Is Barack Obama...

[Lueda Alia]

I'm having a discussion with some classmates about this and I figured I'd ask you guys the same questions since most of you actually live in the US:

Would you consider Obama a great leader? What about a great man?

[Lueda Alia]

These two are not necessarily related, so we are trying to decide whether he is either, both or well, neither. Would love to hear what you guys think.

[caveBEAR]

My mind is elsewhere, and I don't know enough about the man to saw whether he's a 'great man' or not, but from what I've seen, I wouldn't say anything negative about him.

As for leader, I think under different circumstances and a different political landscape, he could have been much more effective. Whether that would have made him a great leader, I don't know, because some of his dealings with the corporate/private sector have left me wanting; however, I don't know how much of that is (as he is known to do) useless attempts at compromise and 'meeting mid-way'.


Sorry, doing quite good in a poker tournament, I'd go in more depth if I was sucking.

[loveisdead]

I'm having a discussion with some classmates about this and I figured I'd ask you guys the same questions since most of you actually live in the US:

Would you consider Obama a great leader? What about a great man?
Tough question. I think he has all the attributes to be a great leader but we've yet to see that unfold as president. During the campaign I thought he did an excellent job of leading his party.

I don't know how to answer the great man question. politics aside, yeah he's a pretty great man. Politics included I'd say he's average.

[Alex_supertramp]

Tough question. I think he has all the attributes to be a great leader but we've yet to see that unfold as president. During the campaign I thought he did an excellent job of leading his party.

I don't know how to answer the great man question. politics aside, yeah he's a pretty great man. Politics included I'd say he's average.

said everything I came to say.

He seems to be a great person as far as his personal life goes but I don't think he's a stand out president in comparison to anyone else. Sure his skin color is different than all previous presidents and that was a big deal once he was elected but as far as his leadership skills there isn't much that sets him apart from the rest of the herd.

[Jason Tate]

I'm having a discussion with some classmates about this and I figured I'd ask you guys the same questions since most of you actually live in the US:

Would you consider Obama a great leader? What about a great man?
It's a subjective argument.

You could point out his leadership skills (using something like Drucker to back it up), but what a "great man" entails is going to be subjective by nature.

[loveisdead]

It's a shame though, because he certainly has everything it takes to be a great leader right now. I don't know why he hasn't emerged as such.

[Jason Tate]

It's a shame though, because he certainly has everything it takes to be a great leader right now. I don't know why he hasn't emerged as such.
Because people have a misconstrued idea of what a "leader" is and what they should do. When looking at the best "leaders" in business over the past 20+ years, the greatest are the ones that outperform the rest - not ones that make grand gestures. "Good to Great" by Collins discusses this in detail.

It's a ruler test with no standard of measurement.

[caveBEAR]

It's a shame though, because he certainly has everything it takes to be a great leader right now. I don't know why he hasn't emerged as such.

It's the damn liberal media, highlighting and elevating the Tea Party is if they're some serious political force.

[drevans18]

It's a shame though, because he certainly has everything it takes to be a great leader right now. I don't know why he hasn't emerged as such.

He had a lot on his agenda when becoming President, and although he's followed through on some, he hasn't on others. People always harp on the negatives. I think Obama is a good leader coming out of a difficult time, and has potential to be a great leader in years to come. In terms of being a good man? I would say yes, others would say no.

[loveisdead]

He had a lot on his agenda when becoming President, and although he's followed through on some, he hasn't on others. People always harp on the negatives. I think Obama is a good leader coming out of a difficult time, and has potential to be a great leader in years to come. In terms of being a good man? I would say yes, others would say no.

I agree with that.

[zachff]

I would say he's a great man, but the leader part is still up in the air. He did more than any candidate in a long time to mobilize and engage young voters, and ten years ago some people would have said that we were decades away from a black president. He's intelligent, well-spoken and has done great things for Chicago (where I live).

As for being a great leader -- that's still up in the air.

[drevans18]

I agree with that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Obama supporter. I think the things he's followed through on are great, and I think he's come through in other areas, but those specific areas take time to manifest (and people's impatience has taken a toll on the view of his 'greatness'). I don't agree with every single word that comes out of his mouth and every single bill he puts on the table, but I think he's done a lot more for this country than people give him credit for.

[loveisdead]

Because people have a misconstrued idea of what a "leader" is and what they should do. When looking at the best "leaders" in business over the past 20+ years, the greatest are the ones that outperform the rest - not ones that make grand gestures. "Good to Great" by Collins discusses this in detail.

It's a ruler test with no standard of measurement.

Interesting. I'll have to do some reading when I get home.

[drevans18]

I would say he's a great man, but the leader part is still up in the air. He did more than any candidate in a long time to mobilize and engage young voters, and ten years ago some people would have said that we were decades away from a black president. He's intelligent, well-spoken and has done great things for Chicago (where I live).

As for being a great leader -- that's still up in the air.

Definitely agreed. At my school, I'm pretty sure the student voting percentages were higher than they've ever been, and I think over 80% voted Obama. Ignoring the voter results, the numbers were incredible.

As for being a great leader -- I think you're right, that it's still up in the air. But I think in 20 years, people will look back on his administration and his term(s) as significantly greater than what we see now.

[MonopolyMan]

I don't think me (or anyone) can really comment on the "great man" aspect of the question, since no one except his close friends and family would know the real answer. To the public he has no problem portraying himself as a great man, but he is the president and we as Americans expect greatness in our leader. IMO his leadership has done him and his party well, although he makes mistakes and lies about things, it seems you can pin any president to something of the likes. I'm pretty biased when it comes to politics, and I am in no way a "fan" of Obama, but people need to quit putting their hope and faith into the government saving our asses...welp, now im out 2 cents...

[zachff]

I don't think me (or anyone) can really comment on the "great man" aspect of the question, since no one except his close friends and family would know the real answer. To the public he has no problem portraying himself as a great man, but he is the president and we as Americans expect greatness in our leader. IMO his leadership has done him and his party well, although he makes mistakes and lies about things, it seems you can pin any president to something of the likes. I'm pretty biased when it comes to politics, and I am in no way a "fan" of Obama, but people need to quit putting their hope and faith into the government saving our asses...welp, now im out 2 cents...
Disagree with the beginning part of this. As long as he's not raping babies and shit, he could be a dick and still be a great man.

Thomas Edison/FDR/insert your famous hero here could've fucked hookers in whorehouses every night and he'd still be considered a great man.

[jeremyc]

Because people have a misconstrued idea of what a "leader" is and what they should do. When looking at the best "leaders" in business over the past 20+ years, the greatest are the ones that outperform the rest - not ones that make grand gestures. "Good to Great" by Collins discusses this in detail.

It's a ruler test with no standard of measurement.

Drucker's "The Practice of Management" is another that discusses this in detail.

[MonopolyMan]

Disagree with the beginning part of this. As long as he's not raping babies and shit, he could be a dick and still be a great man.

Thomas Edison/FDR/insert your famous hero here could've fucked hookers in whorehouses every night and he'd still be considered a great man.

haha I totally get what your saying....I guess it just depends on what your opinion on "greatness" is or entails.

[loveisdead]

I don't think me (or anyone) can really comment on the "great man" aspect of the question, since no one except his close friends and family would know the real answer. To the public he has no problem portraying himself as a great man, but he is the president and we as Americans expect greatness in our leader. IMO his leadership has done him and his party well, although he makes mistakes and lies about things, it seems you can pin any president to something of the likes. I'm pretty biased when it comes to politics, and I am in no way a "fan" of Obama, but people need to quit putting their hope and faith into the government saving our asses...welp, now im out 2 cents...

What do you think he's lied about?

I'm not sure how anyone can think he's done him and his party well.

What should we put our faith into instead of government?

[Jason Tate]

What do you think he's lied about?

I'm not sure how anyone can think he's done him and his party well.

What should we put our faith into instead of government?
Really?

[loveisdead]

Really?

2 years ago he did. His party is on the verge of losing a tremendous amount of seats and his approval ratings tanked. How's he done the party good since taking office?

[Jason Tate]

2 years ago he did. His party is on the verge of losing a tremendous amount of seats and his approval ratings tanked. How's he done the party good since taking office?
The approval rating for congress is far below his ... latest 48/46 and Dems in congress at 30/58. The democrats in congress have themselves to blame.

[J.C.]

His name just being on the ballot effectively carried the Democrats to big wins in '08. Hell, he turned the state of Indiana blue. He did more good for the party than had been done in a long time.

I don't know how you want to look at his ability as a leader. I think he's done a good deal of good for our standing around the world. In terms of patching up our divides domestically, I don't know how much success he was ever going to have when a quarter of the country still seems convinced he's a secret Muslim.

I don't know the dude personally so I wouldn't be qualified to judge whether he's a great man. I think he comes off more honest, more grounded in reality, and less sleazy than the majority of elected officials I've seen in my brief lifetime, but that probably isn't saying a whole lot.

[Jason Tate]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/wvpdkfnsgesg06umyqcesw.gif

Weird, just saw this looking up stats.

[loveisdead]

The approval rating for congress is far below his ... latest 48/46 and Congress at 30/58. The democrats in congress have themselves to blame.

Where were those ratings at the start of Obama's presidency?

[MonopolyMan]

What do you think he's lied about?

I'm not sure how anyone can think he's done him and his party well.

What should we put our faith into instead of government?

We should put our faith in OURSELVES! Not the Government! The Government is NOT going to help you when you lose your job or your house because the economy is shit. Our government will take, take and then take some more until your ass is in the gutter. Trust me, I've watched many friends and family struggle so much since this last term has ended. Did you forget the stimulus package that was supposed to save us all?? It crashed and fucking burned!! Then we were supposed to think cash for clunkers was a good idea?? Give me a break. As for the lies are you serious?? You must be very liberal to not see the things he has said before and after he was elected, the promises made that were broken. There are too many to list, just go look it up. As far as him and his party doing well? hmmm well they did win the election...

[jwicklun]

Dear lord, here we go again...

[Jason Tate]

Where were those ratings at the start of Obama's presidency?
Why's that matter? His rating has gone down, so has congress'. His rating is decent. Congress is not. You can't say he's the reason for the seats being lost. Based on who votes in midterms to begin with it was going to be a tough sell. I can't agree with your original premise at all.

[loveisdead]

Why's that matter? His rating has gone down, so has congress'. His rating is decent. Congress is not. You can't say he's the reason for the seats being lost. Based on who votes in midterms to begin with it was going to be a tough sell. I can't agree with your original premise at all.

The statement was that Obama had been good for his party. In 08 I'd say absolutely. Now, I wouldn't agree with that. Joe makes a good point about a quarter of the country thinking he's a secret Muslim though. He's facing insane opposition.

[J.C.]

2 years ago he did. His party is on the verge of losing a tremendous amount of seats and his approval ratings tanked. How's he done the party good since taking office?

I'm pretty sure his approval ratings are right where Reagan's were after 2 years.

There are a myriad of reasons Democrats are going to lose seats. For one, they control the Presidency, House, and Senate. Unless there are a drastic set of circumstances, the public tends to gravitate away from a one party monopoly. That combined with the fact there's generally always more enthusiasm in supporters of the out-of-power party is a recipe for losses in the mid-terms that most majority parts are going to succumb to. The Democrats also have the added disadvantage of being spineless pussies.

[Jason Tate]

The statement was that Obama had been good for his party. In 08 I'd say absolutely. Now, I wouldn't agree with that. Joe makes a good point about a quarter of the country thinking he's a secret Muslim though. He's facing insane opposition.
No, the statement was "I'm not sure how anyone can think he's done him and his party well."

His numbers are far above his party.

If anything, that would suggest he's holding his party's numbers up in some degree. His numbers were 48/46 last week. Hardly insane opposition. Right around the same as Clinton and Reagan at this time. This is just sensationalism taking over for logical thinking.

His party (IE: congress) has let him down.

[Jason Tate]

I'm pretty sure his approval ratings are right where Reagan's were after 2 years.

There are a myriad of reasons Democrats are going to lose seats. For one, they control the Presidency, House, and Senate. Unless there are a drastic set of circumstances, the public tends to gravitate away from a one party monopoly. That combined with the fact there's generally always more enthusiasm in supporters of the out-of-power party is a recipe for losses in the mid-terms that most majority parts are going to succumb to. The Democrats also have the added disadvantage of being spineless pussies.
Like button pressed.

[<*)))><]

I consider someone to be a great leader when they can get nearly everyone to follow them. Anyone can make it to a position of such power they have to be pretty great in one way or another, so Ill say he is a great man but not a great leader.

[Juan Jose]

can't really say anything about him as a man, leader-wise it's tough to tell he's only halfway through his term so maybe he could turn things around, but in the end the circumstances he's in will determine how things turn out instead of his actual skills

[IceAge/HeatWave]

2 years ago he did. His party is on the verge of losing a tremendous amount of seats and his approval ratings tanked. How's he done the party good since taking office?

it would be a bigger deal if they didn't lose seats. a party with control of congress typically loses seats/ majority once they have a member of their party in the white house, historically speaking.

[loveisdead]

No, the statement was "I'm not sure how anyone can think he's done him and his party well."

His numbers are far above his party.

If anything, that would suggest he's holding his party's numbers up in some degree. His numbers were 48/46 last week. Hardly insane opposition. Right around the same as Clinton and Reagan at this time. This is just sensationalism taking over for logical thinking.

His party (IE: congress) has let him down.

By insane opposition I meant the truthers/birth certificate/Muslim thing.

I'm not convinced he's been good for the party yet and I'm glad you're at least starting to prove me wrong. I'll have to look some things up when I'm off work.

[Jason Tate]

By insane opposition I meant the truthers/birth certificate/Muslim thing.

I'm not convinced he's been good for the party yet and I'm glad you're at least starting to prove me wrong. I'll have to look some things up when I'm off work.
To be honest, I don't even care what he does for the "party" - the democratic party is a joke. I'd rather have a party made up of Obama's than what we currently have.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

I consider someone to be a great leader when they can get nearly everyone to follow them. Anyone can make it to a position of such power they have to be pretty great in one way or another, so Ill say he is a great man but not a great leader.

lots of good leaders don't get nearly everyone to follow them. sometimes hardly anyone follows them.

[loveisdead]

To be honest, I don't even care what he does for the "party" - the democratic party is a joke. I'd rather have a party made up of Obama's than what we currently have.

I agree with that. I've said 100 times I'm going to have trouble voting for them.

[Lueda Alia]

I find it interesting that so many people here are saying that they can't comment on him as a man because there is so much information about what he was like before he became President.

Anyway, based on most of the findings, the people in my group came to the conclusion that he's not "a great man" in the general sense. I mean, he did many things to get to where he is, some of which weren't too great, but I feel like that's essentially what anyone who's trying to reach the top has to do in order to be as successful. So, I kept asking my group if it's even possible to be a great man and a leader at the same time? I mean, can anyone reach the top by not having to play dirty anymore?

In my personal opinion, I would say that he's a great man among those like him, if that makes sense. I think it would be unfair to compare someone like him to the average person who hasn't achieved the same level of success.

[Jason Tate]

I find it interesting that so many people here are saying that they can't comment on him as a man because there is so much information about what he was like before he became President.

Anyway, based on most of the findings, the people in my group came to the conclusion that he's not "a great man" in the general sense. I mean, he did many things to get to where he is, some of which weren't too great, but I feel like that's essentially what anyone who's trying to reach the top has to do in order to be as successful. So, I kept asking my group if it's even possible to be a great man and a leader at the same time? I mean, can anyone reach the top by not having to play dirty anymore?

In my personal opinion, I would say that he's a great man among those like him, if that makes sense. I think it would be unfair to compare someone like him to the average person who hasn't achieved the same level of success.
What is the "general sense" of a "great man"? Who fits that definition? Someone infallible?

[<*)))><]

lots of good leaders don't get nearly everyone to follow them. sometimes hardly anyone follows them.
Then who exactly are they leading? We are talking about great leaders which means they have to be at the highest level. So you can be a good leader you have some people following you but a great leader will get nearly everyone.

[Lueda Alia]

What is the "general sense" of a "great man"? Who fits that definition? Someone infallible?
Gandhi was one of the names thrown around the most.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

Then who exactly are they leading?

if they are showing leadership qualities, and a sizable amount of people, or an organization (i.e. a country) is following them, then they are a leader. i'd say jesus christ showed the qualities of a leader. and by no means in the course of history has "nearly everyone" followed him.

[Jason Tate]

Gandhi was one of the names thrown around the most.
If that's the bar for "great man" - we've virtually got one in history. And how do you judge people through different cultures and times? Gandhi never faced governing the United States, for example. Circumstances must play a role. I disagree with that being the "bar," especially in comparison to a 2 year old President.

[Lueda Alia]

If that's the bar for "great man" - we've virtually got one in history. And how do you judge people through different cultures and times? Gandhi never faced governing the United States, for example. Circumstances must play a role. I disagree with that being the "bar," especially in comparison to a 2 year old President.
I'm just not really sure if you can really get anywhere near the top, especially in politics, if you don't play dirty at some point or another. I feel like that's just the nature of politics.

Edit: it's not the bar - that was just one of the names being thrown around.

[<*)))><]

if they are showing leadership qualities, and a sizable amount of people, or an organization (i.e. a country) is following them, then they are a leader. i'd say jesus christ showed the qualities of a leader. and by no means in the course of history has "nearly everyone" followed him.
Jesus is more of a symbol then a real person and I do mean to correct my self I mean nearly everyone that they have influence over. So or Obama he has to have an approval rating of at least 75% for me to consider him to be a great leader.

[Jason Tate]

I'm just not really sure if you can really get anywhere near the top, especially in politics, if you don't play dirty at some point or another. I feel like that's just the nature of politics.

Edit: it's not the bar - that was just one of the names being thrown around.
And my point is to set a barometer for "great" (which I already think is stupid - as it's subjective) you need to have a standard to judge others on ... if Gandhi is the name being thrown away, where do we put people like Churchill? MLK? Einstein?

I can think of problems, especially compared to Gandhi, with all of them ... but on my list, would probably toss them all in the "great men" category.

[Jason Tate]

Jesus is more of a symbol then a real person and I do mean to correct my self I mean nearly everyone that they have influence over. So or Obama he has to have an approval rating of at least 75% for me to consider him to be a great leader.
Approval rating and leader have just about nothing to do with each other.

[Lueda Alia]

Jesus is more of a symbol then a real person and I do mean to correct my self I mean nearly everyone that they have influence over. So or Obama he has to have an approval rating of at least 75% for me to consider him to be a great leader.
Pretty sure Abe Lincoln's approval ratings would have been low at the time that he was President, but that wouldn't exactly paint a clear picture regarding his leaderships skills, would it?

[Lueda Alia]

And my point is to set a barometer for "great" (which I already think is stupid - as it's subjective) you need to have a standard to judge others on ... if Gandhi is the name being thrown away, where do we put people like Churchill? MLK? Einstein?

I can think of problems, especially compared to Gandhi, with all of them ... but on my list, would probably toss them all in the "great men" category.
Based on the discussion - they would all be great leaders.

Personally, I'm not really sure if they'd be considered great men because I don't really know much about them besides what's well known to the public.

[Jason Tate]

Based on the discussion - they would all be great leaders.

Personally, I'm not really sure if they'd be considered great men because I don't really know much about them besides what's well known to the public.
Which is why the "great men" thing should just be tossed out of the conversation. We can discuss leadership with far more objectivity.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

Jesus is more of a symbol then a real person and I do mean to correct my self I mean nearly everyone that they have influence over. So or Obama he has to have an approval rating of at least 75% for me to consider him to be a great leader.

america has never had a "great" leader then.

[Lueda Alia]

Which is why the "great men" thing should just be tossed out of the conversation. We can discuss leadership with far more objectivity.
Haha of course, but that's the question that we were asked to make this entire thing challenging. The question essentially was "Is Obama a 'great man leader'?"

It's far easier to figure out whether someone is a great leader. I mean, Hitler was a horrible human being, but he was an amazing leader.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

Pretty sure Abe Lincoln's approval ratings would have been low at the time that he was President, but that wouldn't exactly paint a clear picture regarding his leaderships skills, would it?

this.

[<*)))><]

Approval rating and leader have just about nothing to do with each other.
I see a leader as someone who has a lot of followers and a great leader will have the majority follow them.
Pretty sure Abe Lincoln's approval ratings would have been low at the time that he was President, but that wouldn't exactly paint a clear picture regarding his leaderships skills, would it?
He was one of the reason why the south left the union.
america has never had a "great" leader then.
As far as I'm concerned no.

[Jason Tate]

I see a leader as someone who has a lot of followers and a great leader will have the majority follow them.

He was one of the reason why the south left the union.

As far as I'm concerned no.
And that's not what a leader is... so, what you "see" a leader as is flawed.

[IceAge/HeatWave]

As far as I'm concerned no.


who is a great leader?

[honkyg88]

Pretty sure Abe Lincoln's approval ratings would have been low at the time that he was President, but that wouldn't exactly paint a clear picture regarding his leaderships skills, would it?
Low would have been an understatement.

[Lueda Alia]

I see a leader as someone who has a lot of followers and a great leader will have the majority follow them.

He was one of the reason why the south left the union.

As far as I'm concerned no.
What does that have to do with what I said...?

[Jason Tate]

Haha of course, but that's the question that we were asked to make this entire thing challenging. The question essentially was "Is Obama a 'great man leader'?"

It's far easier to figure out whether someone is a great leader. I mean, Hitler was a horrible human being, but he was an amazing leader.
Eh, disagree. Just gonna quote from probably the most respected on the topic:

You know, I was the first one to talk about leadership 50 years ago, but there is too much talk, too much emphasis on it today and not enough on effectiveness. The only thing you can say about a leader is that a leader is somebody who has followers. The most charismatic leaders of the last century were called Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Mussolini. They were mis-leaders! Charismatic leadership by itself certainly is greatly overstated. Look, one of the most effective American presidents of the last 100 years was Harry Truman. He didn't have an ounce of charisma. Truman was as bland as a dead mackerel. Everybody who worked for him worshiped him because he was absolutely trustworthy. If Truman said no, it was no, and if he said yes, it was yes. And he didn't say no to one person and yes to the next one on the same issue. The other effective president of the last 100 years was Ronald Reagan. His great strength was not charisma, as is commonly thought, but that he knew exactly what he could do and what he could not do.

http://www.forbes.com/2004/11/19/cz_rk_1119drucker.html

... and I'd point to Jim Collins work on "Level 5 Leadership" as a secondary source.

We eventually came to call these remarkable people "Level 5 leaders." The term "Level 5" refers to a five-level hierarchy. Level 1 relates to individual capability, Level 2 to team skills, Level 3 to managerial competence, and Level 4 to leadership as traditionally conceived. Level 5 leaders possess the skills of levels 1 to 4 but also have an "extra dimension": a paradoxical blend of personal humility ("I never stopped trying to become qualified for the job") and professional will ("sell the mills"). They are somewhat self-effacing individuals who deflect adulation, yet who have an almost stoic resolve to do absolutely whatever it takes to make the company great, channeling their ego needs away from themselves and into the larger goal of building a great company. It's not that Level 5 leaders have no ego or self-interest. Indeed, they are incredibly ambitious—but their ambition is first and foremost for the institution and its greatness, not for themselves.

http://www.jimcollins.com/article_topics/articles/the-misguided-mixup.html

[<*)))><]

And that's not what a leader is... so, what you "see" a leader as is flawed.
You can't say your opinion is more right then mine
who is a great leader?
Well Hitler basically got Germany to follow him.
What does that have to do with what I said...?
His biggest accomplishment was just him fixing his mistake.

[Jason Tate]

You can't say your opinion is more right then mine

Well Hitler basically got Germany to follow him.

His biggest accomplishment was just him fixing his mistake.
What I'm saying isn't an opinion, it's based upon extensive research by leading minds on the topic. More hiding behind "it's an opinion."

[IceAge/HeatWave]

Hitler basically got Germany to follow him.

for a time, yeah. then it stopped. circumstances play more of a roll in approval than actual policy. look how hitler was received in the final months of the war, as he was losing power. george w. had an approval rating of over 90% after 9/11, but that evaporated fairly quickly. barack obama had a unrealistically high rating while he was new to the white house. fanaticism and sensationalism takes the place of logic, as was evidenced by hitler's time. that has absolutely no reflection on leadership ability, just the fickleness of the general public.

His biggest accomplishment was just him fixing his mistake.

this is just a fucking dumb thing to say. ever heard of james buchanon?

[<*)))><]

What I'm saying isn't an opinion, it's based upon extensive research by leading minds on the topic. More hiding behind "it's an opinion."
A leader is a person who leads. If people dont follow how can he be a great leader?
Im not saying he isn't a great president because that can't be discussed till his term is over.

[Jason Tate]

A leader is a person who leads. If people dont follow how can he be a great leader?
Im not saying he isn't a great president because that can't be discussed till his term is over.
A great leader is far more than just a person who leads. A great leader can be in charge of 5 people, 200 people, or 3,000. The number of people following has no relation to their leadership skills. Furthermore, "following" and "approval rating" are not related.

[<*)))><]

A great leader is far more than just a person who leads. A great leader can be in charge of 5 people, 200 people, or 3,000. The number of people following has no relation to their leadership skills. Furthermore, "following" and "approval rating" are not related.
A great leader can be more then a person who leads but that is something else. It does have nothing to do with the amount but the percent with a given organization they are leading. Since their is no index of percent of people that follow a preisdent, I assume that if you approve you follow.

[Jason Tate]

A great leader can be more then a person who leads but that is something else. It does have nothing to do with the amount but the percent with a given organization they are leading. Since their is no index of percent of people that follow a preisdent, I assume that if you approve you follow.
It's not something else, it's the very fabric of this discussion. Nope. Many (great) leaders are barely known by those they are leading. It plays a very little role. Bad assumption. For one, there are varying degrees of "approval."

However, this is - again - far off the original topic at hand. You'd do well to spend some time looking at the literature on the topic.

[Nuns On A Bus]

He's got 2 years left on his term. I'd say wait until then to decide if he's a great leader or not. Based on how he's done so far though I'd say that he isn't going to go down as one of the great presidents of all time. He really hasn't done a whole lot as president so far, but as Tate (I believe) said that's probably more due to the fact that the Democrats in Congress have completely failed to get anything done apart from giving the Republicans the opportunity to have record wins in Congress despite them being essentially in shambles 2 years ago.

As for a "great man," I'd say definitely not if the comparisons to him are people like Churchill, Ghandi, Lincoln, etc. What has Obama done to deserve to be in the same league as those people?

[jawstheme]

I wouldn't go as far to say he is a great leader, but he is a great speaker. That helps him be an OK leader, but great leaders are good on most, if not all, of their promises, in my opinion.
As far as a great person, I don't know. I doubt it though, considering he is a politician. Compared to other politicians he seems good though.

[Simulcast]

He's an excellent politician, I know that much.

[xshady121]

It's a subjective argument.

You could point out his leadership skills (using something like Drucker to back it up), but what a "great man" entails is going to be subjective by nature.

I agree. It is incredibly subjective.

For example, an argument can be made both ways for W. being a great man. It just depends upon the respondents definition of "a great man".

As a libertarian, I would say he is a great man. Do I agree with the man's political ideology? No, not particularly-- but that doesn't stop me from thinking that as a human being he's doing what he believes is best, and that alone makes him a good man.

[xshady121]

He's got 2 years left on his term. I'd say wait until then to decide if he's a great leader or not. Based on how he's done so far though I'd say that he isn't going to go down as one of the great presidents of all time. He really hasn't done a whole lot as president so far, but as Tate (I believe) said that's probably more due to the fact that the Democrats in Congress have completely failed to get anything done apart from giving the Republicans the opportunity to have record wins in Congress despite them being essentially in shambles 2 years ago.

As for a "great man," I'd say definitely not if the comparisons to him are people like Churchill, Ghandi, Lincoln, etc. What has Obama done to deserve to be in the same league as those people?

I want to tear both paragraphs apart, but I'm a little short on time.

Just know that neither one makes you look intelligent.

[sammyboy516]

i don't think he's proven himself to be a great leader by any means. i can't speak for him as a person, but he seems like a nice enough guy, even though we disagree politically.

[Love As Arson]

No. He's been a pretty terrible president so far. He would have earned my respect if he'd indicted officials in the past administration for war crimes, but that'd implicate too many democrats and I suppose it wasn't worth it.

[Nuns On A Bus]

I want to tear both paragraphs apart, but I'm a little short on time.

Just know that neither one makes you look intelligent.

Well I look forward to you "tearing them apart" then. If you're actually going to do it anyway. I mean when someone is clearly as busy as you are then I guess you probably won't have enough time to do much besides insult people.

[loveisdead]

No. He's been a pretty terrible president so far. He would have earned my respect if he'd indicted officials in the past administration for war crimes, but that'd implicate too many democrats and I suppose it wasn't worth it.
why terrible? I've been disappointed with some things but I don't think he's been terrible.

[Sonic222]

Nobody knows how Obama is except for people who know him personally. The U.S. is corrupt and falling apart....you can't blame one dude, dudes and dude-ets.

[GuitarR0cker1]

He's not a great leader. I don't consider him to be a great man either. He's made too many faustian bargains in order to pass HCR, even when it wasn't necessary. That's my one sentence explanation for why I'm not a big Obama supporter haha. There is obviously much more to it but he's shown other moral failings such as not being willing to spend political capital in getting rid of DADT when he easily could have(there's others of course). If you're President, your defining actions in creating your "greatness" will all be political. He might be a great father, a great husband, and a loving man but in the end he had his biggest opportunity in the lives of others as president.

He is a great campaigner/orator though and I still admire him somewhat.

A great leader would be FDR, Lincoln, or Reagan. Whether they made the right policy decisions is debatable but they rallied the nation towards positions that in the past might not have been popular. They were ballsy. They made "change" happen in gigantic ways.

[Jason Tate]

So to be a "good man" - one must abide by what moral code?

[bandnamexmyname]

Approval rating and leader have just about nothing to do with each other.

You can argue that the influence and positive following of a man are indicative of his ability to persuade others to agree with him.

[phaynes1]

why terrible? I've been disappointed with some things but I don't think he's been terrible.

I've debated this with several friends of both parties and with all of them it seems to boil down to broken promises and a seeming lack of anything changing.

While I don't view Obama as terrible at all, I think he's been decent, I can definitely see some validity in that Obama maybe hasn't lived up to the promise that he showed in the elections. Then again, who could? People held him up to some pretty ridiculous standards.

[mcm1610]

I think Obama both made far-reaching promises that he hasn't quite lived up to, and faced an overwhelming sense of hope and positivity that seemed to set him up for defeat right away. I remember having a conversation with my mother on election night that November and us both agreeing that we worried he'd disappoint no matter what.

I mean for example - how many presidents promised us health care reform? Under him, something was passed, but it's not good enough. He made great strides towards leaving Iraq, but there's still some troops there, so not good enough. He's had two years to fix the biggest economic downturn in 70 years, but he hasn't done well enough.

I think in another time, we'd be singing his praises, but he was portrayed as a savior in hugely tumultuous times.

Unrelated - I always like reading or hearing reviews of Truman, since people did seem to hate him at the time, but in retrospect so many people sing his praises.

[drpepper09]

Gandhi was one of the names thrown around the most.

Depends on how you look at it, from what I've heard from a philosophy professor, Gandhi liked to have sex with minors. I still think Gandhi was a great man, but when discussing people like him are usually smeared with anything people can find (link (http://rupeenews.com/2007/12/25/six-stories-of-mohandas-gandhi-his-failures-sexual-perversion/)). Technically no person can be perfect and theres going to be one thing that will haunt his/her memory.

As for Obama, I feel he hasn't stepped forward and been more of a leader. He was unable to convince Congress to pass bills for Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal, Haiti Relief, etc. Now that isn't all his fault, but because he spent an ample amount of time campaigning on uniting Congress and failed so hard at doing so.

I hope Republicans don't win as many chairs as they think they will. I don't want a stale mate for the next 2 years...

[drpepper09]

I've debated this with several friends of both parties and with all of them it seems to boil down to broken promises and a seeming lack of anything changing.

While I don't view Obama as terrible at all, I think he's been decent, I can definitely see some validity in that Obama maybe hasn't lived up to the promise that he showed in the elections. Then again, who could? People held him up to some pretty ridiculous standards.

In 2 years a person can't change the world, in one term he can't do that either. He's done some of the things, not enough though. He needs to lower unemployment and fix the healthcare bill more and I'll consider his presidency a success. Gay Marriage or Legalization of Pot are bonus points.

[AndrewIcex]

This would make for a good poll. "Is Obama a good/great leader?" Yes/No. Not saying the results would matter in the scheme of things, but it still would be interesting to see what this site thinks of him as a leader.

[open mind]

he may be a great man, but he's far from a great leader......great leaders convince almost all of us to follow them into grand reformations.....obama is a man of half measures, but i'll take half measures over the crazy republicans/liberartians who seek nothing but personal gain .

[deanster321]

As an outsider looking in, he seems a bit so-so. Could be worse, could be better.

[topher465]

I think he has a lot of potential. I can't comment whether or not he's a "great" man, because I think it takes a lot to be great, and I don't know enough about his personal life to make that distinction.

[WTG]

I wouldn't say he's a great leader, but I can't say anything against the guy as a great man.

[TrashLight]

Everybody is never going to be happy. Rush said it best to Brian, "all you want is something to fight against."

[Gaston]

I only like him as a friend.

[fredrico0012]

No. His teleprompters prove he has no confidence in himself. If you don't have confidence than how will people have the confidence to follow you.

[Jason Tate]

No. His teleprompters prove he has no confidence in himself. If you don't have confidence than how will people have the confidence to follow you.
1) He doesn't always speak with teleprompters.
2) Virtually all televised/crowd speeches are given with teleprompters.
3) You don't run for office if you have no confidence in yourself.
4) People do follow him.

[loveisdead]

1) He doesn't always speak with teleprompters.
2) Virtually all televised/crowd speeches are given with teleprompters.
3) You don't run for office if you have no confidence in yourself.
4) People do follow him.

That was too easy haha. If you don't like the guy because he reads from teleprompters then it's alost cause.

[Jason Tate]

You can argue that the influence and positive following of a man are indicative of his ability to persuade others to agree with him.
Which I would in turn argue is not the definition of a good leader.

[Jason Tate]

That was too easy haha. If you don't like the guy because he reads from teleprompters then it's alost cause.
Such a weird stretch of logic.

[Scrandon]

Which I would in turn argue is not the definition of a good leader.

How would you define it?

[Jason Tate]

How would you define it?
As addressed in my previous posts - using Collins' findings and research.

[kyle is hk]

The approval rating for congress is far below his ... latest 48/46 and Dems in congress at 30/58. The democrats in congress have themselves to blame.



I know this is a little late in the discussion but I'm not sure how relevant this point is because Congress' overall approval is almost always below the presidents.

[Jason Tate]

I know this is a little late in the discussion but I'm not sure how relevant this point is because Congress' overall approval is almost always below the presidents.
The point is that Congress' approval rating is a better barometer for how the average person views the party - compared to how the average person views the President. If the President was dramatically hurting the "party" - his approval rating would be lower than it is. If people were more upset with the party - they would be bottoming out in that category. As is shown.

[bandnamexmyname]

As addressed in my previous posts - using Collins' findings and research.

Not good with scholarly readings. Mind giving me the gist of it?

[Jason Tate]

Level 5 Leadership (http://hbr.org/hb-main/resources/pdfs/comm/microsoft/level-five.pdf)


http://hbr.org/hb/article_assets/hbr/0101/R0101D_B.gif

[kyle is hk]

The point is that Congress' approval rating is a better barometer for how the average person views the party - compared to how the average person views the President. If the President was dramatically hurting the "party" - his approval rating would be lower than it is. If people were more upset with the party - they would be bottoming out in that category. As is shown.

Okay I see what you mean. In that case you'd have to measure if the the approval for democrats is declining at a faster rate than the Presidents. I don't know the answer to that off hand.

[caveBEAR]

Level 5 Leadership (http://hbr.org/hb-main/resources/pdfs/comm/microsoft/level-five.pdf)


http://hbr.org/hb/article_assets/hbr/0101/R0101D_B.gif

I love how 'paradoxical' is built right into level 5.

[Matt Chylak]

so, if we're going by this hierarchy, you believe he's a level 5 leader? at best he's a 3

[Jason Tate]

so, if we're going by this hierarchy, you believe he's a level 5 leader? at best he's a 3

I never once said he was level 5.

[Matt Chylak]

I never once said he was level 5.

what would you say he is then? your tone is pretty defensive concerning him, but rereading your posts it seems you've spent more time trying to reach a consensus measurement for "leadership" than evaluating him under said measurements.

[J.C.]

No. His teleprompters prove he has no confidence in himself. If you don't have confidence than how will people have the confidence to follow you.

POTY

[Love As Arson]

why terrible? I've been disappointed with some things but I don't think he's been terrible.
Well, I listed one of the reasons in the original post. Another reason is his economic policies have been directed by the neoliberal economists who caused the financial crisis; Larry Summers was the individual that advocated dismantling the Glass-Steagall act, which allowed commercial banks to get into mortgage-backed securities. The war in Afghanistan has escalated and we're supporting a corrupt leader simply because he is a good puppet. He has not taken a principled stand on gay rights and went so far as to attach the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell to military spending, so as to corner the gay community into support of a spending bill that continues our imperial efforts abroad. The Health Care bill was, for all intents and purposes, a boon to the insurance industry and ensured they have a base of customers that are mandated to buy their coverage, which will take the form of a bare-bones package. Then, there are the bailouts for the banks which were viewed as necessary in order to save the economy; this was coupled with tax cuts for large businesses in general. When it comes to workers, their "Cadillac" insurance was taxed, their wages have been cut, we have ten percent unemployment, which is only the official number, and he says that we need to tighten our belts. I suppose I have a better indicator as to whether or not the country is doing well: Do people have good wages? Can they find work? Is there income equality? Do we have programs which support those amongst us who have the least? Does everyone have quality health care? Do people have access to the same set of rights? In other words, are our tax dollars materially benefiting us? Under Obama, I would have to say that the answer is no.

[ellie117]

It's a shame though, because he certainly has everything it takes to be a great leader right now. I don't know why he hasn't emerged as such.

Stopped reading after this post because I had to respond with my two cents. He hasn't emerged as one yet because the Republicans are doing everything they can to gain back the White House. I am technically a democrat so this may seem biased, but I mean it. They are not putting through Obama's proposals just so it will look, by the time reelections come around, that he "hasn't done anything." I think they recently put through a small business plan, but I honestly think they only did it to be able to deny that they vetoed EVERYTHING Obama tried to pass and will be using this and the health care bill as proof that they did actually pass some stuff through.

I'm not saying Obama is the best thing to happen to this country, but I am also not blaming solely him for not being able to "change" the country as radically fast as his campaign made it out to be. The Republicans are ruthless and power hungry, and the Democrats just aren't as much, for whatever reason.

[Scrandon]

Level 5 Leadership (http://hbr.org/hb-main/resources/pdfs/comm/microsoft/level-five.pdf)


http://hbr.org/hb/article_assets/hbr/0101/R0101D_B.gif
"Organizes people","Catalyzes commitment"
Wouldn't that entail getting people to follow you and your plan?

[Kurt Retenauer]

Simply put, I'm not a fan of him as a leader, but I think that just boils down to difference of opinion on what's good for America/politics.

Great man? Yes.

[Jason Tate]

what would you say he is then? your tone is pretty defensive concerning him, but rereading your posts it seems you've spent more time trying to reach a consensus measurement for "leadership" than evaluating him under said measurements.

My first post in this thread says why I think it's a pointless endeavor. My evaluation would be far longer than worth typing.

[Jason Tate]

"Organizes people","Catalyzes commitment"
Wouldn't that entail getting people to follow you and your plan?

Not particularly. Far more descriptive language - and far more encapsulated than "follow".

[majinsharingan]

I'm not a fan of Obama hate. Not because I'm an Obama lover but because I'm an avid "You're a complete moron if you think McCain and/or Palin could do better"-lover.

I don't care what he's doing, it's not bad, so go ahead and do it. He isn't a great leader but he isn't that bad of one either. People throw around strong words too much.

[loveisdead]

I'm not a fan of Obama hate. Not because I'm an Obama lover but because I'm an avid "You're a complete moron if you think McCain and/or Palin could do better"-lover.

I don't care what he's doing, it's not bad, so go ahead and do it. He isn't a great leader but he isn't that bad of one either. People throw around strong words too much.

This needs to be said more. Even Glenn Beck has admitted that.

[majinsharingan]

This needs to be said more. Even Glenn Beck has admitted that.

I completely agree. I was all over Bush but with Obama, I don't care. He's a democrat so if your opinion is anything other than he's doing something wrong you'll get chewed out by every republican who heard you. It's not worth it. Let the ignorant be ignorant.

[Zeran]

He's not a great leader. I don't consider him to be a great man either. He's made too many faustian bargains in order to pass HCR, even when it wasn't necessary. That's my one sentence explanation for why I'm not a big Obama supporter haha. There is obviously much more to it but he's shown other moral failings such as not being willing to spend political capital in getting rid of DADT when he easily could have(there's others of course). If you're President, your defining actions in creating your "greatness" will all be political. He might be a great father, a great husband, and a loving man but in the end he had his biggest opportunity in the lives of others as president.

He is a great campaigner/orator though and I still admire him somewhat.

A great leader would be FDR, Lincoln, or Reagan. Whether they made the right policy decisions is debatable but they rallied the nation towards positions that in the past might not have been popular. They were ballsy. They made "change" happen in gigantic ways.
i can agree with this. whether wrongly or rightly, i don't see fdr really compromising so much on his ideals or what he wanted to pass in congress. he passed lend-lease at a time when most americans wanted nothing to do with the war. he passed policies in the new deal at a time when socialism wasn't equated to treachery to the state. in sum, he was, as president, a great leader who knew when and how to lead. obama has not done this.
No. He's been a pretty terrible president so far. He would have earned my respect if he'd indicted officials in the past administration for war crimes, but that'd implicate too many democrats and I suppose it wasn't worth it.

his civil rights/civil liberties record is shotty at best. i too would have liked to see him pursue criminals implicit in torture from the last administration, but it was never realistically going to happen.

knowing his background and where's he gotten to from where he came from, i'd say he is a great man. he still needs to prove to me that he is a great leader, though.

[Gaston]

i think barack obama is a good leader and a great man but not as great as my dad

[Simulcast]

i think barack obama is a good leader and a great man but not as great as my dad

Backed. My dad rules.

[crackedthesky]

I think Barack Obama is a pretty cool guy. eh leads the nation and doesn't afraid of anything

[EasySkankin]

A completely different man than the one we saw on the campaign.

At least his actions make it clear there is no salvation in our popular parties.

[open mind]

A completely different man than the one we saw on the campaign.

At least his actions make it clear there is no salvation in our popular parties.

completely different? he was for escalation in afghanistan, was for healthcare reform, new regulations for financial institutions, getting out of iraq, ending the bush tax cuts, a more diverse supreme court, reaching across party lines (which he attempted as long as it took for him to realize it was a waste of time), and a few hundred things i'm forgetting.

most of what he said he wanted to do he has pursued and continues to work on, but he's been dealing with the brick wall of republicans who have an incredible amount of financial backing yet have no real plan to do anything, and a popular media outlet that thrives off of providing misinformation to people that disregard facts.....so cut the guy a break.

[EasySkankin]

completely different? he was for escalation in afghanistan, was for healthcare reform, new regulations for financial institutions, getting out of iraq, ending the bush tax cuts, a more diverse supreme court, reaching across party lines (which he attempted as long as it took for him to realize it was a waste of time), and a few hundred things i'm forgetting.

most of what he said he wanted to do he has pursued and continues to work on, but he's been dealing with the brick wall of republicans who have an incredible amount of financial backing yet have no real plan to do anything, and a popular media outlet that thrives off of providing misinformation to people that disregard facts.....so cut the guy a break.
Firstly, you can't just blame republicans, the dems have had the majority. They are all acting like a brick wall, but if democrats worked together it's more than feasible to get reform passed.

Now I can't place all the blame or even most of the blame on Obama, he's just a president who has so many powers. Reaching across party lines has gotten him nowhere, and I believe this to be his fatal flaw. What is different is that he was not afraid to call bullshit and speak aggressively against his opponents. Now, On any and every bill he'll just bend over and take it from the republicans, which is why while the healthcare bill and bailout did some good things, they don't address the underlying problems. This is going to bite him and the party in the ass come elections.

Also, us leaving iraq when we did was a part of bush's exit strategy, not obama.

Obama has made aggressive remarks about bush's illegal wiretapping. Once he became president, however, he supported the practice and extended bush's programs.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/obama-sides-wit/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61P0EV20100226

As the president, he needs to be the loudest voice when it comes to keeping his peers in check, and focus attention on the substance on these issues, which I don't feel he has done. There is such a lack of effectiveness in his first two years and I just can't trust him to do much better the next two, especially with a republican congress.

[open mind]

Firstly, you can't just blame republicans, the dems have had the majority. They are all acting like a brick wall, but if democrats worked together it's more than feasible to get reform passed.

Now I can't place all the blame or even most of the blame on Obama, he's just a president who has so many powers. Reaching across party lines has gotten him nowhere, and I believe this to be his fatal flaw. What is different is that he was not afraid to call bullshit and speak aggressively against his opponents. Now, On any and every bill he'll just bend over and take it from the republicans, which is why while the healthcare bill and bailout did some good things, they don't address the underlying problems. This is going to bite him and the party in the ass come elections.

Also, us leaving iraq when we did was a part of bush's exit strategy, not obama.

Obama has made aggressive remarks about bush's illegal wiretapping. Once he became president, however, he supported the practice and extended bush's programs.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/obama-sides-wit/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61P0EV20100226

As the president, he needs to be the loudest voice when it comes to keeping his peers in check, and focus attention on the substance on these issues, which I don't feel he has done. There is such a lack of effectiveness in his first two years and I just can't trust him to do much better the next two, especially with a republican congress.

i blame money.....and democrats are just as susceptible to the lure of it as republicans......but at least the dems did something whereas republicans were fine with the old system that excluded 50 million americans.

obama has been anything but aggressive when facing opponents and that to me is his, and the entire democratic parties failure.....they allow republicans to spout the craziest shit possible and do so in the name of bi-partisanship.....the time has come to take the gloves off and point out the fact that A) republican policies have failed on an unprecedented level for everyone but the super rich and that B) the republicans offer no alternative plan to cleaning up the mess they themselves created......they just bitch and complain that they don't have a majority and stall everything they possibly can (and with unprecedented frequency)

obama may not have given you your wish list, but history has shown that this union is frustratingly slow at enacting change......and with all the money against healthcare reform, credit card reform, bank reform, and (officially) pulling out of iraq he's made many enemies................which might explain why the republican party is said to be outspending the democratic party as much as 2 to 1 in many states and that the tea party has mass media support and tens of millions of dollars in corporate backing.

[crackedthesky]

Firstly, you can't just blame republicans, the dems have had the majority. They are all acting like a brick wall, but if democrats worked together it's more than feasible to get reform passed.

Now I can't place all the blame or even most of the blame on Obama, he's just a president who has so many powers. Reaching across party lines has gotten him nowhere, and I believe this to be his fatal flaw. What is different is that he was not afraid to call bullshit and speak aggressively against his opponents. Now, On any and every bill he'll just bend over and take it from the republicans, which is why while the healthcare bill and bailout did some good things, they don't address the underlying problems. This is going to bite him and the party in the ass come elections.

Also, us leaving iraq when we did was a part of bush's exit strategy, not obama.

Obama has made aggressive remarks about bush's illegal wiretapping. Once he became president, however, he supported the practice and extended bush's programs.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/01/obama-sides-wit/
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61P0EV20100226

As the president, he needs to be the loudest voice when it comes to keeping his peers in check, and focus attention on the substance on these issues, which I don't feel he has done. There is such a lack of effectiveness in his first two years and I just can't trust him to do much better the next two, especially with a republican congress.

That's because Democrats are allowed to have their own beliefs and work outside their own party for what they believe in, whereas the Republicans are literally not allowed to every compromise whatsoever or they get kicked out of the party.

I think you bring up some good points, however, you also brought up some that are major stretches of the truth, such as it being Bush's exit strategy and the wiretapping thing. We've always wiretapped people. The difference is that Bush wanted the power to wiretap everybody with no reason for doing so at all, and evidence shows that he did have wiretaps on people for pretty much no reason. Not sure there's evidence of Obama doing that yet.

Anyway, I also think you're throwing in the towel a bit early. First of all, it's been less than two years. Second, you're acting like nothing has gotten done at all. That's not even near the case. Congress is passing a record number of bills. Just because you don't hear every single one as headline news doesn't mean nothing at all is happening.

I don't know why you'd blame Obama anyway. He has no power over what Congress chooses to do. He could spend 100% of his time lobbying Congress, and I'm pretty sure things would go exactly the same as they are now.

In any case, I sincerely hope you aren't suggesting that voting Republicans back into power will fix the problems they created to begin with. That would just be silly.

[EasySkankin]

the time has come to take the gloves off and point out the fact that A) republican policies have failed on an unprecedented level for everyone but the super rich and that B) the republicans offer no alternative plan to cleaning up the mess they themselves created......they just bitch and complain that they don't have a majority and stall everything they possibly can (and with unprecedented frequency)
This is pretty much the only thing that would save the party. If they just went balls out with their ads like the republicans do, minus the taking everything out of context, that would be boss and perfect for the election.

I think you bring up some good points, however, you also brought up some that are major stretches of the truth, such as it being Bush's exit strategy and the wiretapping thing. We've always wiretapped people. The difference is that Bush wanted the power to wiretap everybody with no reason for doing so at all, and evidence shows that he did have wiretaps on people for pretty much no reason. Not sure there's evidence of Obama doing that yet.
Obama on the campaign:
B6fnfVJzZT4&p=519193EA21A5B57A&playnext=1&index=37
Sounds awesome.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms
Not so awesome.
I mean this is just one issue, and it's not black and white, but he had the opportunity to make some reforms to protect innocent people from being violated, and he just didn't. No effort.

In any case, I sincerely hope you aren't suggesting that voting Republicans back into power will fix the problems they created to begin with. That would just be silly.
Of course not. But I think this actually has a silver lining. More people are talking about how both parties have gone full retard and are completely out of touch with ordinary citizens. Then you have these new parties, the tea party and the green party. Republicans see the tea party as a REAL threat, as they have openly opposed the GOP establishment. Every one of them is jumping through hoops of fire to get tea party endorsement.

And there's the green party, that represent a powerful economic argument that the right hasn't adequately rebutted, and holds members that are a breath of fresh air on the left. My hopes (and votes) are that they are going to gain ground come November.

[crackedthesky]

This is pretty much the only thing that would save the party. If they just went balls out with their ads like the republicans do, minus the taking everything out of context, that would be boss and perfect for the election.

Obama on the campaign:
B6fnfVJzZT4&p=519193EA21A5B57A&playnext=1&index=37
Sounds awesome.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-extension-without-reforms
Not so awesome.
I mean this is just one issue, and it's not black and white, but he had the opportunity to make some reforms to protect innocent people from being violated, and he just didn't. No effort.


Of course not. But I think this actually has a silver lining. More people are talking about how both parties have gone full retard and are completely out of touch with ordinary citizens. Then you have these new parties, the tea party and the green party. Republicans see the tea party as a REAL threat, as they have openly opposed the GOP establishment. Every one of them is jumping through hoops of fire to get tea party endorsement.

And there's the green party, that represent a powerful economic argument that the right hasn't adequately rebutted, and holds members that are a breath of fresh air on the left. My hopes (and votes) are that they are going to gain ground come November.

The problem with the balls-out method is that it only works until it inevitably drives the country too far to the left, and then the people vote the Republicans back in, and they go balls-out all the way to the right until people get fed up and elect Democrats again, etc. It starts a vicious cycle that really doesn't help anyone, whereas going toward the middle would theoretically create a more ideal country.
The problem is that Republicans and conservative Democrats won't even do that; they won't even go to the middle, they want to keep things completely to the right.

Another problem is that you're also assuming Democrats COULD go all out. They can't. The Senate has adopted a supermajority rule, and the Democrats barely have a majority at all, let alone a supermajority. Basically, since it takes 2/3 of the Senate to pass something, the Democrats really don't have a majority at all.

[Nuns On A Bus]

That's because Democrats are allowed to have their own beliefs and work outside their own party for what they believe in, whereas the Republicans are literally not allowed to every compromise whatsoever or they get kicked out of the party.

Joe Lieberman would disagree with that.

[J.C.]

Lieberman lost his state's primary. He still caucuses with the Democrats.

[crackedthesky]

Joe Lieberman would disagree with that.

Joe Lieberman, hmm... Isn't he that guy who campaigned for a Republican presidential candidate, then wasn't allowed to caucus with the Republicans because he disagrees with them too often?

[jawstheme]

The fact is that we all (people who voted Obama) thought with a democratic majority and Obama as president we would see some serious changes for the better, and we really haven't seen much at all. No backbone. I'm fed up with our political system, personally.

[loveisdead]

The fact is that we all (people who voted Obama) thought with a democratic majority and Obama as president we would see some serious changes for the better, and we really haven't seen much at all. No backbone. I'm fed up with our political system, personally.
Some would argue differently (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/the_do-everything_congress.html)

[jawstheme]

Some would argue differently (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/the_do-everything_congress.html)

Not a good argument. How many bills passed?

[crackedthesky]

Not a good argument. How many bills passed?

213. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_111th_United_States_Con gress)

Also, you are aware that Obama isn't even halfway through his first term, right? You're acting like he should've single-handedly remade the world by now.

[jawstheme]

213. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_the_111th_United_States_Con gress)

Also, you are aware that Obama isn't even halfway through his first term, right? You're acting like he should've single-handedly remade the world by now.

Considering roughly 12,000 bills are introduced every year that doesn't seem that great. Show me the big bill. Show me the big change. Where's the end of Bush tax cuts? Where's the real health care bill?

[crackedthesky]

Considering roughly 12,000 bills are introduced every year that doesn't seem that great. Show me the big bill. Show me the big change. Where's the end of Bush tax cuts? Where's the real health care bill?

You also seem to be under the impression that the Democrats have a majority.

[EasySkankin]

Some would argue differently (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/the_do-everything_congress.html)
"Health care reform? Let's just force everyone to buy private insurance and have customers pay the cost!
Financial Reform? Let's give the banks responsible for the disaster $700 Billion! hyeah on a roll!
Cap & Trade? Shit there's so much pollution going around, let's sell it to people!"

At that rate I'd probably prefer the congress not do anything at all.

[majinsharingan]

He also seems to be under the impression that change happens something like this...

vlIm-riMN6Q

[crackedthesky]

"Health care reform? Let's just force everyone to buy private insurance and have customers pay the cost!
Financial Reform? Let's give the banks responsible for the disaster $700 Billion! hyeah on a roll!
Cap & Trade? Shit there's so much pollution going around, let's sell it to people!"

Wouldn't have happened if the public option hadn't been killed. It was either public option, or public mandate. The Republicans wanted their usual "just use magic," but we had to pick one, and they went to sucha great effort to murder the public option, we went with plan b.

The other two, pretty much. I don't know why Geithner still has a job, or what Obama sees in him. I'm hoping there's something there we just don't see, yet.

[EasySkankin]

Wouldn't have happened if the public option hadn't been killed. It was either public option, or public mandate. The Republicans wanted their usual "just use magic," but we had to pick one, and they went to sucha great effort to murder the public option, we went with plan b.

The other two, pretty much. I don't know why Geithner still has a job, or what Obama sees in him. I'm hoping there's something there we just don't see, yet.
Maybe i'm naive to think it, but I feel like if Obama in particular had just used the spotlight (that's what it's for) and just told the truth, called BS on all that death panel nonsense and called the insurance companies death panels, touted the option as "friendly competition", gave the facts on costs, and logic about why private companies would want to squeeze customers, maybe even a solid jab like "The republicans aren't concerned with giving Americans healthcare" things would have played out differently.

[loveisdead]

Maybe i'm naive to think it, but I feel like if Obama in particular had just used the spotlight (that's what it's for) and just told the truth, called BS on all that death panel nonsense and called the insurance companies death panels, touted the option as "friendly competition", gave the facts on costs, and logic about why private companies would want to squeeze customers, maybe even a solid jab like "The republicans aren't concerned with giving Americans healthcare" things would have played out differently.

I'd agree with this.

[crackedthesky]

Maybe i'm naive to think it, but I feel like if Obama in particular had just used the spotlight (that's what it's for) and just told the truth, called BS on all that death panel nonsense and called the insurance companies death panels, touted the option as "friendly competition", gave the facts on costs, and logic about why private companies would want to squeeze customers, maybe even a solid jab like "The republicans aren't concerned with giving Americans healthcare" things would have played out differently.

First of all, he did.

Second, it wouldn't have mattered, because guess what? The public had absolutely no say in it. The people in Congress who actually get to decide knew that was all BS. Yet they were the ones saying it to begin with. Obama's public image or speaking ability had absolutely nothing to do with it. The public majority wanted a public option. But they didn't get any say in the matter.

[Scrandon]

"Health care reform? Let's just force everyone to buy private insurance and have customers pay the cost!
Financial Reform? Let's give the banks responsible for the disaster $700 Billion! hyeah on a roll!
Cap & Trade? Shit there's so much pollution going around, let's sell it to people!"

At that rate I'd probably prefer the congress not do anything at all.
Nice talking points, but they're all too simplified and generalized into falsehoods.
Maybe i'm naive to think it, but I feel like if Obama in particular had just used the spotlight (that's what it's for) and just told the truth, called BS on all that death panel nonsense and called the insurance companies death panels, touted the option as "friendly competition", gave the facts on costs, and logic about why private companies would want to squeeze customers, maybe even a solid jab like "The republicans aren't concerned with giving Americans healthcare" things would have played out differently.

Really? You think he never said that? God. As if it was the game-changer.

[Nuns On A Bus]

My impression was that the Democrats supported a new candidate over him because he wasn't left enough for them, no? That doesn't really sound like them letting their people go outside their party lines and do as they please.

[jawstheme]

You also seem to be under the impression that the Democrats have a majority.

Haven't they since 2006?

[jawstheme]

He also seems to be under the impression that change happens something like this...

vlIm-riMN6Q


Please, if you're going to pick on me, use South Park. Family Guy is just stupid.

[Tec Mason]

I'm just not really sure if you can really get anywhere near the top, especially in politics, if you don't play dirty at some point or another. I feel like that's just the nature of politics..

:sneakkiss:

[Love As Arson]

I don't know what it is going to take for liberals to realize Obama is right-wing.

[crackedthesky]

Haven't they since 2006?

Senate needs a 2/3 majority to pass anything. The Dems barely have. 1/2 majority, and that's if you include both Insependent senators.

Put it this way: the House has passed almost very bill brought up with great ease, only for it to die in the senate, even with a 50% majority vote. If they don't get 2/3, it doesn't pass. Look at what happened a few weeks ago, a military finance bill with DADT reform attatched failed with a 56-43 vote in favor of it. The Democratic majority is nothing but an illusion. Since the Senate adopted the 2/3 rule, the minority party retains all power.

[xshady121]

Senate needs a 2/3 majority to pass anything. The Dems barely have. 1/2 majority, and that's if you include both Insependent senators.

Put it this way: the House has passed almost very bill brought up with great ease, only for it to die in the senate, even with a 50% majority vote. If they don't get 2/3, it doesn't pass. Look at what happened a few weeks ago, a military finance bill with DADT reform attatched failed with a 56-43 vote in favor of it. The Democratic majority is nothing but an illusion. Since the Senate adopted the 2/3 rule, the minority party retains all power.

Um, what?

Edit: That was the dumbest thing I've ever read. Senate never needs 2/3 to pass anything. It needs 50+1 in all cases. The example you cited was a finance bill, which everyone knows needs 60% or 3/5, not 2/3. That's the only case. For you to say the democratic majority is nothing but an illusion is moronic at best and plain ignorant at worse. And what on earth do you mean "since senate adopted the 2/3 rule?" I can't even begin to understand that nonsense.

[crackedthesky]

Um, what?

Edit: That was the dumbest thing I've ever read. Senate never needs 2/3 to pass anything. It needs 50+1 in all cases. The example you cited was a finance bill, which everyone knows needs 60% or 3/5, not 2/3. That's the only case. For you to say the democratic majority is nothing but an illusion is moronic at best and plain ignorant at worse. And what on earth do you mean "since senate adopted the 2/3 rule?" I can't even begin to understand that nonsense.

The senate requires a supermajority to override a filibuster, which can prevent debate on a bill from ever taking place, such as in the example I provided. This us not a constitutional rule, but one the senate later voted to adopt.

And yeah, it's 3/5, not 2/3, that was my bad. Also, you do know you don't have to be a total dick for no reason, right?

[xshady121]

The senate requires a supermajority to override a filibuster, which can prevent debate on a bill from ever taking place, such as in the example I provided. This us not a constitutional rule, but one the senate later voted to adopt.

And yeah, it's 3/5, not 2/3, that was my bad. Also, you do know you don't have to be a total dick for no reason, right?

The example you gave wasn't a filibuster.

Also, the Democrats have enough votes to invoke cloture, which they have used their super majority to do. I'm not sure how you're trying to say they don't.

[Hamlet]

I don't know what it is going to take for liberals to realize Obama is right-wing.

Looking from outside at US politics I've always found this amusing, before becoming a bit frightened at how far right the political landscape is skewed over there.

If Obama campaigned here in New Zealand with the same policies, it'd still be by far the most right wing party in the country.

[crackedthesky]

The example you gave wasn't a filibuster.

Also, the Democrats have enough votes to invoke cloture, which they have used their super majority to do. I'm not sure how you're trying to say they don't.

Actually, it was. The Republicans prevented the vote from even reaching the floor by filibustering it. The final vote was 56-43, which is a failing vote due to filibustering, they needed 60 votes to even bring debate to the floor.

And the Democrats don't have a supermajority right now at all. If you include both independents as Democrats, they have 59. A supermajority is 60. And there's a handful of Democrats who have pretty consistently voted with Republicans, thus, the "majority" is just an illusion. Yeah, it only takes 51 to pass a bill, but it takes 60 for that bill to even be opened for debate.

[Jason Tate]

I don't know what it is going to take for liberals to realize Obama is right-wing.
When looking at the conservative party, his "right wing" tendencies look moderate.

[xshady121]

Actually, it was. The Republicans prevented the vote from even reaching the floor by filibustering it. The final vote was 56-43, which is a failing vote due to filibustering, they needed 60 votes to even bring debate to the floor.

And the Democrats don't have a supermajority right now at all. If you include both independents as Democrats, they have 59. A supermajority is 60. And there's a handful of Democrats who have pretty consistently voted with Republicans, thus, the "majority" is just an illusion. Yeah, it only takes 51 to pass a bill, but it takes 60 for that bill to even be opened for debate.

I'd argue you'd get Olivia Snowe to vote cloture before you get Liebermann.

[Love As Arson]

When looking at the conservative party, his "right wing" tendencies look moderate.
Fair point. The political orientation of the US has skewed so far to the right that Nixon would be considered a leftist.

[Jason Tate]

Fair point. The political orientation of the US has skewed so far to the right that Nixon would be considered a leftist.
Nixon was a pinko commie! I can see Glenn Beck now.

[KnowYourProduct]

Fair point. The political orientation of the US has skewed so far to the right that Nixon would be considered a leftist.Noam Chomsky?

[apoemtothedead]

I don't know what it is going to take for liberals to realize Obama is right-wing.
American politics are the discussion so why compare Obama to a worldly view? That's like sending a 5'6" guy to China and calling him tall.

[J.C.]

That's like sending a 5'6" guy to China and calling him tall.

Sounds like somebody wants to be shipped to Shanghai.

[Zeran]

Looking from outside at US politics I've always found this amusing, before becoming a bit frightened at how far right the political landscape is skewed over there.

If Obama campaigned here in New Zealand with the same policies, it'd still be by far the most right wing party in the country.
what are new zealand politics like?

[loveisdead]

I don't know what it is going to take for liberals to realize Obama is right-wing.

I've seen this post like 100 times and never commented on it. Though I don't necessarily disagree, would you mind breaking down why you feel this way?

[Love As Arson]

http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=76581082#post76581 082

[apoemtothedead]

Sounds like somebody wants to be shipped to Shanghai.
I've got yellow fever worse than Philadelphia in 1793.

[loveisdead]

http://absolutepunk.net/showthread.php?p=76581082#post76581 082

Haha. Fair enough.

[WakeUpBlondie]

You can't be a good leader when everything you stand for is rooted in pointing fingers and relentless Republican-bashing. Obama's living in the past, our nation put too much hope in him. It's easy to look good when the previous president was hated by both Republicans and Democrats. I can't think of how many times Obama says "remember when GWB did this?", "Remember when the Republican congress did this?"

[WakeUpBlondie]

We should put our faith in OURSELVES! Not the Government! The Government is NOT going to help you when you lose your job or your house because the economy is shit. Our government will take, take and then take some more until your ass is in the gutter. Trust me, I've watched many friends and family struggle so much since this last term has ended. Did you forget the stimulus package that was supposed to save us all?? It crashed and fucking burned!! Then we were supposed to think cash for clunkers was a good idea?? Give me a break. As for the lies are you serious?? You must be very liberal to not see the things he has said before and after he was elected, the promises made that were broken. There are too many to list, just go look it up. As far as him and his party doing well? hmmm well they did win the election...

It's pretty ridiuclous the amount of lies in two years
http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

It's pretty ridiuclous the amount of lies in two years
http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies

Thank you for bringing that to my attention

[Jason Tate]

It's pretty ridiuclous the amount of lies in two years
http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies
That list is dubious at best.

[loveisdead]

You can't be a good leader when everything you stand for is rooted in pointing fingers and relentless Republican-bashing. Obama's living in the past, our nation put too much hope in him. It's easy to look good when the previous president was hated by both Republicans and Democrats. I can't think of how many times Obama says "remember when GWB did this?", "Remember when the Republican congress did this?"

I don't blame him. People seem to have forgotten that the republicans put us in this mess.

[J.C.]

Every single President is going to make sure they remind the country what they inherited. It's how you balance out the opposition's message. Reagan was blaming Carter well into his second term. Republicans still bitch and moan about Clinton.

[theguy77]

im just glad we didn't elect mccain. that fucker would have driven us into another great depression with his terrible economic ideas, not to mention staying in Iraq further would be about as dumb as it was to go there in the first place. he represented everything the republican party does wrong.

[deFobbed14yrs]

I wish people would stop blaming the president and start blaming Congress, as they historically and literally have more power if they could get their shit together.

[Zeran]

Every single President is going to make sure they remind the country what they inherited. It's how you balance out the opposition's message. Reagan was blaming Carter well into his second term. Republicans still bitch and moan about Clinton.
what did clinton do that was so bad for the republicans in 2000?

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

what did clinton do that was so bad for the republicans in 2000?

At the end of the Clinton presidency, there was a significant budget surplus, he had a 65% approval rating, and Destiny's Child was topping the charts with "Independent Women"

[J.C.]

girl i did not know you could get down like that

[loveisdead]

what did clinton do that was so bad for the republicans in 2000?

Got head. Republicans have better morals than that.

[caveBEAR]

Got head. Republicans have better morals than that.

Male escorts/alter boys.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

Got head. Republicans have better morals than that.

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_Craig_scandal), this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Sanford_disappearance_and_extr amarital_affair), this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley_congressional_page_incid ent), this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Crane), this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Vitter#Prostitution_scandals) , this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Paladino#Campaign_controversie s), this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Haggard#Scandal_and_removal_fro m_job).

[loveisdead]

I really hope you guys know I was kidding.

[caveBEAR]

I really hope you guys know I was kidding.

Ha ha ha, I did, my comment was just in agreement with yours.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

I just wanted to point those cases out in case anyone forgot.

[TKC]

I think he's more of a celeb than a leader to be completely honesst.

[J.C.]

I think he's more of a celeb than a leader to be completely honesst.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_OzwLuCyokhk/TIOyPlrwa9I/AAAAAAAAABM/-FHzWd0C7K0/s1600/derp2.jpg

[anthony_kid]

I think only time will tell with this type of thing.

[Kurt Retenauer]

girl i did not know you could get down like that

Best. Post. Ever.

Seriously, almost went over my head. So glad it didn't.

[loveisdead]

I think he's more of a celeb than a leader to be completely honesst.

Why do you feel that way? I'm not trying to be confrentational, just curious as to why.

[saysmydoctor]

George Washington did it.

[open mind]

It's pretty ridiuclous the amount of lies in two years
http://obamalies.net/list-of-lies

i could show you numerous sites that document the amount of LAWS that bush and every republican predecessor of the last 30 years broke that is longer than that trivial bullshit.

i'd laugh at you, but i know there are a million dipshits out there who make a living on slinging this (beyond hypocritical) mud.

[Healthy Scratch]

why do people always feel that criticism of obama is somehow an endorsement of bush and the republicans?

[open mind]

why do people always feel that criticism of obama is somehow an endorsement of bush and the republicans?

because the petty criticism obama is subjected to is laughable in comparison to what his predecessors did without garnering a peep from the staunchest obama critics?

[caveBEAR]

because the petty criticism obama is subjected to is laughable in comparison to what his predecessors did without garnering a peep from the staunchest obama critics?

:appl:

[roche]

He is great at inspiring confidence in his plans and policies but like all leaders in democratic societies, he has a difficult time enacting them.

[joelabz]

I'm not american but from what I can see is everyone got caught up in the whole Obama campaign of change and wasn't actually paying any real attention to who they were voting for. Obama promised change and many things including bringing the troops out of Afghanistan but then sending 20,000 more troops in, is that change? Master of manipulating the masses.

[caveBEAR]

I'm not american but from what I can see is everyone got caught up in the whole Obama campaign of change and wasn't actually paying any real attention to who they were voting for. Obama promised change and many things including bringing the troops out of Afghanistan but then sending 20,000 more troops in, is that change? Master of manipulating the masses.

Well, even if Obama isn't perfect, it was still a vote against McCain & Palin, which is the most important vote someone can make.

Oh, and can't believe we have to go over this again, but when Obama said on the campaign trail that he'd pull the troops out of Afghanistan (sidenote, holy shit! A politician not following through on all his campaign promises?! Insanity!! :rolleyes:) he didn't have the information and communication with those in charge of the war that he would have had after the election.

Crazy thought, but maybe after seeing different information and getting different opinions, he changed his mind. Shocking, I know.

[J.C.]

I'm not american

Nobody's perfect.

[loveisdead]

I'm not american but from what I can see is everyone got caught up in the whole Obama campaign of change and wasn't actually paying any real attention to who they were voting for. Obama promised change and many things including bringing the troops out of Afghanistan but then sending 20,000 more troops in, is that change? Master of manipulating the masses.

He never promised this. What he did is exactly what he campaigned on. Perhaps you didn't pay enough attention (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/134/send-two-additional-brigades-to-afghanistan/).

[loveisdead]

Well, even if Obama isn't perfect, it was still a vote against McCain & Palin, which is the most important vote someone can make.

Oh, and can't believe we have to go over this again, but when Obama said on the campaign trail that he'd pull the troops out of Afghanistan (sidenote, holy shit! A politician not following through on all his campaign promises?! Insanity!! :rolleyes:) he didn't have the information and communication with those in charge of the war that he would have had after the election.

Crazy thought, but maybe after seeing different information and getting different opinions, he changed his mind. Shocking, I know.
To make matters easier, he never ever ever said he'd pull troops out of Afghanistan. Where the fuck do people get this idea from?

[joelabz]

Nobody's perfect.

Ouch lmao gotta give you that *applauds*.

[joelabz]

He never promised this. What he did is exactly what he campaigned on. Perhaps you didn't pay enough attention (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/promise/134/send-two-additional-brigades-to-afghanistan/).

I'm pretty sure he did.

[loveisdead]

I'm pretty sure he did.

Click the link.

[caveBEAR]

I'm pretty sure he did.

Click the link.

But, Ryan, facts be damned. I mean, he is pretty sure. Sounds good enough to me.

[loveisdead]

But, Ryan, facts be damned. I mean, he is pretty sure. Sounds good enough to me.

Why even use that as his example of Obama not keeping a promise. The tax cuts just happened and that actually was a broken promise.

[joelabz]

But, Ryan, facts be damned. I mean, he is pretty sure. Sounds good enough to me.

Well I guess that's case closed guys. XD

[Scrandon]

Ha nice.

[loveisdead]

Well I guess that's case closed guys. XD

What else are you mad at him for?

[Jason Tate]

What else are you mad at him for?
Having big ears.

[loveisdead]

Having big ears.

They are pretty large.

[Kurt Retenauer]

What else are you mad at him for?

Trendy political T-shirts.

[Jake Gyllenhaal]

The Onion revealed that Obama is the number one person who mattered in 2010 (http://www.theonion.com/articles/barack-obama-either-doing-his-best-in-one-of-the-m,18635/)

Barack Obama - Either doing his best in one of the most difficult times in American history, or Hitler



*He narrowly beat Snooki

[Kurt Retenauer]

RboopCV1Yrc

Obviously Snooki matters more. Look at who's she's influenced.

[David87]

I'm sure this has been said a ton in this thread already but:


Great Man? Sure. He seems like a nice guy, seems like he honestly wants to do what's best for the middle class, and the people below them. Doesn't seem to get angry very easily, and seems willing to listen to opposing views, even if he doesn't plan on actually implementing them into his own plans.

Great Leader? I can't say that. He let the Dems in the house and senate take charge, and kind of stood on the sidelines during health care debate. Yeah, he stumped for it, but what I would have loved to see is him go on TV and list and describe specifically what he wanted to see in a Health Care Reform bill and why.

He's trying way too hard to be bipartisan, and as he's given in to the Republicans, they've shit on him in return. Bipartisanship is a great thing but not when one side continues to stubbornly sit with their arms crossed and say No. Just means one side gives up on everything it really wants to do and settles for small shit that doesn't really get the job done.

[nickbarefoot]

I think he's a great president, i just want him to pull our damn troops back like he promised.

[loveisdead]

I think he's a great president, i just want him to pull our damn troops back like he promised.

What do you mean? He's followed through with pretty much everything he said regarding the wars.

[mike'smannequin]

neither

[J.C.]

Quality input there, Miguel.

[domotime2]

I think he wants to do good things, and has the best interest of humanity in mind for most of his policies

[oldwirehands]

He's just doing his job, and is no greater than any other person, nor do I see him as a leader.

[loveisdead]

He's just doing his job, and is no greater than any other person, nor do I see him as a leader.

Care to expand a bit? I'm kinda curious.

[oldwirehands]

Care to expand a bit? I'm kinda curious.

I'd love to, but I'm afraid I don't have enough time right now. I just see him as a regular guy, doing his best at his job, trying not to piss off too many people at the same time.

[loveisdead]

I'd love to, but I'm afraid I don't have enough time right now. I just see him as a regular guy, doing his best at his job, trying not to piss off too many people at the same time.

I don't really disagree with that. I mas referring more to him not being seen as much of a leader. Maybe when you get a few minutes you can respond.