How can Obama win re-election when he really doesn't take a hard stance on anything?

[LeftyAndProud60]

I love the guy and will vote for him in 2012, but he really doesn't take a stance on anything. He waits for others to take and stand and then he forms his stance. I believe he would be more bold in a 2nd term. Lets be honest. He's a black man named Barack Hussein Obama and he's governing what is probably the most racist country in the world. He does have to be careful not to be too bold and scare off more white voters. But it is very annoying sometimes.

[liberal N proud]

1. That is how

In some views, taking a hard stand can alienate more than being soft.

[Avant Guardian]

39. You cant take a hard stand

And be all things to all people. It's either or. Only problem is, the 'constituency' Obama is going after does not exist.

[Solomon]

2. You love the guy?

Wow. Any more love from you and he's done.

[leveymg]

3. Yes he does. He and his Energy Sec. are inalterably committed to building new nuclear power plants.

That's a hard stance. Very hard-core.

Now we know who is his real base and backers.

[ProSense]

10. "That's a hard stance. Very hard-core."

Yes, and likely not the only one he's ever taken. He's taken a hard stand on bipartisanship, education and more.

The OP point is completely invalid, but hey saying makes it so.

[NorthCarolina]

14. Not the only one he's taken. We're still issuing drilling permits for the Gulf

in waters 1500 ft deeper than Deepwater Horizon which was at 5000 ft, I venture that is a Hard Stand. We are continuing the Bush policies of rendition, torture; a pretty hard line stance. There's plenty more, but what's the use...right?

[ProSense]

31. Here

on drilling (on edit: Obama bans offshore oil drilling in Atlantic waters). As for the rest:

<...>

On Aug. 24, 2009, Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the Special Task Force on Interrogations and Transfer Policies had finished its review. The United States will continue to send individuals to other countries, stated a Department of Justice Press press release, but the United States will seek "assurances from the receiving country" that the suspect will not be tortured. The recommendations specifically called on the Department of State to be involved in evaluating those assurances and for the Inspector Generals of the Departments of State, Defense and Homeland Security to submit annual reports on transfers conducted by each of their agencies. The report also recommends that agencies obtaining assurances from foreign countries insist on a monitoring mechanism or establish a monitoring mechanism, to ensure that the individual is not tortured. The specific recommendations themselves are classified, however.

Ben Wizner, a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union, told us that it's "unlikely that CIA renditions under Obama -– if they"re being conducted -– are even remotely on the scale of what occurred during the Bush administration." Wizner said we're not seeing a large number of families coming forward claiming that their loved ones were shipped off to other countries and tortured, which is what happened during the Bush administration.

link

U.S. more open on detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan: ICRC

As for "torture," the claim is beyond ridiculous, no matter who makes it. The NYT.

<...>

Yet the military has been treating him abusively, in a way that conjures creepy memories of how the Bush administration used to treat terror suspects. Inexplicably, it appears to have President Obama’s support to do so.

<...>

Military officials say, without explanation, that these precautions are necessary to prevent Private Manning from injuring himself. They have put him on “prevention of injury” watch, yet his lawyers say there is no indication that he is suicidal and the military has not placed him on a suicide watch. (He apparently made a sarcastic comment about suicide.)

<...>

Not a single person has presented definitive evidence that Manning is being tortured. His own father's statement contradicts the claim. The same claim that he was stripped for his own safety (whether or not exaggerated) is being used to correlate his treatment with Bush's sanctioned torture: Bush's Glib Waterboarding Admission Sparks Outrage

Reminds me of Manning having to sleep in his underwear. Same thing.

The hyperbolic statements by the media trying to link Mannings's treatment to Bush administration's abuse of terror suspects are bizarre!

The NYT went out of its way to avoid labeling Bush's actions as "torture" despite concrete evidence of horrendous acts, including waterboarding.

NY Times's excuse for not calling waterboarding "torture" doesn't hold water

Yeah, I don't expect the Obama adminstration to condone torture. Still, it's ridiculous for the media to now use this one unconfirmed incident to try to trivialize the actions of the Bush administration by claiming that Obama now condones what Bush did and is now doing the same. Ludicrous.

[Lost-in-FL]

4. We know his stance against "the professional left". nt

[Fearless]

23. +1

[krawhitham]

42. more power to him

[Avant Guardian]

44. Reacting to the reaction is drama

We dont need a drama queen president.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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

[Avant Guardian]

47. Liberalism is the left

Obama is center right.

[Mimosa]

69. ^ Obama is center right. ^ Truer words not posted. n/t

[abelenkpe]

6. Vote for Obama

Or vote for insane bigoted nut jobs. That is how he wins.

[Old Codger]

7. Once again

I get to vote for the lesser of two bad choices I guess... Had some real hope for him but his "above the fray" attitude is so wrong in so may ways.... I truly had high hopes for him being willing and able to make a difference... oh well politics as usual again.

[abelenkpe]

24. I had high hopes too

Things change. Maybe it will be better during the second term when there are no worries about campaigns?

[sad sally]

64. Wish that were true, but seems during their second term

most Presidents worries are, "what will the history books say about me?"

[dbflah]

55. high hopes

I also had high hopes for this president. So far he is nothing but a disappointment.

[ProSense]

8. "Lets be honest.

He's a black man named Barack Hussein Obama and he's governing what is probably the most racist country in the world. He does have to be careful not to be too bold and scare off more white voters. But it is very annoying sometimes."

He took a hard stand by running and winning the Presidency in a country filled with willfully ignorant and racist assholes. See?

[Beacool]

12. Oh yeah, how could we forget.

It's always about race. Never mind his position on the issues or miniscule resume when he ran for president.

:eyes:

[ProSense]

15. "or miniscule resume when he ran for president"

He's teh inexperienced!!!!

[Marnie]

53. At least he is sane which you can't really say about

McCain, who these days is angry to the point of hysteria and his trailer trash running mate whose mental and emotional foibles will thesis fodder for decades.

I an very turned off by Obama but at least he is sane.

[CakeGrrl]

60. This again...and always, I guess. They got nothin' else.

[karynnj]

18. You constantly bring this up

Yet, his bill with Lugar on non-proliferation is a serious legislative accomplishment - as were the things he added to the ethics bill that passed in 2007.

As to his positions on the issues - be consistent - were they really all just the same as HRC's - as Bill Clinton said on Iraq or were they significantly different? (The fact is that the Democratic platform of 2008 was very similar to the one in 2004 - and it wouldn't have changed much no matter whether HRC won or Obama won.)

I would drop this because it leads to the question of why if Obama was so weak, how come he beat the greatest political couple in the history of the universe per you? To argue that he won because he is black - is as silly to argue as to argue that JFK won because he was Catholic. Both won in spite of that - and because they had the ability to make enough Americans see them as who they are and to feel comfortable enough to relax any lingering prejudices.

It might be that I was not alone in rejecting early on both Edwards and Clinton - then giving up on any of the second tier gaining traction.

[Beacool]

22. Who is arguing that he won because he's black?

I wasn't the one who brought the race issue to this thread. It's just as disingenuous as bringing up racism every time someone disagrees with Obama.

Obama, Axelrod and Plouffe ran a very good campaign, no argument there. Obama was able to market himself better than other candidates. Do I think that he should have even been a candidate in 2008? Heck, no. If I needed surgery I wouldn't go to the intern, no matter how brilliant. I would prefer a surgeon of some experience and I didn't think Obama was experienced enough in domestic and world affairs to be president at that point in time.

You don't like the Clintons and that's your prerogative, just as is mine to think that Obama was not ready for the job.

[karynnj]

38. Your post was at bringing it up -

"It's always about race. Never mind his position on the issues or miniscule resume when he ran for president."

Obama won, not just over Clinton, but over people MORE experienced than she - Biden and Dodd. Not to mention Kerry, who she stabbed in the back. He has likely forgiven her, but I really will never see her the same. (I am not saying that she shouldn't have used the situation - any politician would, but saying that his comments were "inappropriate" and implying they were about troops was sickening given Kerry's decades of genuine support for troops and veterans - something that is near the heart of who he is --- and his defense of her husband's patriotism when he needed a highly decorated Vietnam Veteran to do so. This went beyond calling it a gaffe which I would have had no problem with. )

I had thought Hillary better than her husband until then. After that, I did not think she had the character to be President. As to experience, I really think that no one has the experience until they are actually in the job. Obama had the eloquence that could be used to lead people - Hillary Clinton, unlike her husband did not. In addition, no one person is the expert on every decision a President must make. He/She must have the ability to ask the right questions to the right group of experts and synthesize their advise on what to do and make it theirs. Obama in his campaign showed the ability to do this and to take that input and make it his own -- that is what those "pretty speeches" were about that frustrated Hillary because of the respect they got.

In addition, look at her campaign. She started with ALL the advantages and ran a chaotic mess of a campaign as soon as any pressure was put on - IMO starting with the Philly debate where she flubbed a question. Rather than just put out one position, she went to Wellesey and complained that it was the guys against the girl and Bill went out complaining she was being "swiftboated" ! That brittleness and instant attack mode told me a lot of the type of President she would be - and I don't think you can change temperament at her age.

IMO, Obama beat Hillary on character, eloquence, temperament, and being able to manage the processes needed to make decisions. (HRC in her campaign clung to a small number of fierce allies and heard only them.)

[Beacool]

62. Obama beat Clinton on marketing.

He ran a better campaign. Is he a better president than she would have been? That is highly debatable. Funny that you should point out Hillary's fierce group of allies because no one outside of his Chicago cronies is in Obama's inner circle. I don't think much of Obama's temperament either. Is dithering for weeks on end on many an important issue a show of temperament? If it is, then I think that I'll take someone with a little less temperament. Did you read Tony Weiner's comments at The Huff? He said that waiting for Obama to take the initiative on anything is like "waiting for Godot". Pretty good analogy if you ask me.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

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

[Beacool]

32. I see, then you must agree that "this is the most racist country in the world".

This has nothing to do with the primaries, but with this poster's assertion that Obama is criticized due to his race. As if his position and actions on various issues are not a factor. It's disingenuous.

And I don't need to suck anything up, as you put it.

:eyes:

[leftynyc]

36. Are you denying that race

is a factor - a very strong factor - in much of the oppositon to Pres Obama?

[Beacool]

37. I agree that race is always a factor to some degree.

But to state that this is the "most racist country in the world" is nonsense.

There are plenty of people who, either liked Obama or were neutral on him, who disagree with his position on various issues and couldn't care less about his racial makeup. Blanket assertions like the poster's are hardly ever accurate.

[leftynyc]

43. Now that I can agree with

We are not the most racist country in the world, by a longshot. And while I abhor cries of racism when it has nothing to do with race, the invective from the teabagger right proves they are racists right to their bones.

[Jmaxfie1]

73. "But to state that this is the "most racist country in the world" is nonsense." +1 n/t

[TheBigotBasher]

56. Much better choice than the woman

who got her campaign in to deficit and who went on about "hard working WHITE Americans".

Or the lunatics the Rethugs ran with.

[Beacool]

63. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

As I'm entitled to mine........

:shrug:

[rocktivity]

9. Fortunately for Obama, his opponents are taking SUCH a hard stance on EVERYTHING

THEY'RE scaring off even MORE voters!

:headbang:
rocktivity

[Beacool]

11. How can he win?

That's precisely how he won the first time around. Vague generalities, not too many specifics (I read that the feel good speeches were part of Axelrod's strategy). Back then he didn't have a record, but now he does.

This morning on the radio I heard that the US is finally agreeing to a no-fly zone in Libya. It reminded me of the uprising in Iran. The State Dept. had sent the WH a memo urging the president to make a statement on the Green Revolution. They finally did two weeks later (after Neda had been killed) and State on a Saturday was surprised to hear their memo, almost verbatim, emanating from the WH. They hadn't even been given a heads up.

In Egypt we waited and waited before getting off the fence.

During the healthcare reform boondoggle of 2010 Obama did not get aggressively involved until 3 weeks before the bill was up for a vote. It was Pelosi who drove the healthcare engine forward. Who paid the price at the polls? Pelosi and other fellow Democrats.
Yesterday I read that some Democrats in Congress are grumbling that the president is not fully engaged in the budget fights.

[robcon]

13. That's the best way to win, as long as his persoanbl popularity and integrity is ok.

He doesn't have to lead, unfortunately.

[Rowdyboy]

16. The caliber of his opponents explains why he'll win easily....

You can't beat something with nothing and the Republicans got nothing

[karynnj]

17. You are much more transparent than you think -no one believes that you "love" Obama

I also do not think that we are the "most racist country in the world". Not even close - and many countries know this. One small example was the reaction in Sri Lanka to Obama's victory. My daughter, who had spent Spring 2009 studying there, sent me the link to the English language paper where people were writing their reactions. A very common theme was that they could not imagine in their lifetime a Tamil or a non-Buddhist winning as PM. Can you imagine an extremely charismatic, eloquent Israeli Arab (and they are citizens) winning as PM of Israel? In Lebanon, there are formal rules on which ethnic/religious group the top positions must come from. Even consider Europe - most countries, possibly because they have been more homogeneous than the US, are less hospitable to some minorities. Remember that All in the Family was an American version of a British show.

[uponit7771]

19. Obama promise meter, aka facts, says your statement about Obama stances are wrong, nice try

[Safetykitten]

20. He's not winning re-election. He is a one term.

[leftynyc]

26. Who is going to beat him?

Give me a name and then show me a poll where it would even be close.

[BklnDem75]

27. Dreams are nice. Delusions... not so much

[robcon]

29. He'll win easily.

As long as he's personally popular (he certainly is now) and he makes no major mistakes/gaffes, he'll win by a bigger margin than he did in 2008.

[Godhumor]

30. I can't say I'll be sad when you're proven wrong. n/t

[Beacool]

34. There I beg to differ.

Even Bush Jr. won reelection. Incumbents have a built in advantage. In the modern era, barring some exceptions, most have been reelected.

;)

[Arkana]

46. Bookmarking this post for when he steamrolls the GOP in 2012

and you look like a moron.

[Safetykitten]

51. 6 buck gas in 2012. We will see who laughs.

[CakeGrrl]

61. WHO is going to beat him? n/t

[Arkana]

65. And that would be Obama's fault how?

If you're blaming him for it you're an even bigger fool than the person I responded to.

And I WILL laugh when Obama gallops to reelection.

[Moral_Imagination]

68. DRILL BABY DRILL

:crazy:

[great white snark]

50. And he will cut SS, not pass HCR, neglect DADT repeal and on and on.

He will win easily.

[Arkana]

66. Hey, remember how berserk the FDL wing of the party went

over an unsourced rumor that Obama was announcing Social Security cuts in the SOTU?

How'd that work out?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

70. I'll bet you $20 that you're wrong.

[Safetykitten]

74. Ok, it's a deal.

[tomg]

21. Unless the Republicans are able

literally to dig up Ronald McPresident and run him as a Zombie ( like he wasn't the first time around, but I digress), President Obama has it. Look at the stumblebums the Republicans are thinking of running: Newt "I love my country so much I was a serial adulterer" Gingrich, Tim "All things to no People" Pawlenty, Huckster, Michelle the Mad, Hayley Bozo, Mittens. I am sure I am forgetting a few like Palin. The chance of a sane Republican getting the nomination in the first place is about as likely as UNC-Asheville winning the NCAA tourney. The chance of an insane Republican actually winning - St. Johns
(not a knock on St. Johns).

I like President Obama too, but I really loved my uncle who was an Eisenhower Republican (and Eisenhower looks pretty good to me right about now). Actually, there is one way the Republicans have a chance: run Tim Pawlenty and Nikki Haley as a team with their slogan being "You have no idea who he is, so he might not be nuts/She's hot and She's not Sarah."

[alcibiades_mystery]

28. Bookmarking for future hilarity

:rofl:

[frazzled]

33. Yes, it's a problem that he's not more like ....

George W. Bush, taking stands on things like invading Iraq and dismantling Social Security. And parading around on the decks of ships. Or like those politicians he should be emulating, who take hardline stands on everything but have to govern absolutely nothing.

He should be sabre rattling to invade Libya, involving himself in the Wisconsin state house by showing up there. Frankly, he should be sweeping in to stop the reactor cores from melting down.

I'm obviously being sarcastic, just to make a point. Yes, sometimes I wish he used the bully pulpit more. But no one ever notices when he does anyway, even when he threatens a veto, as he did recently. To get above the current noise level he'd have to start screaming like a banshee. That would be really presidential.

Everyone would like things to be all black and white, good vs. evil. But the country and the world don't work that way: there are complex international repercussions to every decision, economic impacts to every point, and political realities--like a batshit crazy Republican House that has the power to block pretty much everything, even a veto in many cases.

[Armstead]

35. There is a large spectrum between Bush and extreme passivity

In my opinion (and those of many others) Obama is too far over towards passivity on that spectrum --- except when he is aiming fire at progressives to press them to go along with his latest "compromise."

Would prefer to see him move more towards the activist side -- which doesn't require that he be unreasonable and Bush cartoonlike.

That's what he was elected for.

[polichick]

40. He's betting on being noncontroversial and looking better than Republican nuts...

He's a good politician and a lousy leader.

[ladjf]

41. The only way he can win is for all of the Republican candidates

to be even worse. What a choice!

[Arkana]

45. Your concern is noted.

[treestar]

48. What's a hard stance?

Intemperate language? Refusal to deal with opposition?

[mkultra]

49. because most people hate an extremist of any type

hard stands are for ideologues. The center wins elections

[Thrill]

52. Because he'll be running against shit

Lets be honest. The Republican candidates are crap.

[OwnedByFerrets]

54. Not taking a stand on anything progressive really helped him

during the mid-terms, didnt it?

[Clio the Leo]

57. probably because most folks "love the guy"....

.... as for "He waits for others to take and stand and then he forms his stance." May I direct you to...

"All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives."

and

"The President shall ... take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."


No where in the Constitution does it say that the President should write/create/push legislation. We have simply become accustomed to a system, created by Andrew Jackson and relied upon by George Bush.

We should have expected this. We knew what we were getting ourselves into. Elect a Constitutional law professor and he's gonna ... ya know ... obey the Constitution.

[quaker bill]

58. Because you don't have to

In fact it generally helps if you don't.

[blueclown]

59. Ask Bill Clinton. nt

[Moral_Imagination]

67. Strange... isn't this the current right wing talking point? n/t

[okieinpain]

71. lets see health care reform, dadt, doma, we're out of iraq, saved

gm, chrsyler, pulled the country out of a great recession, just a few of the many. but i will give you one thing he hasn't delivered on that a unicorn for every home promise, so I guess your right he's a failure.

[Imagevision]

72. How can Obama win re-election? Obama will get no cash from me this time around!

[ReturnoftheDjedi]

75. you really really love him, huh?

could've fooled me.