What Do We See in Obama?
. . .
While we cannot divine his intentions, his record, clearly, is a mixed bag. The claim that hes achieved nothing is as untenable as that America would be like Sweden right now if only the Republicans hadnt gotten in his way. Obviously, like any elected politician he must navigate the situation he inherited. But that doesnt 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 presidents defense over the escalation in Afghanistan, You dont know whats 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 Bushs defense secretary, reinstate Bill Clintons 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 doesnt mean theres no difference between Obama and his Republican opponents. It means we should not make excuses for him. Hes the best that could be elected last time, and this time. And thats the problem.
http://newblackman.blogspot.com/2012/04/what-do-we-see-in-obama.html
Herlong
(649 posts)'Cause don't matter what you say, I'm gonna vote!
ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)I'm voting - Obama.
Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Anymore and the density will start a black hole chain reaction.
msongs
(67,347 posts)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
(9,796 posts)Someone who won't appoint another right-fringe radical to the SCOTUS. That's reason enough to vote for him.
ProfessionalLeftist
(4,982 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)but is constrained by the selfishness of others.
zipplewrath
(16,646 posts)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
(10,039 posts)To get rid of Social Security.
sad sally
(2,627 posts)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."