Why is it so hard to accept that Obama may be a great leader?

[Labors of Hercules]

So he hasn't been around for such a long time, so what? He has done, is doing and will continue to do great things. He inspires people. He's a great orator, highly intelligent, driven and shows an amazing amount of wisdom and restraint for someone so "young" to the political sphere.

Is it possible, just possible, that the reason people see greatness in him is because there IS greatness in him?

I am tired of people telling me I'm "drinking kool-aid" or that I am somehow less than intelligent for perceiving genuine (albeit green) statesmanship in Barack Obama. Yes, it will temper with age, but right now, it is exactly what this country needs.

By the way, I saw greatness in Bill Clinton and Al Gore too... Does that make me a brainwashed plutocrat?

[joeybee12]

1. Only time will tell...there were lots of people who saw greatness in

George W. Bush...so seeing truly isn't believing...it's all a matter of perspective. I personally think he will be a disaster as president, but I'm willing to give him a chance. If I'm proven wrong, fine.

[griffi94]

19. correct

i think you nailed it....not calling any individual a kool aid drinker....but the position
of many many obama supporters just reminds me too damn much of shrubs bushbots.....the fact that obama has maximized his impact on these particular kinds of people says a lot about him imo
anything obama says or does is great and if you can't see the greatness...you're against hope and change..why do you hate america......imo obama is a political opportunist....maybe he'll grow into being a great leader but so far he's used what imo are cheap theatrics and tent revival tactics to create a wave that he hopes to ride to the white house....sorry i don't see anything great about that

[joeybee12]

38. And see below...great leaders are rare indeed...

...assigning greatness so early is just too bizarre!

[notundecided]

45. I see too many people

with that starry-eyed look in their eye even before Barack opens his
mouth..........scarry!

[Deep13]

2. He has never done anything to demonstrate he is a great leader.

It's all talk which is worthless. By the way, I don't want a "great leader." I want someone who can manage the Federal government and turn the economy around.

[joeybee12]

4. We had one great leader since 1900...FDR...we did well with

competent leaders like Kennedy and Clinton...great leaders come along rarely, and only show their greatness when the times demand it.

[Deep13]

13. Pretty much.

FDR was the only one.

[Big Blue Marble]

72. It is the times that make great leaders as well as the person.

This is that time and Obama is that person.

[Kahuna]

61. Neither has Hillary. And if Hillary manages the federal government

they way she has managed her campaign.....Good grief! :scared:

[Deep13]

81. This again? First, the question was about Obama.

Even if HC stinks on ice, it does not make O a great leader.

She's been a US senator since '01, as long as Bush has been in the WH. She was a major advisor for Bill Clinton in the WH for another eight years. Again, I don't think HC is a great leader and frankly I consider that a plus. The president (generally) deserves about as much reverence as the manager of a drug store. Except that the store is a lot bigger in the case of the POTUS. I would really like to see the Congress reassert its primacy. (Also, I would like to be able to fly like Superman). Maybe O will be a great manager. I don't know. There is nothing in his background to show he will.

I would have expected a better job on the campaign trail. I think that is valid criticism.

[Big Blue Marble]

73. Given the campaign he has run against great odds,

I'd say we are starting to get the idea he maybe a pretty damn good
manager. And that is just for starters.

FDR did not show his greatness until he was in office. But he
did show promise. Obama shows the same promise.

[Maribelle]

3. You are asking for 'blind faith' for Obama.

Sorry, that's just lame.

[ginnyinWI]

9. I chose Obama carefully.

First, I read his book, The Audacity of Hope.

Then I read through his websites and saw how he stands on the issues I really care about--Iraq, Global Warming, International Relations, Poverty.

Then I listened to every debate I could, and took notes. I watched TV interviews. And then I took into account endorsements from politicians I already trust.

Then I chose Obama. The fact that he's an ispiring speaker and all-around nice person is just the icing on the cake.

[Maribelle]

18. So maybe you should have rephrased the 'accept' bit. Because to some it means "believe" ...

And then you start talking about issues, which are the exact reasons some are against him.

[Big Blue Marble]

75. Are you saying you don't believe in Hillary?

Hmmmm............

[Armstead]

11. Hillary is jus as much "blind faith"

When has she been in an executive position in government?

Unless they are running for re-election, all candidates for president are a leap of blind faith to an extent.

[griffi94]

25. see here we go again

a question is asked about obama...not even a nasty question...then several people post that they just don't buy it and say why.....then one of obamas supporters turns it into a "what about hillary" she's just as bad or worse
this thread wasn't about hillary...why do you hate america....why do you want the terrorists to win

[Big Blue Marble]

77. Why are the Hillary supporter interjecting themselves in

such a snarky way? If they do not think that he will be a great leader,
they could express that in a reasonable way. But they insult and jab.

A lot of them are feeling angry and disappointed. And they are taking it
out on Obama supporters and even worse on Obama.

It's pretty normal stuff....But it is immature.

Edit to add: I just checked upthread from your post.

The first two posters compared Obama to Bush
and Obama supporters to Bushbots.

Two bring up the cult charge.

One says he is not capable of running the government.

And I haven't even checked the rest of this thread!

And you are charging the Obama people with being nasty.
Careful your bias is showing.

[Maribelle]

28. Canceling NCLB is a real issue. True Universal Health is a real issue.

Most Hillary supporters, such as myself, support her based on real issues.

I want NCLB canceled, not played with as Obama wants to do. The education of our children is too important. No more games at our children's expense.

I want true Universal Health, not a plan Obama has presented that can be gamed by the unscrupulous and does not cover those that are jamming the emergency rooms in my area, the very ones driving up the cost of my health insurance by double-digits, percentage wise, year after year after year.

[Armstead]

34. That is different from what you said about "blind faith"

It's one thing to support or oppose a candidate on specific issues, as you mentioned now.

It's a different matter to claim that believing a candidate might be a good (or "great" leader) is something different.

I have no problem with your opposition based on real issues like those you mentioned. However my response was to your blind faith comment. All presidential candidates require some degree of faith in how they'd perform as a leader in office.

[Maribelle]

43. No it is not. Your pomp would only be true if I asked, say you, to "accept"

My argument is that issues should come first. Unlike the op.

[cloudythescribbler]

54. amen nt

[incapsulated]

56. But most of us aren't comparing her to national heroes

I just view her as the best candidate running. She is a politician, period.

So is Obama.

Neither are great heroes or great leaders, at this point.

[Big Blue Marble]

79. What are you talking about?

Most Hillary supporters loooove to compare her to Bill.

They talk about what a great president he was and how she will
restore that greatness.

[incapsulated]

82. Well, she *was* in the White House with him

But to hear Obama supporters, you would think he marched along side MLK, worked with RFK, *is* JFK and Nelson Mandela, too.

[Big Blue Marble]

83. Being in the Whitehouse makes you qualified to be president?

No one makes the claims you state. Many did see greatness in the men that you mention.

With these great leaders and with Obama, it is not the greatness in them that is
the most moving. Is the feeling of greatness they inspire in us, that we to
can do great things together as a people.

We, the people, can overthrow a repressive regime in South Africa.
We, the people, can rid this nation of segration and injustice.
We, the people, can stop an unjust war.

The greatness in a leader is always the greatness he or she inspires in us.

This is the kind of leader Obama is.

[Araxen]

22. Blind faith for Clinton too

They can't even manage their own campaign finances. I can't even imagine what she would do to the economy.

[Tyler Durden]

5. Neither Clinton nor Obama can be a "Great Leader"

Without supporting Equal Protection Under The Law for all people. Neither do, so neither can be a "Great Leader."

The best either can do is be a "not Republican place holder" until 2012, if the country lasts that long.

[predfan]

6. There are plenty of policy wonks to help with the mundane,

what he can bring, and will, I think, is a source of inspiration, especially within our young people. There's an old saying about doing something even if it's wrong, and 8 years of Bush has put us in that position.

[griffi94]

27. that was the rap on bush as well

he was the MBA president...he would surround himself with top people......

[primavera]

36. Right, and look who he surrounded himself with

Bush pulled his advisers from the communities with which he was familiar, the oil and gas industry and the military-industrial complex. Small wonder we've seen the policies we've seen. It seems unlikely that Obama, whose background is altogether different, will be recruiting his advisers from the same sources.

I don't know, I too would love to see someone with lots of experience, but I'm not sure it's the most important thing - a candidate can have a lot of experience, but if it's bad experience, it's not necessarily a good thing. Tom Delay and Trent Lott have a great deal of experience, but they are the last people I would want to see in public office. I guess that's why I'm deciding that, if I have to, I can accept a candidate without a great deal of experience and pray that, if elected, Obama surrounds himself with, and listens to, advisors who do have greater experience. Ultimately, no president can be a specialist on every topic; they're going to have to rely upon the expertise of others. What matters is to whom do they look for that expertise. With Hillary, I worry that she will continue to turn, as she always has, to the corporatist DLC for that kind of policy advice and that's why I can't support her, despite her respectable amount of experience. Obama might do exactly the same thing - he is, after all part of the Blue Dog coalition, just like Hillary - but, in his case, it's actually his more limited experience that is appealing: there is at least a chance with Obama that he won't surround himself with people like Joe Lieberpuke and Zell Miller.

[Nickster]

40. I would say that he was quite successful in what he wanted to do. We just didn't know that his true

agenda was in destroying the Constitution and lining the pockets of his pals, but he succeeded quite well at that.

[rug]

7. Because within months of his election he will be dealing with all the politicians he's been deriding

This phony change and unity, when unfulfilled, will turn people off politics for a decade.

Status Quobama.

[babylonsister]

15. Which politicians has he derided? I think he's kept himself above

the fray, so I am curious.

[rug]

26. Let me see, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, not Reagan, McCain, not Lieberman and

"the old politics" of which he has been typically vague.

Who do you think he was referring to?

[babylonsister]

35. He's running a campaign; I think Clinton was fair game, and both are

now since Bill jumped in. As for old vs. new politics, telling the truth isn't deriding imo. I think he's right; we need some fresh ideas. I'm sick of the way things have been run, and have faith Obama will change that.

[rug]

39. And he will deal with the exact same politicians in DC and make the exact same compromises.

It's a promise he can't and won't deliver. And he knows it.

[babylonsister]

41. We shall see. I have faith for the first time in a great while, you don't.

I like where my head is at better. Sure, he's got some daunting obstacles, but I still feel more comfortable that Obama will get things done than I've ever felt about Clinton.

[rug]

46. That's fine. I really am leery of making political choices based on faith.

[Umbram]

37. Completely nonresponsive to the question.

I see you are yet another person who throws out a vague statement and doesn't intelligently support it.

Your claim that Obama has burned bridges consists of:
he campaigned against other candidates (or their surrogates) and made a statement about "old politics."

You have achieved irrelevance.

[rug]

44. Dumbram, the claim is not that he's burned bridges, but that he's a hypocrite.

If he's president, he must and will deal the the established political powers. Any change he makes will be incremental and cosmetic. He knows it and you know it. There is nothing radical about his approach to politicians and politics.

Here are the names. http://www.house.gov/ http://www.senate.gov/

Now, other than internet posing, do you wish to intelligently support your statement of irrelevance?

[Umbram]

50. No, that wasn't your claim.

"Because within months of his election he will be dealing with all the politicians he's been deriding"

That would be the definition of burning bridges.

Every single candidates runs on the platform of "Changing Washington," so I have no idea what you think you are talking about.

I'll assume "Dumbram" is your clever-in-a-second-grader-sort-of-way of fusing dumb and umbram? Congrats.

[rug]

51. No, that's the definition of hypocrisy.

And I think the fusing took place long ago.

[goodhue]

8. It's not hard at all

[Phillycat]

10. Because 2 years ago, he was a state senator.

And he can't debate policy, as evidenced in the debates...because he doesn't KNOW policy.

[Labors of Hercules]

14. "evidenced in the debates"... Were you watching the Republican debates?

because there were 18 Democratic debates that evidenced the exact opposite.

[Phillycat]

16. I watched Hillary wipe the floor with him on policy debate.

He's an empty shell - sounds good, looks great, but no substance. Hillary is a liar and 100% politician, but so is every other candidate on the national stage (she just gets more shit for it because she's female), and at least this isn't her first time at the rodeo. Neither of these candidates were my first choice, and Hillary was my LAST choice going into this campaign, but she has more substance to her message.

[griffi94]

29. i don't think it's just because she's a woman

she gets more shit for it because she's good at it....and her last name is clinton

[cloudythescribbler]

57. YOU may have thought HRC "wiped the floor" w/Obama but I DIDN'T and neither did other voters

Obviously the purpose of the debate is NOT to score policy points but to win over the public. Obama has been more effective. Call him a demagogue, if you will, but I think he was very thoughtful and upfront in the debates, such as when asked about his greatest flaw. That really is a breath of fresh air.

Some people are very put off by even the relatively modest enthusiasm Obama inspires in crowds. This is like the spiciness KFC "spicy" wings compared to REAL "Five Alarm Fire" wings. I think a lot of people either directly or indirectly projecting the 'cult' spin lack a sense of history and need to get over it (and get over themselves).

Just my $0.02

[Phillycat]

63. Heh.

You said:

Obviously the purpose of the debate is NOT to score policy points but to win over the public.

Well, then. Let's just have them stop discussion their platforms entirely and just start Myspace pages and see how many "adds" they can get before the convention! :D

[cloudythescribbler]

64. No, the point is that it is the overall TOTAL impression, including policy, in the debates that ...

IN FACT is decisive. It's nothing more than a statement of a tautology, really.

[Unsane]

12. Obama: great leader...or GREATEST leader?

[Maribelle]

32. Or the republicans greatest sock puppet?

[smiley_glad_hands]

17. We do need a great leader.

I've been hard on Obama supporters for their so called glassy eyedness. I voted for him yesterday though. My wife says whats wrong if he is a cult of personality? Kennedy was. I think I'm hoping he's more like FDR.

Alot of my concerns with Obama really has nothing to do with him or his supporters. Its me. I am jaded and a cynical. You can blame 2000, 2004, and Rove for that. It's also one of the reasons I cringe when I hear him and his most ardent supporters talk about reaching across the aisle. I think to myself: "Yeah, reach across the aisle, they will only chop your arm off".

That being said, if Obama can gut the republican party for a generation through reaching out to republicans, I'll throw some glass in my eyes if I have to (figuratively).

[flordehinojos]

20. because he is not. he is just another emotional twelve year old like bush.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

21. Wow - this is the greatest post I have ever read here

Un-fucking-believable

[BlueStateGirl]

23. Because he hasn't accomplished anything substantial that

warrants the comparisons to JFK, or MLK . He hasn't done anything aside from giving some really wonderful speeches.

It is hard for me to just accept him as the savior who is going to unite our country when he has never indicated that he is in fact capable of doing that.
What has he done, in the Senate, that is substantially different that any other Democratic Senator?

[EstimatedProphet]

48. One thing...

Senators are by definition, accomplished. It takes an extraordinary amount of work just to get to the position of being able to run, let alone actually run. Saying what has he done that is different from any other senator is like saying what did Alan Shepard do that is different than other astronauts. It's head and shoulders over the average used car salesman.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

52. Or the person typing on a message board

[sniffa]

69. *snort*

good points above. :thumbsup:

[BlueStateGirl]

80. Of course it is, but not every Senator is cut out to be a great leader,

which is what the OP's question was about.

In my opinion, he has done nothing in his political background that suggests he is anymore capable of leading this country than John Edwards or Hillary Clinton.

Clearly, he is on his way to becoing a transformative figure in American politics. But, in my opinion, there is nothing, outside of his ability to give a great speech, that indicates he is going to be the greatest leader of all time. It seems over the top to me.

If he gets the nomination I think he will win. And I think he will make a good president. But I just don't buy all this great leader, the next JFK, the next MLK hyperbole that is flying around the board. Let's see what he can actually do.

[cooolandrew]

24. I wholeheartedly agree, we can't cling to the past, something new and invative is very American.

[Marrah_G]

30. I don't know if he will be or not. Neither do you. Best we can do is cross our fingers.

That is how it is with all Presidential candidates.

[NashVegas]

31. Where Were Obama's Leadership Skills Yesterday?

When the senate voted 2:1 to give the Telecoms retroactive immunity for illegally spying on the American people?

(Not to prop Hillary, as she was absent.)

[suston96]

33. Greatness?

Fleet Admiral William F. 'Bull' Halsey Jr.: There are no great men, only great challenges that ordinary men are forced by circumstances to meet.

First great challenge for Barack Obama - getting elected as the first black American president.

After that we will see, because there are many, many great challenges facing him. How he meets them will tell us about his greatness.

We will see.

[beachmom]

42. He is older than JFK, MLK, or WJC when they were in their prime

or elected president. He has more legislative experience than Hillary Clinton. I don't think he is a "green" statesman. I think he is a natural statesman who can win arguments while still being honorable.

[IndieLeft]

47. They are just cynics. They want to win, and they don't care if the whole

party goes down with her.

[Prophet 451]

60. Bullshit

Some people (not including me) support Hillary for entirely principled reasons. Some (very much including me) really are cynics and sceptical of the idea that either one will bring the massive change needed.

Not everyone yet to board the Gobama train is a Hillary supporter and very few of those that are fit the mean-spirited caricature you've trotted out above.

[Zorra]

49. We'll see. So far he has yet to address the most important issue of our time -

corporate control of government.

Until this problem is addressed and solved by one of our elected leaders, and our formerly democratic government is completely free from the control of megacorporate special interests, then little of serious lasting consequence can ever be done to solve the plethora of problems faced by our nation and the rest of the nations of the world.

If Senator Obama postulates a cogent argument regarding the necessity of removing corporate influence of government, and seriously attempts to institute policies removing corporate influence from our government, then I will have an indication that he is a great leader.

Unless he undertakes either of these courses of action, he is just whistling past the graveyard of our democracy.

The criteria you posted - ability to articulate effectively, intelligence, drive, perceived wisdom, restraint - are not the qualities that necessarily define a great leader. They could be qualities that define a great actor.

What defines a great leader is how much that leader does, in a tangible way, to considerably improve the lives of the people he or she represents.

[Bluerthanblue]

53. because people would rather be "right" and miserable than

chance being "wrong" and hopeful.

I speak as one who lived in fear of "hope" for most of my life- In fear of it, and at times surviving only because of it.


Now, I find, I've come to the place where I need to decide if I want to live out the balance of my days refusing to trust that hope could grow into something positive and worthwhile- or- if I will give up my need to think I can "control" the future- the expectation of disappointment and unhappiness, and risk entertaining "hope"~"possibility"~"potential"~.

If If we allow ourselves to entertain the possibility that Obama might turn out to be a truly good leader, we risk being disappointed. If we expect him to be nothing, to screw up, and make a mess of things, then we have 'nothing' to lose.
'Nothing', except the chance to live today to it's fullest- to view tomorrow with expectation, rather than dread. To plow the ground this spring, plant our gardens, trusting that we will be there to gather the harvest this autumn, and that it may be able to nourish us through another winter, towards another spring.


peace~

[eilen]

84. That was very insightful

I know what you mean. I have been a very cynical person in regard to politics since the second Reagan admin (I think I was one of the 15 people who voted for Mondale in my county). I just don't have much faith in either party to be truthful. I remember growing up seeing Nixon on tv, you can hardly blame me. When Clinton was elected, I was hopeful but was very disappointed. After 9/11, I was really ticked off. After all the subterfuge, I can hardly watch the president on tv and had literally stopped watching the news. Political conversation had become so acrimonious, people so bitterly opposed feeling they have to choose a "side". It seemed like no one could be grey, it was all black and white in regard to issues. The nomination process was on the back of my mind when Hillary announced her candidacy and my first thought was "wow, its early, we are really going to experience election fatigue this cycle." I figured she would get the nod and was pretty resigned to it. So far as I was concerned there really wasn't much difference anymore between the parties (esp. after NAFTA). I didn't even consider that Obama could be a viable candidate. I really ignored him for a long time until January of this year. I am continually impressed with his oratorial skills, he really seems like he believes in what he says. I felt he might help bring people together. I haven't felt that way ever about a candidate. For once I am hopeful too.

[Bluerthanblue]

85. well-

thank you- I'm glad we connected on this.

And I'm believing we won't be dissapointed- no matter what happens.

Welcome to DU! It's a great community of people- passionate, funny, annoying, compassionate, stubborn- ....-beautifully human.

Thanks again for your reply- Hope this place grows on you.

:hi:
peace~
blu

[incapsulated]

55. Why is it so hard to understand he has to DO something first?

We call people "leaders" because they have LED.

We call people "heroes" because they have done heroic deeds.

I see Obama compared to great leaders and national heroes based on some exciting speeches and winning some primary states.

If you see promise in him, great. I don't but that doesn't make me right or wrong. I don't see what you see and until he proves he is anything more than hype my opinion simply isn't going to change.

I actually need something to base this great admiration on.

[snappyturtle]

62. One thing I can say in Obama's favor is that he has united many,

many people....even some republicans and independents....which is more than what I've seen from any other candidate whether from the Democratic Party or the other one. He has done "something" that others have not been able to do even though they have had more time (experience?) to do so. IMHO

[incapsulated]

68. He has generated a lot of excitement, for now

First, I don't for a second count the majority of those repuke votes as anything but spoilers.

Second, he has been the media's darling for a while now, barely touched.

If he gets the nom, this will all change and we will see how far "hope" goes when the MSM turns on you and the repuke machine gets into gear.

If he survives all that and makes it to the White House, then I will be impressed.

[snappyturtle]

78. I think all the candidates try to excite the crowds but Obama has

accomplished it the best.

First---I don't regard the republican votes as spoilers. Look at the "approval" polls of the president. People are not happy.

Second---He's answered the same questions on places such as Meet the Press and in the many debates as the other candidates. Other candidates have set themselves up for attack with their tactics. Obama has not.

As far as the nomination: He'll do fine....I don't think he has as much to go after as others do. Remember, the war vote. He can't be criticized for speaking out against the war, early in October of 2002, but others can be criticized for giving * the authority to use force.

Get ready to be impressed! I think the worst that can happen to Sen. Obama is that if the delegates from MI and FL are seated at the convention or if the Super Delegates refrain from backing the Pledged Delegates.....the people's choice. If either of these scenarios happens it will have arrived through crass manipulation which will harm the party....that is putting the election in jeopardy. IMHO

[Bake]

58. Perhaps because we keep waiting to see some SUBSTANCE?

His supporters seem to think he's the Greatest Liberal since ... ever. He's not.

Now that he's the frontrunner, it's time for Obama to put up or shut up. Let's see some substance. He's had a free pass from the media (Tweety gets a tingle up his leg when he hears Obama speechify - I kid you not!), but even the pundits are now talking about stricter scrutiny.

So before we anoint him (and I'll admit, he makes a helluva inspiring speech), some of us are waiting for some substance on those scrawny bones.

Bake

[Prophet 451]

59. It's not hard to accept

It's the "may be" part that trips me up. I'm not especially for Hillary either (before someone dismisses me out of hand as a Hillary supporters). Perhaps Obama is destined for greatness but at this stage, I'm looking for something more concrete than "perhaps" and "maybe".

[apnu]

65. Because the yellow dogs will stick with the old guard until the bitter end

Will Obama be a great leader? I dunno, time will tell.

[BlackVelvet04]

66. All icing, no cake. n/t

[Neo-wobbly]

67. Run that by me again:

He has done, is doing and will continue to do great things.

Can you give any examples? Any evidence? I'll grant that he is not as bad as Hillary, but that's not enough reason for me to support him.

[Name removed]

70. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[butterfly77]

71. Because I have not seen the media start to beat up on him yet..

[Perry Logan]

74. I'm still waiting for his followers to stop bashing Hillary and make some kind of case for him.

[Blue_In_AK]

76. Operative word is "may".

When Obama shows me that he is a great leader and not just someone who inspires some people, then I'll say he is. Until then, I'm reserving judgment.