why does it seem like Obama is the least powerful president of my lifetime?

[LeftyAndProud60]

Granted I was only alive for Bush started Wars, and CLinton had is little issues in foreign policy as well. But even when Obama escalated the Afghanistan War, it seemed like someone else's idea. Like Republicans forced him to do it.

Does any of this make sense?

[ProSense]

1. Because

it allows you to keep posting these questions that no one can answer but you?

Why does it seem like the President can get Clinton or anyone who support his goals to do what he wants by simply asking them to?

Define "powerful."

On edit, maybe you can formulate a question around this.

Such as: Why the hell are Republicans going off the deep end?

[IntravenousDemilo]

2. It almost seems as if he's chosen to be less powerful.

Sad really, when he had powerful majorities until just a couple of months ago.

And I think you mean "his little issues", not "is little issues". I see that a lot, frankly, people replacing "his" with "is", and I just don't get it.

[vaberella]

10. Be realistic. He NEVER had a powerful majority.

A powerful majority was if 95% of the Democrat congressional members were Progressive or at least Liberals. Then you could say he had a powerful majority. He had 13 Conservadems who can be called extreme bluedogs or just plain old Republicans with a D after their name. With 13 of those people---who are in essence repubs---and who will fight against certain progressive measures; how do you call that a powerful majority? When you have 31 Dems in office signing a petition to fight for an extension of the Bush tax cuts---that's not a powerful majority.

When you have Dems who won't allow you to fund a prison to hold Gitmo prisoners on US territory so you can follow on your promise---that's not a powerful majority. You've just got people against you.

[quakerboy]

43. he passed what he prioritized, when he chose

Either he has power or he does not. When he passed health care and the tax cuts, he was apparently powerful, but when he doesn't pass something else people care about, then he never had power.

You cant have it both ways. Either he is a powerful successful president who passed awesome bills like Ledbetter and has a huge list of successes, or he is not. Which is it?

[vaberella]

56. In actuality.

Majority of the bigger things that people found him weak on. He was also deemed not powerful by many. A compromise to many is not powerful---it's a "cave" especially on DU. Don't go around things in order to make your point. Let's cut right to the chase here. You're using the same position that many on DU found him weak on; while the pragmatists found him strong on because he was able to get a lot of good things done within the political climate he was working in. A climate that hates him, and with a Democratic electorate that has questionable support for our President. Some of us, who are deemed pragmatists realize the set up and what's going on and so for us it was politically successful moves. For those who felt he "caved" which are all the ones you mentioned---he is deemed weak and this is by the LEFT. Not by the Right. The Right think he's a socialist bastard on domestic policy and rams through legislation to hurt the nation. In foreign policy they see him as ultimately weak and a neonate who knows how to do nothing. Republicans have different view points on those two fronts. The Left think he's moving center Right to extreme Right (and we're talking about some of the bloggers and some DUers)when it comes to domestic policy and as for Foreign---it's a mixed bag for both sets. On some issues he's progressive on others he's a traitor or Bush-lite.

In regards to HRC and the PO---if he had the super majority---he would have gotten the PO...shoot, maybe even single payer. DADT---It took another legislation took get another deal that makes a review wait by Pentagon before immediate integration---another point many proponents of DADT said he sold out on, that we had to got through the lame duck on. If he had a super majority (and we're talking liberal people) ---that would have been done long before. Do you even think he would have properly prioritized. He would have rammed through everything. Bush tax cuts---where people said he was weak on (since we can't mutually exclude tax cuts from the rich and tax cuts for the poor & middle class) if he had the super majority---do you not think that he would have been able to allow the Bush tax cuts for the rich expire---that legislation failed twice in the house.

Gitmo---do you not think with a super majority he would not have closed it by now. That he would not have gotten the money to build the maximum security Prison in the US so he could close it down? Of course he would have if he had a strong super majority of people who were 100% liberal or at least Center. No he has extreme right Dems who fucked us over more times than we can count.

So when you're trying to show a sense of duplicity, understand that there are different issues going on here--who are talking about what in case of foreign and domestic policy, who is talking about pragmatism and those who think he's a caver.

[IntravenousDemilo]

60. It would be swell if he acted more like LBJ, though.

A little strong-arming never hurt. Has the President no kind of pull or influence within the party he leads? Are there any party funds that could be withheld from Congresscritters facing election, that he might be in charge of? No ability to refuse to sign nomination papers? Nothing like that?

[StarsInHerHair]

61. well, he could have tried giving a great speech/talk to the blue dogs to turn

them to vote with what he claimed he wanted, he could have invited House members & Senators who might be swayed by his charisma to a White House dinner, with media there....but......

[DFab420]

75. Hey HEY LBJ!! How many kid's did you kill today!!

Now it's like..

Hurray LBJ we <3 you!!

[IntravenousDemilo]

78. Yeah, well, aside from that major flaw.

LBJ managed to get the Civil Rights Act passed, which is something I don't think Kennedy would have been able to do. Perhaps it was because Johnson was from Texas and could cow fellow southerners into submission. Perhaps it was because he'd been on Capitol Hill for a quarter century or more and knew where all the bodies were hidden. Or perhaps he was just the kind of guy who wouldn't put up with a lot of shit. Obama obviously can't suddenly be from Texas, and he can't alter time so that he has 25 years of service on the Hill, so I think he should channel the not-putting-up-with-shit part of LBJ's personality and show 'em who's boss.

[Jakes Progress]

100. Yep, you condemn him for continuing Kennedy's war.

Do you also condemn Obama for continuing bush's war?

[Avant Guardian]

102. Afghanistan

EOM

[Name removed]

3. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[vaberella]

4. It's not that he's the least powerful. It's the fact that he has the most AGAINST HIM.

He's basically being attacked on all fronts. He has no real sustained support from any group of people at times. His skin is one thing, the fact he's a Dem is another thing. Everyone is testing him. Most people are also jaded by Bush, so they fear Obama is another Bush if he does anything in support of Bush (even if Bush's position could have been a good thing (Bush's tax cuts included major tax cuts for the poor and middle class as well)).

Not to mention the Media is dead set to destroy him. They couldn't find anything to destroy him with as a candidate and the way he won by an overwhelming majority. They are working double time to get him. You have right wing media who hates him out right---and even leftist blogs like HP and FDL--react with knee-jerk responses to things that are later found to be false or misunderstood.

So everything is a battle, everything is combative in response. And the media frames everything as though he's weak, he's indecisive, he's being pulled by he nose hairs. He's swaying more right because of the right. This coming from the left of course. And the right is screaming he's going more left and more socialist by the day. It reaches a point where, we the people, are flooded with misinformation on all fronts.

You have to make the best informed decision you can make and you have to learn not to have a knee-jerk reaction. Many people on DU work on conspiracy theories; ie decoding his words or presuming an action he takes is an ulterior motive for some nefarious action or plans; or they think he's trying to change the discourse.

All in all I see this as a way to undermine this President---mainly so we can NEVER have a Black man as president and most likely a White Woman as President ever again---and secondly that most of all they are not a Dem.

[ProSense]

7. Exactly!

People are just saying any damn thing trying to define the President in their own words.

[RandomKoolzip]

32. "misinformation on all fronts?"

No, just from the right and the supposedly mainstream media.

[vaberella]

38. HP and FDL have laid down some false truths in their time. n/t

[IntravenousDemilo]

79. Harry Pruman and Franklin Delano Loosevelt? n/m

[LeftyAndProud60]

36. This makes a lot of sense. I would also add that his own base is against him it seems. Sometimes it

seems he has nothing but enemies. Maybe because they are the loudest.

[vaberella]

40. Depends on how you define the base.

Overall the base is very supportive. They are just not heard from the reps they elect. I also don't think that DU really defines the base as a whole. Just an aspect of it---and because we have this filter (DU)---it would seem at times that Obama has enemies here. But even here there are a good number of people who support him on here. And others are critical with reason---I mean I go a bit nuts when I hear him on offshore drilling and of course I question his stance on Patriot Act and everyone critical of him on Education has a valid point. While there may be a good number who are just irrational and just hate the guy---but I see a number of those are trolls here.

[obamafourmore]

55. Exactly. From the Right, and sadly from Left too

[These Eyes]

86. I agree...

"All in all I see this as a way to undermine this President---mainly so we can NEVER have a Black man as president and most likely a White Woman as President ever again---and secondly that most of all they are not a Dem."

That's what I told someone not too long ago. If he can be painted as the worst president ever, and his "failures" can be attributed to not being a white male, then only white males need only apply -- starting in 2012.

[The_Commonist]

6. Interesting perspective.

I was a year old when Kennedy was shot.
I remember hearing "Hey, hey, LBJ! How many kids did you kill today?"
I got into a fight in the 5th grade telling some other kid that "my dad says Nixon is a crook."
I have a WIN button on my bookshelf.
I think Carter's ineffectiveness is the closest to what we are seeing now in Obama.
Unfortunately, the nice guys just don't seem to do a such great job in the White House.
Or so it seems...

[jenmito]

8. He's accomplished more in his first two years than most modern presidents. But he doesn't brag

about what he gets done. He walks softly and carries a big stick.

[obxhead]

25. That is true.

Behind closed doors Wall Street, big pharma, and big insurance are very grateful for all the hard work. The CIA and FBI appreciate the strong support for the Patriot Act. The Military industrial complex is extremely grateful for his escalation of war as well.

[jenmito]

42. 134 promises kept vs. 38 promises broken:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/

[mochajava666]

67. Well said

[uponit7771]

112. Obama promise meter doesn't agree with you

[obxhead]

113. It agrees with the elite destroying us quite well though. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

9. You act like waging war is a good thing

Because it gives one the ability to project power.

[LeftyAndProud60]

35. I think for him it could've been the opposite. End the wars and it would've displayed power. nt

[Xipe Totec]

11. From 1964 TIME Person of the Year - Lyndon Baines Johnson

If You Try...The presidency of the U.S. is enough to make anyone break out all over. Getting the ponderous machinery of the Federal Government to move is a task that would try Job, and Johnson is somewhat less patient. Harry Truman once described how it would be when Dwight Eisenhower replaced him. "He'll sit there and he'll say, `Do this! Do that!'" said Truman. "And nothing will happen." In a memorable outburst, Franklin Roosevelt complained that it was tough enough getting action from the Treasury and State departments, but that "the Na-a-vy beat the two of them hands down. "To change anything in the Na-a-vy," grumbled Roosevelt, "is like punching a feather bed. You punch it with your right and you punch it with your left until you are finally exhausted, and then you find the damn bed just as it was before you started punching."

Johnson, too, has tasted some frustration. Before the election, he phoned Arkansas Democrat Wilbur Mills, chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, to request a favor. "Wilbur," drawled the President, "I've just been looking through the polls here, and I've only got a few weaknesses, and the worst of them is that I'm not doin' anything for the old folks. I need some help. How about Medicare?" In other words, get the bill at least to the House floor. Mills's answer was an unvarnished no, and there was nothing Johnson could do about it—except keep trying. That he has done, and two weeks ago Mills announced that he would go along with medicare in the next Congress, if it is financed by a special payroll tax instead of by social security.



http://www.time.com/time/subscriber/personoftheyear/archive/stories/1964.html

[namahage]

14. Why the need to point out that LBJ was Time's Person of the Year? n/t

[Xipe Totec]

16. Why?

Because I'm quoting the article.

What's your beef?

:shrug:

[namahage]

27. Thank you.

Good to know, because it was originally unclear.

[Xipe Totec]

30. Ah, I see the confusion.

Not quoting what LBJ said, and pointing out that he was TIME Magazine Person of the year,

I'm quoting from the TIME Magazine article about LBJ, titled "1964 Person of the Year".

[namahage]

33. Originally thought the former, can now see the latter.

Thanks again.

[earthside]

12. Because ...

Barack Obama simply does not know how or chooses not to use the "bully pulpit" power of the presidency.

In all the years I have been involved in and observed U.S. politics (since 1968), I cannot think of a President who has been so unpersuasive and so unwilling to engage his political opponents ... I include Pres. Carter and Pres. G.H. W. Bush.

[pscot]

29. Word

[JuniperLea]

71. I see nothing wrong with that

Why stoop to that level? Why "engage" with false accusations and lies? Why waste all that time when there is so much work to be done? Why be so concerned with the way things appear? I find that dysfunctional and petty and nothing more than politicking. The politicking should be the least of our worries.

I think Obama has his priorities straight. He's doing the best that can be done in the current flexing situation, without being an asshat, bully, cowboy, etc.

[Solomon]

80. +1

[Pisces]

13. Why does it seem like there is an endless parade of pointless OP's?

[90-percent]

15. one question

I heard on NPR or something, that Obama cannot end the war politically because it will be political suicide to be the president that "lost" a war.

War is hell and these kids have to continue to risk their lives and get injured and maimed and killed and wrecked.

I just hope I am never in a position to chose between lives and political calculations. I saw a guy on Matthews talking about a budget as a moral document. What kind of person can choose to continue to send brave people to their deaths as a political calculation?

-90% Jimmy

[Solomon]

81. Aw jeez. You really believe this because "somebody" on NPR

said it? Just "aw jeez". Let's see what else we can find that so despicable about Obama's character. Better hurry. There's not much left.

[islandmkl]

17. so...with your acknowledged limited experience with Presidents...

what is YOUR criteria for the term "powerful"...

your lack of experience here, and that is absolutely no fault of your own, is also not an excuse to try to determine anything so complex (and requiring a great deal of time) as some 'proof' of power...

think Carter was 'weak' or 'ineffective'...look at the Camp David Accords and the Panama Canal Treaty (which was determined by the right wing and most of the press at the time to 'have sold out the USA and weakened our status in our hemisphere')...

some history is quiet, yet its effects are long...

we have to get over the past administrations follies, not endorse them as wielding power just for the sake of the wielding...

[Bluerthanblue]

20. very well said-

:hi:

[Uzybone]

18. Why hasn't Obama started a war he can fully call his own

thats real power!

Idiocy.

[karynnj]

19. Well, you know that Obama has the power to order the military to bomb Iran

or any other country while claiming they impact our national security? Then he would be big and powerful just like Bush! Is that what you want?

It actually did NOT seem like the Republicans "forced" Obama to expand the war in Afghanistan. Apparently, you missed that he said he would do so when campaigning for the Presidency. In addition, he had his SoS and SoD and the military asking him to do so. (The fact that Biden was advising a different strategy that would have increased the number of drones and decreased the number of soldiers and Kerry and Reed were arguing for smaller operations, just in areas with "good enough governance" does not mean that no one in his administration was in favor of the policy chosen.)

[Whisp]

21. no, makes no sense.

[krawhitham]

22. Because the left eat their own

and the right support each other even when the hate the SOBs

[Solomon]

83. You win all the money!!

It in a nutshell. We're like crabs in a barrel. Always grabbing defeat from the jaws of victory.

[still_one]

23. Because that is what the media want you to believe. I have not seen the racism so blatant that is

become so common place in our country, and much of it is perpetrated by the MSM

The followers of george wallace were exactly the same group of people represented by the tea party movement today, the only difference is the media is sympathetic to them.

When barbar refuses to condemn the KKK, we have a major problem

[ClarkUSA]

24. Why don't you ever ask questions that cast Republicans in a bad light?

Why do you always focus on President Obama?

[Lisa D]

26. Because you're not paying attention?

Or it could be something else.....:freak:

[great white snark]

28. Just come out and say there are too many apologists and exuse-makers on this forum.

That of course would be false and against the rules but isn't it really what you want to say?

[BklnDem75]

31. When you place people in a bad light...

nothing they do will ever be good enough. So yes, it makes plenty of sense.

[Raine1967]

34. Because that is what you want to see.

If you were really paying attention, I don't think you would be asking such a question.

[opihimoimoi]

37. That is the perception the GOPers wanna make you see...you have been conned.

[treestar]

90. +1

[FrenchieCat]

39. He's Black! What did you expect from someone so different like him!

He didn't start a war, so I guess that would make him weak, hey?

[totodeinhere]

45. Why do you have to bring race into this? The OP said nothing about race. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

50. I guess I forgot to ask for permission!

[vaberella]

53. Actually it has a substantial amount to do about race.

The mere fact you choose to ignore, says to me that you may be buying into the meme that race has nothing to do with it. Which is false.

[totodeinhere]

70. What does saying that Obama is the least powerful president, which I happen to disagree with by

the way, have to do with his race? Couldn't the same thing be said about him if he were of another race? Yes of course, there is a lot of racism directed at Obama, but it is also possible to criticize Obama without racial motives.

I am not a racist, yet I have often criticized Obama and I will continue to do so when necessary. My criticisms of him usually come from his left because on some issues I feel that he is not progressive enough. But does that make me a racist? No it does not. Unless we have concrete evidence to the contrary, accusing the OP of injecting race into this conversation when the OP said nothing about race is unjustified.

As I said, I disagree with the OP and in fact I unreced it, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that this has nothing to do with race. The OP seems to oppose Obama's Afghanistan policy, which is a legitimate criticism not based upon race.

[Solomon]

84. The world we live in is all about race.

Sorry to inform you.

[totodeinhere]

87. So does that mean that any criticism of Obama implies racism? I don't think so. n/t

[Solomon]

108. Never said that. But have fun anyway.

[treestar]

89. On something that general it is a valid question

Going around saying Obama is "least powerful" with nothing to back it up. It's an easy jump to implication that the black man is not up to it.

And saying nothing about Republican intransigence and use of the filibuster in every case (which one wonders they would do to a white president).

[totodeinhere]

91. The Republicans did the same thing to Clinton, who is white. n/t

[treestar]

97. I don't think they used the filibuster on every single bill

Like they did in the 111th Congress.

[Avant Guardian]

103. They cut their teeth on Clinton

The GOP turned the 90s into a 'Get Clinton' circus.

[Name removed]

98. Deleted message

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

[shanti]

73. is that why you support him?

because he's black? yes, it was very exciting to finally have a black president, but i won't unilaterally support him because of it.

[Arkana]

41. Because he doesn't abuse the powers of the unitary executive the way Bush did?

Because he recognizes that Congress exists and they get to vote on things too?

As far as I can tell, just because Obama doesn't flex his muscles and pose for the cameras in a flightsuit doesn't make him weak.

[Avant Guardian]

104. What makes him look weak is his kissing of GOP ass

The extension of the Bush tax cuts are a prime example.

[Jennicut]

44. How many Presidents have you even lived through?

I have Reagan (as a kid), Poppy Bush and Clinton as a teenager, W. and Obama. Obama seems to do diplomacy pretty well in my opinion. Also, W. pushed things through with the force of Cheney threatening Repubs. Not the way I want my govt. run.

[CakeGrrl]

46. Because you're following the shiny bouncing ball of distraction. n/t

[Aristus]

47. Because he's not bombing the hell out of innocent people in countries

that are no threat to us.

Well, I suppose he is in Afghanistan, but he didn't start that war...

[boppers]

48. He isn't abusing his authority to use the FBI and CIA for politics, either.

So sad that he isn't a dictator.

:sarcasm:

[tekisui]

49. He is in Pakistan, too. And at a vastly greater rate than bush.

[Name removed]

101. Deleted message

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

[CreekDog]

51. does it make any sense?

[obamafourmore]

52. Sorry that you didn't get your Liberal Bush

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[JVS]

57. The talk is notably better than the walk.

[BlueMTexpat]

58. I'd say that a good part of your perception is that you listen to/

watch the US M$M and their slanted reporting.

All things considered, he's doing about the best he can with the worst set of circumstances that a US President has been landed with in decades.

The Presidents I've lived through: FDR, Truman (wasn't too aware for these two but was at least around), Ike, JFK, LBJ, Tricky Dick, Carter, Raygun, Bush I, Clinton, *, and Obama.

[polichick]

59. He chooses not to use a lot of his power - he could end the wars right now...

He could prosecute for war crimes and economic crimes by Wall Street.

He could solve the fake budget crisis by closing half of our 800+ bases around the world.

That's if he is really in charge - maybe he's not.

[dionysus]

62. you want a liberal dictator, not a president.

[polichick]

66. I want a liberal president who uses all of his power...

But, like I said, it's possible the prez is not actually in charge.

[BlueIris]

63. He has zero interest in, you know, actually doing his job.

In order to be powerful you have to make responsible decisions while in power.

[Papagoose]

64. I don't think the OP is attacking the President

I am solidly pro-Obama and never miss an opportunity to promote him to my redneck neighbors here in Georgia where he is solidly despised.

I too feel like he seems weak though, but I know it is just an appearance. He is in actuality quite effective and Lord knows, much, much smarter than me. He is not an arrogant and boastful man, and I think THAT is what leads to an appearance of weakness and ineffectiveness.

[WI_DEM]

65. His leadership style is different than Clinton and he also has been more successful

at attaining his goals than Clinton.

[Avant Guardian]

105. Like reversing GOP fiscal policy?

Obama has blown the GOP right out of the water with his bold reversal of GOP Reaganomics. Oops, wait, it was Clinton who did that.

nvm

[JuniperLea]

68. He said he was going to do that during his campaign...

Did you create your own fantasy president, or did you pay attention to what he said?

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

72. Deleted message

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

[LeftyAndProud60]

76. I'm black. NT

[ClarkUSA]

82. Bwahahaha!

:rofl:

[ProSense]

95. So is Clarence Thomas, Allen West and Alan Keyes.

I'm black.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

74. Maybe he is trying to be a "President"

not a "Commander-in-Chief" (unlike Bush)? :shrug: I tend to believe that he is trying to do what he believes that POTUS is supposed to be doing according to the Constitution and busy managing the country, not seeking out (or trying to generate) a bunch of drama. I would point out that his style was highly reminiscent of Clinton's. We all knew he was POTUS and that he was doing his job 24-7-365 but there wasn't always a dramatic incident or confrontation that made the papers, nor was he a publicity hound. For instance, we rarely heard just how many times his administration thwarted terrorist plots. The point is that I think that we've become so used to a certain kind of behavior and/or approach to being POTUS and Obama just doesn't seem to fit that "mold", so we think that there's something wrong when he may actually be doing what everybody else should have been doing in the first place. :shrug: I also think that some people, at least in their minds, believed that he would be FDR, JFK, or LBJ reincarnated and are disappointed that he's not- even though both of them had their flaws and downfalls (and endured a lot of the same kinds of criticism at times).

[WolfoftheWild]

77. because you don't have a clue what lasting change looks like.

[alsame]

85. I'll try to give you a serious answer, based on my own

perceptions (I've lived through more Presidents than you have). It appears to me that over time, say the last 30 years since Reagan, the forces that have control of our gov't have gotten stronger and more powerful. I'm talking about, for example, the MIC, the private corporations, Wall Street, lobbyists, etc.

I think we're at a point - with things like the Bush v Gore and Citizens United decisions, SCOTUS judges attending Tea Party meetings, Koch Bros - where the veil of illusion is coming down and we can see how truly corrupt our gov't is and how little they actually govern for the people.

So I think the fact that President Obama seems like he doesn't wield a lot of power is because the true Powers That Be have such a stranglehold on all three branches of our govt. To me it seems like he can't break through the corrupt system, he's just able to do what he can within the framework of the status quo. And too many Dems in Congress are themselves invested in maintaining the status quo.

So we stay in Afghanistan, we don't prosecute Bushco or Wall Street, we don't dismantle the health insurance industry, etc.

Hope this makes sense.

[treestar]

88. What's the obsession with power?

And you'll have to prove it with more than a general "feeling."

The filibuster, being used 100% of the time, rather than as intended. That's it.

[Blue_Roses]

92. Oh, good grief...

:eyes:

[CreekDog]

93. Your schtick is getting old

seriously. :eyes:

[quiller4]

94. It makes sense if you rely on mass media to form your opinion.

You have to dig a little deeper to see that he accomplished more of his legislative agenda in his forst 18 months than did any of the presidents you mentioned. Even some we think of very highly like JFK did not achieve as much as quickly.

[Avant Guardian]

106. JFK was a powerful presidet

Power does not come from accomplishment lists. Power comes from standing your ground on core issues.

[craigmatic]

110. I hate to disagree with you but JFK projected power but he wasn't powerful at least

not in the sense of actually being able to push his agenda. JFK himself actually called his own role as president more of like that of a crisis manager.

[Uta]

96. Obama sounded pretty powerful today

when he took a certain stand against Khaddafy, and asked him in no uncertain terms, to step down. He sounded like a leader.

[Jakes Progress]

99. Sounds. Sounds. Sounds.

[Avant Guardian]

107. Stirring stanzas

Hope! Change! Yes we can!

Yep, words fer sure...

[craigmatic]

109. Clinton did alot of repub dirty work too but

at least he got out in front of them and sounded like he was in charge and actually wanted to do it instead of seeming like they forced his hand. Obama gives the impression that he's given up before a fight without actually owning any of the policies/bills that get passed. It may not actually be the case but that's the impression it leaves. bush seems more powerful by comparison because he campaigned on this shit and got results despite barely winning 50.6% of the vote. He set the agenda and congress followed because he said so. Obama seems more like a consensus seeker than a dynamic leader. In alot of ways his pragmatism makes him too reasonable and too eager to make deals just to get things done.

[Jakes Progress]

111. Use it or lose it.

[Exilednight]

114. Because it's true.

One of my first presidential memories was when Nixon stepped down and Ford took over.

Since then, presidents have been able to move legislation through congress with use of the bully pulpit, strong arming and dealing.

Obama wants to rise above the political tide and show that he can be bipartisan. There's a reason we have two parties in this country, it's because we are partisan.