012/04/what-do-we-see-in-obama.html

[Herlong]

1. Are you saying we shouldn't vote?

'Cause don't matter what you say, I'm gonna vote!

[ProfessionalLeftist]

3. Hell no I'm not saying that!

I'm voting - Obama.

[Arctic Dave]

2. I believe that article is at capacity for excuses.

Anymore and the density will start a black hole chain reaction.

[msongs]

4. he is by nature a placater with no great vision as a leader IMO. he is ok otherwise.

the whole point of leadership is to have vision and take steps to enact that vision, set the process in motion and not sit around and wait til all the forecasts are favorable.

On many issues the American public is way ahead of Mr. Obama yet he drags his feet. And his democrat cohorts are not much better in too many instances. Oh well.

[Prophet 451]

5. I'll tell you what I see

Someone who won't appoint another right-fringe radical to the SCOTUS. That's reason enough to vote for him.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

8. +1 n/t

[dipsydoodle]

6. He represents hope

but is constrained by the selfishness of others.

[zipplewrath]

7. Stopped that 3 years ago

That was for elections. Now he represents pragmatism.

It's kind of insulting to the President to suggest that he isn't accomplishing what he wants to accomplish. To portray him as someone who goes "hat in hand" over to congress and begs to let him do something is a bit misleading. To suggest he is anything other than a powerful leader is to suggest that he is somehow not up to the challenges of the office. Is he getting everything he wants? No. But he is making choices, and in those choices he is choosing between what he wants to do and what isn't that important to him.

When his administration is over, it would be interesting to see a list of his "greatest regrets". I'd bet no one here would guess it correctly.

[Neoma]

9. I'm betting it's better than Bush's regret.

To get rid of Social Security.

[sad sally]

10. His legacy will include the "right" of the government to impose indefinite detention of

terrorism suspects without charge, the jailing of American citizens without trial and taking terrorism-related cases out of the hands of the FBI and the civilian court system and hand them over to the military.

Sure, his executive order said he won't keep American citizens locked up forever without a trial, but unless he changes the constitution, he won't be the president forever. Does eveyone really think another president will have the same interpretation?

"Section 1021 (c-1) allows “Detention under the law of war without trial until the end of hostilities.” A U.S. president can take the position that he is engaged in a war without end. In fact, that is exactly what Presidents Bush and Obama have done. In addition, section (b-2) states that the law applies not just to members of al-Qaeda and the Taliban, but to any person who has “substantially supported” “associated forces.” Because these terms are not defined, Obama would appear to be free to interpret them as he chooses…as would be any future president."