Questions about Barack Obama

Alright, around town some idiots have started some support Obama group, and they are acting like he is a godlike person.

It irritates me because the only things they have to say about him is that he is "Black" and that he is "Sending out soldiers from Afghanistan/Iraq" [Regardless of the fact he sent 30k more to Afghanistan] and that he is closing Guantanamo.

So what I would like to know is, Is Obama really a good president?

Loads of Americans love him, and loads seem to hate his guts. Id like to expand my knowledge a bit more by knowing what are some of the good/bad stuff he has done/is doing and the reasons for/against it.
 
I do not know about the key tests that an US prez has to pass to be considered a "good Prez", but, from my European POV he has - within this short time - achieved some major changes that are from our EU POV *very* important and make him credible, and he has also failed in some other respects, time will tell what history will say (as with Bush Jr., actually), we can all have opinions, but in the end, results and history counts (to be evaluated 20+ yrs later).

Let us see, and this is completely personal, why *I* think Obama is doing better than anybody covering the job in the last 20 yrs:

Despite his failures (Guantanamo still open, wars not solved, banks do give him the cold front, etc. ...) he has realized some *major* achievements, not only for the US, but also for the planet (not surprisingly, Bush also ruined stuff in those respects ot only for the US but also for the planet, this impact comes with being the leader of the Imperium), esp. in the exterior politic field (which, if I recall right, was the field that during his campaign he was critizised most), but also internally:

- On Feb 3, 5 days into office, he revived SCHIP, some 3+ Million *children* (the future, how could those religious fanatiics miss it?) included in health care and at least with - theoretically (practically their parents being 10 yrs older in general will drag it down again) - a chance to make it to a stage where they can truly represent the future of this great nation.

- In May, he managed to get the so called "religious majority" (what a fascist newspeak word, it is like "Al Kaeda" for a secular government as they also think religious beliefs should be the bae for a state..., so just to show where the prob is I will use it demogagically), er, he got *US Al Kaeda*´s influence reduced in the supreme court (aka the "joint jiraahh of the Elders")

- Until May 2009 he had not only managed to squash the quarrles with Russia, but also to get the moderate Muslim nations (where religion indeed is part of state, do we want that, really??) on his side: By cancelling the missile shield (which was of no use anyway vs. Iran if Russia did not play part) he got the Russians on the boat to stop Iran´s musings, by his correct and not prepotent Telly Interviews that got broadcasted in Europe, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc he managed to show ppl that Bush´s "Axis of Evil" simplifaction was over (from the other side, with same significance and with(out) the same importance, US and NATO are "the axis of evil", using this phrase simply is useless outside on the planet because every nation will define it differently, but it *does* impress you religious faction inside your nation - US and Muslim nations alike, think about it a minute! "US the Satan!" replaced with "Iran the Satan!")

- In September he became the first prez ever to preside a SC meeting, an achievement all by itself (and, it came as a result of his diplomatic delicacy understanding that the world simply is *not* black vs. white, good vs evil, democracy vs. oligarchy, christians vs. muslims, faith vs. pagaism, darwin vs. creationalists, etc... but much more a complicatet pattern of shades of all of this)

Spare me more details (re: Health care plan etc) as there is a character limit here, but also his speech at the Nobel Prize reception was one of honesty, great ethical value and valor: As recipient of the Peace Nobel Prize to state and explain that and why wars might be considered necessary, from my EU POV is something no other US prez during my life time has been able to even formulate before credibly, maybe with the exception of Kennedy.

So, from my POV we here do not see him as messias at all, but at least he is *inspiring*: When I became a soldier in Germany in the ´70s it was to defend values the Americans had brought to us, that we had subscribed to, and that inspired us.

With Bush and the stupid and (foreseeably stupid outcome!) war vs. Iraq w/o reason (and hence, let me assume: For crude after all?!) this inspiration went into thin air: All Europeans except the US vasalles (politicians: Despite "Ansar"´s - Bush could no even pronounce the name of the prez of "The Republic of Spain" which in fact is a kingdom and the name was "Aznar" - support, 94% of the people were aginst it which resulted in the fulminant destitiution for him and his party and the retriveal of the solds from the illegal war) this inspiration was lost: I have a bunch of serious email discussions handy, if asked for, that show this fact, who would seriously argue going with (self defined by their own standards set in Nuremberg 1946) war criminals that simply ignored "International Law" that *THEY* had first imposed?

Now with Obama, at least a part of this inspiration to fight for values has come back, and it has nothing to do with his skin color. I would send my sons out again now, but not in 2003.

Do you as youngster remember 2003? Well, here was my take on that day 6 1/2 yrs ago, and I still feel the same and feel I have not had to change that truly democratic view and illusion for one yota: http://www.warandtactics.com/smf/wa...2003-start-of-the-iraq-war/msg10673/#msg10673

Now, things *have* started to change, an area of a paralyzing "lead blanket" on this planet has gone, give the guy time, is my take. That the ghosts we called upon in the last 8 years won´t simply vanish, that we are in a kind of WWIII, well, that´s something our current and future generations will have to deal with, but Obamas take is the best way I can think of.

My 2c,

Rattler
 
Last edited:
Its simply impossible to answer that question as Obama has only served less than a year.

What I can say based so far is: about average.

Obama is far better than his predecessor. Even if he were to make one error after another for the next 4 years, he is far more open and honest than the nasty, secretrative, and corrupt Bush Administration.

If you compare the first 11 months of the Bush and Obama Administration, Bush had wiped out the social security lockbox and erased the Clinton Balanced Budget in order to give handouts to Billionaires. Worst of all was the Bush Administrations stupidity and ineptude led to the worst terrorist attack in history. The mess that is the present world, is Bush's not Obama's. So compared to his predecessor he's a Godsend.

On his own merits I'd say its a mixed bag. I applaud his interests in taking on the big HMOs, it was long overdue. However I do question both his plan (which caters too much to BIG BUSINESS) and the timing. I think government managed healthcare is the answer, I just would have attempted such a bold plan when the economy was on sturdier ground. What Obama should have done was push a single-payer system in 2010 when the economy is expected to improve (it already is). If Obama is able to turn around the economy by 2012 chances are whatever else happens he will be reelected.

On Iraq and Afghanistan, big mistake. What the British and Russians failed to do, Obama will fare no better. Trying to establish order in Afghanistan is like trying to herd cats. Not only will it not work I suspect the US will pay a high price in money and blood for the "surge". Republicans like to whine about the expensive healthcare plan, but the price pales in comparison to the price our useless wars are costing us. Not only will it not work, but by continuing it in this way Obama is essentially accepting the blame when the plan goes to hell, and the GOP spindocters will of course make it out to be Obama's war. If anything costs Obama reelection in 2012 it will be Afghanistan, in fact Obama might have had already lost reelection if it werent for the fact the GOP is even in worse shape than Obama is.
 
Its simply impossible to answer that question as Obama has only served less than a year.

What I can say based so far is: about average.

Obama is far better than his predecessor. Even if he were to make one error after another for the next 4 years, he is far more open and honest than the nasty, secretrative, and corrupt Bush Administration.

If you compare the first 11 months of the Bush and Obama Administration, Bush had wiped out the social security lockbox and erased the Clinton Balanced Budget in order to give handouts to Billionaires. Worst of all was the Bush Administrations stupidity and ineptude led to the worst terrorist attack in history. The mess that is the present world, is Bush's not Obama's. So compared to his predecessor he's a Godsend.

On his own merits I'd say its a mixed bag. I applaud his interests in taking on the big HMOs, it was long overdue. However I do question both his plan (which caters too much to BIG BUSINESS) and the timing. I think government managed healthcare is the answer, I just would have attempted such a bold plan when the economy was on sturdier ground. What Obama should have done was push a single-payer system in 2010 when the economy is expected to improve (it already is). If Obama is able to turn around the economy by 2012 chances are whatever else happens he will be reelected.

On Iraq and Afghanistan, big mistake. What the British and Russians failed to do, Obama will fare no better. Trying to establish order in Afghanistan is like trying to herd cats. Not only will it not work I suspect the US will pay a high price in money and blood for the "surge". Republicans like to whine about the expensive healthcare plan, but the price pales in comparison to the price our useless wars are costing us. Not only will it not work, but by continuing it in this way Obama is essentially accepting the blame when the plan goes to hell, and the GOP spindocters will of course make it out to be Obama's war. If anything costs Obama reelection in 2012 it will be Afghanistan, in fact Obama might have had already lost reelection if it werent for the fact the GOP is even in worse shape than Obama is.

Sounds like the people who still believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy are finnally realizing Obama's "Pie in The Sky" campaign promises were just that.

Now you have his suporters, like yourself, claiming Obama has moved right of center. Way to stand by your man!:p

"Obama is a Democrat, but he is NOT a liberal. If Obama were a Liberal we would be out of Iraq and Afghtanistan, Gitmo would be closed, Wall Street CEOs would be in Jail, and we would have a single-payer healthcare system. The reason Obama polls are in the can right now is because he for some inexplicable reason has decided to tack to the center-right, which has infuriated the liberal base. If he loses reelection it will be because the libs have abandoned him, they are already threatening a primary challenge."
quote mmarsh from Topic: Dunno if I'll get moded for this but I gotta ask Post #10
 
Personally I think it is still too early to make presumptions. he's only be President for nearly a year and on world standards he has done very little. However this doesn't make him a bad president. From I know on the news is very thoughtful on what he is going to do. I mean look at 30k oif troops to Afghanistan. he mulled over that for a long time. he always does that and this is a very good quality in a leader. He will consider all options. But there has alos been evidence that he can act quickly under pressure. Such as the elections and the free health care thing. I think he is a very good president and although he may do very little 'amazing' things he will defenatley benefit the world greatly.
 
i think he is a great president not because he is black but because he is already fixing Bushes screw up he is the reason for the economy
 
So far, I like him better than the last guy, but that's not exactly a high bar to clear.

RIGHT .......
I could have done a low crawl under a snake's belly ... and ... that would have been 100 times as high as Bush's "bar".
I have NEVER seen a President who was worse than GW - so,
that isn't surprising.
 
RIGHT .......
I could have done a low crawl under a snake's belly ... and ... that would have been 100 times as high as Bush's "bar".
I have NEVER seen a President who was worse than GW - so,
that isn't surprising.

The problem is Chief, that the people who absolutely hate Obama would like nothing better to put another Bush into office and pickup where that trainwreck left off. Thats why Cheney keeps hanging around.

Bush wasnt the problem into was the Bush Ideology of arrogence, elitism, greed and the puerile need to punish anyone that disagrees with it. That Ideology is still alive and well, you can see it on this very board.

Someone like Sarah Palin, a slow witted, easily manipulated, ideological hardcase who thinks that she has been chosen by divine province. She also Bush's knack for vindictive ruthlessness. This is the type of candidate the GOP will nominate. Palin herself is too damaged for serious consideration.
 
Last edited:
Typical, just typical....Bush corruption, hah, squeeky clean compared to the cesspool of corruption known as the Clinton Admin. Never was a Social Security Lockbox. Democrats, who controlled Congress for most of the last 5 decades, looted it to pay for the welfare state. What secrets laws has Obama revoked? Obama talks middle of the road but his actions aren't even close. Look @ his Czars like Kevin Jennings. I don't want another Bush & his Big Government Republicans back in, & the people didn't either, but they got hoodwinked by moderate bilge by Democrats. So....how many here want the Taliban/Al Quida back in total controll of Afghanistan? Probably end up that way when Obama pulls out, now or in 18 months. Health care, yes! lets get on the Government Inefficientcy Express & go your the ride of your life, because that is what your betting, that govt can do something more eficiently that the market. Fat chance of that. Right now we are the destination of last resort when people are failed by thier Govt health care, where will anyone go when our system skids down the slope?
 
JFTR, only on the exterior politics part: Mixing Taliban and Al Quaeda the way you do (with the slash indicating it is more or less the same) does not serve your argument, just shows you do not understand the difference.

The Taliban, who indeed housed and harbored Al Kaida before S11, had, as shown by documents released lately offered to oust them (but refused to get rid of their spiritual boss, Mullah Omar). They have now offered what they call "legal guarantees" that after an US withdrawal Al Kaida will not be offfered safe harbour in Afghanistan again, *if* (and *only* if) US and NATO stop supporting the absolutely corrupt war lords that now have ascended to ministers in the new Karzai government.

Let us just for a moment asume these promises might be valid, then it would not be the worst of soulutions: The majority here on the board and in every political discussion I read agree anyway that the Afghan people have to sort out their stuff on the long run themselves, and the cause for war sould be served.

They violate the arrangement? Ok, first bomb them back beyond stone age, then send troops in again. At least this time you will know where they are and are not commiting the same farce again, and until this should occur, a lot of lives and money would have been saved.

I have no problem with a US president at least considering such a CoA.

Rattler

Let us for a moment
 
JFTR, only on the exterior politics part: Mixing Taliban and Al Quaeda the way you do (with the slash indicating it is more or less the same) does not serve your argument, just shows you do not understand the difference.

The Taliban, who indeed housed and harbored Al Kaida before S11, had, as shown by documents released lately offered to oust them (but refused to get rid of their spiritual boss, Mullah Omar). They have now offered what they call "legal guarantees" that after an US withdrawal Al Kaida will not be offfered safe harbour in Afghanistan again, *if* (and *only* if) US and NATO stop supporting the absolutely corrupt war lords that now have ascended to ministers in the new Karzai government.

Let us just for a moment asume these promises might be valid, then it would not be the worst of soulutions: The majority here on the board and in every political discussion I read agree anyway that the Afghan people have to sort out their stuff on the long run themselves, and the cause for war sould be served.

They violate the arrangement? Ok, first bomb them back beyond stone age, then send troops in again. At least this time you will know where they are and are not commiting the same farce again, and until this should occur, a lot of lives and money would have been saved.

I have no problem with a US president at least considering such a CoA.

Rattler

Let us for a moment
This offer hasn't been reported here. have the Taliban changed thier minds about thier Guests for real, or just a ploy they think Obama might grab? Frankly I'm suprised the Afghan people have put up with us as long as they have.
 
The problem is Chief, that the people who absolutely hate Obama would like nothing better to put another Bush into office and pickup where that trainwreck left off. Thats why Cheney keeps hanging around.

Bush wasnt the problem into was the Bush Ideology of arrogence, elitism, greed and the puerile need to punish anyone that disagrees with it. That Ideology is still alive and well, you can see it on this very board.

Someone like Sarah Palin, a slow witted, easily manipulated, ideological hardcase who thinks that she has been chosen by divine province. She also Bush's knack for vindictive ruthlessness. This is the type of candidate the GOP will nominate. Palin herself is too damaged for serious consideration.

Well it looks like the liberal opinion is that it is still George Bush, Sarah Palin, gun totin' bible thumping Republican party that is keeping President Obama from accomplishing his goals. Apparently the minority right wing conservatives still control everything.:) LOL

Till me "Mr. Living in the past mmarsh":smile:, Why can't a Democrat President with a Democrat controlled Congress accomplish any of his goals?

He does not even need one Republican to "cross the aisle" and vote his agenda.
What is President Obama trying to accomplish? A worse record than Bush?

Closing Gitmo was something the Democratic Party wanted not just President Obama, why isn't that happening?

The topic is Questions about Barrack Obama, why not try answering the topic?

How about some truth, like, "The old boy Democrats on Capital Hill were not going to let some snot nosed young whipper snapper dictate to them." The same that happened to Clinton. Looks like the Democrats did not really want change after all.
The Democratic Presidential campaign was a joke. "Promise the suckers anything." Those first time young voters swallowed that "Change" campaign hook, line, and sinker."
To bad they could not just deliver what people expected, wanted, and need. Are just delivering more of the same.

I do appreciate your living in the past comments, I will be able to recycle them, just replacing Bush with Obama after the next election.:smile:

Since I do agree with some of his goals I would like him to succeed in some areas.(Since he promised everything it is no surprise I would agree on somethings).:)
I would have liked to see Gitmo closed, some type of Heath care reform(not the cluster **** the Democrats are making of it). Job stimulus, not bank stimulus. We should shoot the bankers.
 
- snip a lot - this forum software does not allow selctive quoting and I am too lazy to do it all manually... (MODs/Owner: How about a modern tool like SMF? Been asking myself this question before...?!?!)) How about some truth, like, "The old boy Democrats on Capital Hill were not going to let some snot nosed young whipper snapper dictate to them." The same that happened to Clinton. Looks like the Democrats did not really want change after all.

Well, as stated,my cmment just on this, I guess you are right. Obama is a "Politician", and if change he (and many of his voters or fans) had happened all those would not have a seat anymore.

Iin Spain we say: "Poderoso caballero, Don Dinero" (Powerful Knight, Sir Money), and that sums it up. WHen Obama had to swallow Mrs. Clinton into his team he had lost (from our European POV) the internal Party Battle, many more later just were dictated.

As this is about Mr. Obama, want to revise your accessment of his performance under that assumption (that he is not only batteling GOP but a great portion of his own party seat farters/stickers)?

Under this light, he is doing more than a marvelllous job...

Rattler
 
Back
Top