Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
really? he is all of that only when his teleprompter is there for him to read off what others wrote for him, otherwise he is just another lying politician.
You know what? everyone is entitled to an opinion whether honest one or otherwise.Obama is an eloquent intelligent leader.It doesn't matter you are black or white!!
Well, you do realize that that's why the Abe Lincoln comparisons come up with Obama right? Lincoln had been a state senator and a one term congressman when he was elected. So it is not unprecedented, it happened before and when it did the man was white.
Other presidents were fairly light on executive political experience I believe, you could probably Google other names.
ETA: One of the things that confuses me a bit about this recurring argument is that the guy had a long run as a State Senator and while he was there, he certainly had a record and worked on a ton of bills. So it's not like Barak Obama fell out of the political sky and we had no idea of who he was in a governing sense. He left a paper trail. If he knew how to do nothing else, he knew how to pass legislation. **shrugs**
I think we need to make sure everyone's on the same page.
There are some who says he's not qualified at all. I can't submit to that.
But I think it's safe to say that based on his list of qualifications, against that of Hillary Clinton at the time, he wasn't necessarily the best candidate (on paper) to put through for the Democratic party.
So, if we subscribe to that thought, then one has to wonder why he was chosen. Are we saying that the nation is ready for a half black president before a woman? I don't know. That's why I think it's a good topic if we talk about the social aspect of it instead of throwing racial rhetoric (from both sides).
People that are drawing analogies between Barack Obama and Jesse Jackson I think can stop the comparison at the skin color.
And, in truth, that should end the debate for those that are saying that skin color is the only reason Obama was nominated by his party and went on to win.
Jesse Jackson was a no-go right from the start because of his political activism and his abrasive nature against many (liberals or conservatives). I think he was making more of a racial statement by running than being a serious candidate about it. Obama was a relative unknown outside of Chicago and Illinois in general. The education between the two is not even a close comparison.
And, let's be honest... Obama has never really tried to play the race card. He's changed his dialect depending on his audience (something a white person couldn't do, or would be severly chastised for), but he's never tried to get votes based on his skin color. I think his wife Michelle would push that more than he.
And, we need to separate his being selected the Democratic nominee potentially because of his race and winning the presidency because of it. I think there's a strong argument for his party nominee, but not so much for presidency. As previously noted, Mickey Mouse could have run against Bush because of the economic crisis that was starting to rear its ugly head, the highly unpopular war (which, by the way, mainstream media kept a daily running tab on their news shows of how many Americans died that day and overall, but you don't hear a single thing now... coincidence?), etc.
And, factually, more blacks voted for Obama than historic counts dictate. Not by percentage, let's make that clear. For several decades extremely high percentages of blacks voted Democrat anyway. But, instead of throwing around the percentages, look how many numbers make up that percentage. 90% of 20 million is a lot more than 90% of 8 million... so it's not the percentage itself, but the number that comprises that percentage that should be looked at.
Ok, silly little misinformed man I will indulge you.
Lets begin:
1- Bush did do a crap job. I won't contest that. But Obama's hype was biggeset among teens, blacks, and the affluent whites. The latter of which is not a characterically democratic voting block. He isn't polling well with them this time compared to 2008. Something has changed...People aren't all wet and happy to prove to themselves they aren't racist anymore. They don't care...they just want a viable candidate to run this country. And your jesus christ superstar Barack isn't the messiah afterall...sorry.
Since when did teens and blacks vote republican in the first place? And Duh? Like I mentioned before Obama proably would not have won if the dumbazzes did not pit him against the Cryptkeeper and the Bimbo from Mars! Besides after bush (which even you admitted) did such a crappy job pretty much any democrat would have won
2- I'm not claiming that Mitt has a lot of experience either. But when Barack was nominated he had ZERO....unless you could a "community organizer" as a position. It sounds to me like a fluff job that was handed to him.
Ok, but mitt was governor of a state that he can't even win, which tells you something about the way he governs. You refuticans kill me about the "community organizer" thing, hey lightbulb do you even know what that is? Did you forget that he was a law professor? Do you know what the majority of the occupations of the politicans in Washington are? Here let me give your ignorant butt a hint: What Is the Occupation of the Majority of Most Members of …
Why is that? because most of the bills/laws are written by LAWYERS! That alone would make him qualified.
3- No....they were jazzed up because Obama is a unique candidate. If Biden were the candidate or Hillary the voter turnout wouldn't have been nearly as substantial with minorities and college age students. It still would have been high because of the alternative, no one wanted to go through 4 more years of bush
4- What i'm saying is that it isn't NEARLY as big a social taboo for a black voter to vote for Obama for racially motivated issues whereas, if a white person were interviewed and said that he will vote for Romney because he is white he would be the scapegoat of the left wing for years and years to come.
Here is a secret, if every blackman and woman and I will even throw in Latinos as well voted for Obama, he still would not have won without the white vote. Thank God that there are still some whites that can see past color and vote against the stupidity which was the bush years Oh, can you tell all of us what racial issues did Obama run on?
5- Black people have overwhelmingly voted for democrats in the past, true. But if you would spend less of your time worrying about which emoticon you were going to punctuate your sentence with and more time reading the post you would see that I typed "POLLING." Obama's elections are the first time that the GOP candidates have polled at ZERO percent. When Dole, Bush, Bush Sr, and others ran...the GOP at least polled a percentage point or two. Now they are polling at ZERO percent.....coincidence???
Well, how about because of all of the racial finger pointing that the republicans did in the primaries towards blacks being the probelms of this country, hell they even propped up that Sambo cain to add his 2 cents in for things that they dare not say themselves. As far as my icons, think of them as words that I want to say but should'nt
Now...I'm going to make a brief guess at your retort to my post.
You're a racist! Boooooo racist!!!! I hate Womley!!!! Boooo racist! Yayyyyyy Obama! I loveee Obama sooooo hard!!! Mmmmmm he is sooooo sexy!!!! Booooo you kwazy wacist!!!!!
I'm not going say that you are even smart enough to be called a racist, since many of them try to justify their own stupidity, which is too much of a stretch for you. Btw, I don't hate Womley (whoever the hell that is)
1. The issue isn't votes in general...it's voter turnout. These demographics have historically had lower turnout with exception to 2008. Their turnout was surprising during this election. We've had bad presidents in the past...Carter is an example. These turnout and polling numbers are unprecedented.
2. Couple of things. Obama was never a law professor...he was a lecturer. I'm not sure if you went to college or not but that is a HUGE difference. Yes, I'm well aware of what a community organizer is...and no that doesn't qualify you to do anything beyond that. And Presidents don't write laws...they govern. His experience qualifies him to be a legislator...which is where he belongs.
3. Potentially true.
4. Obama didn't run on racial issues, nor did I say that he did. I said that minority voters and their SUBSTANTIAL increase in turnout in 2008 could hint at racially motivated votes. Affluent whites are the key. Their voting block is typically very conservative...except in 2008. My parents being a prime example. They claimed to get caught up in the excitement in voting for the anti-establishment candidate and for voting for the first african american candidate. This year they aren't voting for Obama...because he is god awful at his job......see the increase in unemployment figures just released.
5. The GOP hasn't done a great job with black voters...I won't contest that. But the GOP was worse during the Reagan years. Reaganomics is often touted by the left as being inherently racist because it takes from poor programs. Yet the black vote didn't turnout nearly as heavily in 1984.
It's interesting that you imply that racism requires some type of intelligence. Again...I'll summarize the argument i've made on this forum because you and your butt buddy adiostoreador seem to lack even the most minimal comprehension skills.
1. I never said that Obama was entirely unqualified...just less qualified that Hillary
2. Obama was practically a political non-entity prior to the election.
3. The GOP NEVER EVER polled at 0% with any demographic.
4. Polling at 0% with ANY demographic, regardless of circumstances, is a big deal.
5. The only times this has ever happened, in this case 0% with african americans, is the only time in history an african american has run on a major ticket
6. Is it entirely coincidence or something more? It's worth discussing if racial issues are something American truly wants to move beyond.
To which your response is to call me a racist with no explanation as to why or how. And of course...the liberal tag line of punctuating everything with a series of pointless bright and shiny emoticons.
Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson never made even CLOSE to halfway through the primaries. They were jokes from the get go. Obama has been the only major party candidate to make it to November...he is the litmus test. Chisholm was the only candidate worth noticing of the three and she only managed to get 153 electoral votes which is nowhere near the delegates needed.
And the fact that they didn't garner enough support to win their party's nod in no way proves or disproves that these candidates didn't win the majority of African American votes in their respective primaries.....this is moot.
Isn't that a bit of circular logic though? The only reason the others were brought up was to try to get at the degree to which Obama's blackness helped him. The only point was that if it was ONLY about blackness, then any black candidate would have inspired the kind of response Obama eventually got from the black community (and from liberal minded whites, for that matter). The fact that Jesse Jackson et al didn't get out of the primaries is exactly the point. It had to be more that just seeing a black face run for office, it's not like Jesse et al spiked a big increase in the number of black voters or saw percentages in the 95% + range, or got some white people excited just because they were black.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos
But I think it's safe to say that based on his list of qualifications, against that of Hillary Clinton at the time, he wasn't necessarily the best candidate (on paper) to put through for the Democratic party.
So, if we subscribe to that thought, then one has to wonder why he was chosen. Are we saying that the nation is ready for a half black president before a woman? I don't know. That's why I think it's a good topic if we talk about the social aspect of it instead of throwing racial rhetoric (from both sides).
Yeah, I do agree this is fun to talk about.
We've seen primary candidates eventually blow past more "experienced" candidates before, I don't think that is a special thing in and of itself. The thing about Hilary is that she was more than just a female candidate, she was a politician with a lllooongg history in Washington and lots of baggage. She was also, along with McCain, the ultimate establishment candidate. I don't think that helped her in Iowa or New Hampshire. Her female-ness might have mixed in with that as well. This is where I think Obama's much maligned community organizer experience helped him greatly. He definitely knew how to get in the trenches and charm the locals while winning over their trust. Shaking hands, kissing babies and listening to people voice concerns while looking like he cares is a skill he finely honed over the years. LOL. He got paid to do it once upon a time. Once he won those first 2 primaries Hillary was off her game, and when she got back on it was too late... Obama's had ridden the momentum to a string of wins and she couldn't catch up, though she started winning again towards the end. Now I do think thrill of seeing a black person win helped him once he got the momentum going, but I can't see how it was an asset early on, especially since Hillary was actually polling ahead of him in communities of color at first.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos
And, factually, more blacks voted for Obama than historic counts dictate. Not by percentage, let's make that clear. For several decades extremely high percentages of blacks voted Democrat anyway. But, instead of throwing around the percentages, look how many numbers make up that percentage. 90% of 20 million is a lot more than 90% of 8 million... so it's not the percentage itself, but the number that comprises that percentage that should be looked at.
Yeas, I acknowledged that in my original post. Here's the actual number:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/us...vote.html?_r=0
"While the number of non-Hispanic white voters remained roughly the same, 2 million more blacks, 2 million more Latinos and 600,000 more Asians turned out. Compared with 2004, the voting rate for black, Asian and Hispanic voters increased by about four percentage points. The rate for whites declined by one percentage point."
"In 2004, according to the census, barely 60 percent of eligible blacks voted. In 2008, nearly 65 percent did (as did 66 percent of white voting-age citizens)."
Black voter participation went from 60% to 65%, about 2 million additional voters. Latino and Asian votes went up as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wnewberry22
1. I never said that Obama was entirely unqualified...just less qualified that Hillary
2. Obama was practically a political non-entity prior to the election.
3. The GOP NEVER EVER polled at 0% with any demographic.
4. Polling at 0% with ANY demographic, regardless of circumstances, is a big deal.
5. The only times this has ever happened, in this case 0% with african americans, is the only time in history an african american has run on a major ticket
6. Is it entirely coincidence or something more? It's worth discussing if racial issues are something American truly wants to move beyond.
I know this was not directed at me, but I do want to address a few points here.
1. True, in terms of experience
2. Not true. He was similar to a Bobby Jindal maybe... someone who was seen a a rising star in his party. Remember all the rumors he was going to run and the excitement it was causing? Remember him going on Jon Stewart at the height of the speculation and cracking that joke; "The only person more overhyped than me is you"? He was not a non-entity at all.
3.-5. True it is a big deal. But it did NOT happen the first time Barak ran for office. McCain got 4% of the black vote. Mitt Romney's zero percent support from blacks: Can he still win? - The Week. The 0% vote thing is STRICTLY a Romney phenomenon. I do think it is fair to say race probably has something to do with that, but it has to be more than just Obama being black since he was black last time too. I really do think we have to at least consider a lot of the racial code talk from the right for the past 4 years.
The other thing to note is that a lot of your argument seems to be premised on "well Obama is such a terrible president that is has to be something else keeping him in it, let's look at skin color." But the thing is the "terrible president" thing is an opinion that not everyone shares. It is possible some people just don't think he's been terrible. It's also possible that some people think he's been okay or mediocre or passable, but that Romney is not going to be any better. If you are not a participant in the right-leaning media loop, it is easy to hold other opinions outside "Obama is an utter abject failure in every way". LOL
Isn't that a bit of circular logic though? The only reason the others were brought up was to try to get at the degree to which Obama's blackness helped him. The only point was that if it was ONLY about blackness, then any black candidate would have inspired the kind of response Obama eventually got from the black community (and from liberal minded whites, for that matter). The fact that Jesse Jackson et al didn't get out of the primaries is exactly the point. It had to be more that just seeing a black face run for office, it's not like Jesse et al spiked a big increase in the number of black voters or saw percentages in the 95% + range, or got some white people excited just because they were black.
Yeah, I do agree this is fun to talk about.
We've seen primary candidates eventually blow past more "experienced" candidates before, I don't think that is a special thing in and of itself. The thing about Hilary is that she was more than just a female candidate, she was a politician with a lllooongg history in Washington and lots of baggage. She was also, along with McCain, the ultimate establishment candidate. I don't think that helped her in Iowa or New Hampshire. Her female-ness might have mixed in with that as well. This is where I think Obama's much maligned community organizer experience helped him greatly. He definitely knew how to get in the trenches and charm the locals while winning over their trust. Shaking hands, kissing babies and listening to people voice concerns while looking like he cares is a skill he finely honed over the years. LOL. He got paid to do it once upon a time. Once he won those first 2 primaries Hillary was off her game, and when she got back on it was too late... Obama's had ridden the momentum to a string of wins and she couldn't catch up, though she started winning again towards the end. Now I do think thrill of seeing a black person win helped him once he got the momentum going, but I can't see how it was an asset early on, especially since Hillary was actually polling ahead of him in communities of color at first.
Yeas, I acknowledged that in my original post. Here's the actual number:
"While the number of non-Hispanic white voters remained roughly the same, 2 million more blacks, 2 million more Latinos and 600,000 more Asians turned out. Compared with 2004, the voting rate for black, Asian and Hispanic voters increased by about four percentage points. The rate for whites declined by one percentage point."
"In 2004, according to the census, barely 60 percent of eligible blacks voted. In 2008, nearly 65 percent did (as did 66 percent of white voting-age citizens)."
Black voter participation went from 60% to 65%, about 2 million additional voters. Latino and Asian votes went up as well.
I know this was not directed at me, but I do want to address a few points here.
1. True, in terms of experience
2. Not true. He was similar to a Bobby Jindal maybe... someone who was seen a a rising star in his party. Remember all the rumors he was going to run and the excitement it was causing? Remember him going on Jon Stewart at the height of the speculation and cracking that joke; "The only person more overhyped than me is you"? He was not a non-entity at all.
3.-5. True it is a big deal. But it did NOT happen the first time Barak ran for office. McCain got 4% of the black vote. Mitt Romney's zero percent support from blacks: Can he still win? - The Week. The 0% vote thing is STRICTLY a Romney phenomenon. I do think it is fair to say race probably has something to do with that, but it has to be more than just Obama being black since he was black last time too. I really do think we have to at least consider a lot of the racial code talk from the right for the past 4 years.
The other thing to note is that a lot of your argument seems to be premised on "well Obama is such a terrible president that is has to be something else keeping him in it, let's look at skin color." But the thing is the "terrible president" thing is an opinion that not everyone shares. It is possible some people just don't think he's been terrible. It's also possible that some people think he's been okay or mediocre or passable, but that Romney is not going to be any better. If you are not a participant in the right-leaning media loop, it is easy to hold other opinions outside "Obama is an utter abject failure in every way". LOL
I'll only address the ones directed at me.
To hit on what Rathagos said...comparing Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to President Obama is a disservice to Obama himself. Obama was the first candidate that people saw as having an actual shot at anything which, IMO, energized the base and subsequently voter turnout. Historically minorities have had much poorer turnout figures compared to 08 and likely 12. Obama was and is a great politician...even those that dislike his policies will agree to that. I think that his race was a big factor but only as the secondary motivator. His political prowess was first and foremost because he came out as actually having a shot whereas sharpton and jackson were essentially laughing stocks. Obama's legitmiate chance at the presidency to me is what generated the substantial turnout on minority voters. So...to me his race wasn't the initial instigator...but it helped in solidifying him as the forerunner.
With regards to my "non-entity" statement...that may be a bit overstated. However, the rise of Obama in 2008 was remarkable. We all know Joe Biden's quote about Obama that seems to have gotten swept under the rug that was direct hit at Obama's race coupled with his meteoric rise.
With the percentages...McCain polled at 0% with Black voters during the Obama surge. He got 4% of the vote and Romney may well get a percentage as well but the polling number initially paralled Romney's. And again, I want to reiterate...I don't think race is the only factor that propelled Obama to his position. But to sweep it under the rug as a non-issue under the fears of being labelled a racist isn't fair either.
And I disagree with Obama but I've never claimed that he was a terrible president. I don't agree with his (and Bush's) application of Keynesian fiscal policy but that doesn't necessarily make him terrible...it just says to me that he hasn't been trained in economics. I was almost entirely apolitical until 2010, (when I graduated from my master in business school) when I saw these rampant applications of Keynesian fiscal policy being applied willy nilly. I went back and watched a lot of the coverage of the 04 and 08 elections and Obama's rise to me was perplexing considering the state of the economy and his lack of ANY experience worth mentioning. But the Keynesian econ is what got me into political observation...that is what made me pay a lot of attention to politics because historically it has proven, in the US and Europe, to cause huge problems in terms of long term solvency and fiscal flexibility even in autonomous currency issuers like the US.
The other thing to note is that a lot of your argument seems to be premised on "well Obama is such a terrible president that is has to be something else keeping him in it, let's look at skin color."
There has been a lot of ignorance on forums (such as this) where people are accused of being racist if they don't re-elect Obama. I don't think that can be argued. It's sad, but true. Some of the shame of that is that there probably really are people that won't vote for him just because he's 1/2 black (or black by appearance). I try to be factually based when I speak of why I'm voting for or against someone when asked (but I'm probably not as articulate as I'd like to be! ). But, I still have been called racist for no other reason than I disagree with his policies and voted against him this time (even though I voted for him in 2008).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinawina
But the thing is the "terrible president" thing is an opinion that not everyone shares. It is possible some people just don't think he's been terrible. It's also possible that some people think he's been okay or mediocre or passable, but that Romney is not going to be any better.
I think what you said is a great point, Tina! There's an invisible line in the sand for every possible issue to be discussed. Some people stand completely on the left of the line (regardless of issue), some people completely to the right. There are also those that will cross the line back and forth (several times in some of the more complex issues) on the same issues. So, while some think he's been an absolutely horrible president, others think he's okay. What stands out to me, though, is that no one thinks he's an incredible president... and, to my thinking, if the best thing one can think of (even the largely liberal-controlled mainstream media) is that he's either "better than the alternative" or "okay", then he's really not that good. (My opinion! lol)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinawina
If you are not a participant in the right-leaning media loop, it is easy to hold other opinions outside "Obama is an utter abject failure in every way". LOL
This is a good point, too. The right-leaning media loop consists almost solely of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. The left-leaning media consists of CBS, ABC, NBC (important to note that the only stations that reach those without cable are liberal-leaning), CNN, MSNBC. Scripps News Service (one of the largest newsprint services is liberally-inclined), and the largest percentage of mainstream TV and movie actors who cross the line to tell everyone their political leanings.
That's a little lop-sided in my opinion, but it is what it is. But, I find it hard to believe that such a large percentage of conservatives (or conservative-leaning independents, like myself) watch Fox or listen to Limbaugh to reach such a vast base as those opposed to Obama and his policies.
As a side note - something to think about: When Bush was in office, the mainstream news media outlets kept a daily running body count of U.S. servicemen/women (and civilians) killed in the wars... daily. But, how often do you hear about it under the Obama term in office? The war is just a passing subject. Media/news bias? Or just coincidence since we know more people have died since Obama took office?
(Sorry this is off-topic, but you came up with some great points! LOL )
To hit on what Rathagos said...comparing Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to President Obama is a disservice to Obama himself. Obama was the first candidate that people saw as having an actual shot at anything which, IMO, energized the base and subsequently voter turnout. Historically minorities have had much poorer turnout figures compared to 08 and likely 12. Obama was and is a great politician...even those that dislike his policies will agree to that. I think that his race was a big factor but only as the secondary motivator. His political prowess was first and foremost because he came out as actually having a shot whereas sharpton and jackson were essentially laughing stocks. Obama's legitmiate chance at the presidency to me is what generated the substantial turnout on minority voters. So...to me his race wasn't the initial instigator...but it helped in solidifying him as the forerunner.
With regards to my "non-entity" statement...that may be a bit overstated. However, the rise of Obama in 2008 was remarkable. We all know Joe Biden's quote about Obama that seems to have gotten swept under the rug that was direct hit at Obama's race coupled with his meteoric rise.
With the percentages...McCain polled at 0% with Black voters during the Obama surge. He got 4% of the vote and Romney may well get a percentage as well but the polling number initially paralled Romney's. And again, I want to reiterate...I don't think race is the only factor that propelled Obama to his position. But to sweep it under the rug as a non-issue under the fears of being labelled a racist isn't fair either.
And I disagree with Obama but I've never claimed that he was a terrible president. I don't agree with his (and Bush's) application of Keynesian fiscal policy but that doesn't necessarily make him terrible...it just says to me that he hasn't been trained in economics. I was almost entirely apolitical until 2010, (when I graduated from my master in business school) when I saw these rampant applications of Keynesian fiscal policy being applied willy nilly. I went back and watched a lot of the coverage of the 04 and 08 elections and Obama's rise to me was perplexing considering the state of the economy and his lack of ANY experience worth mentioning. But the Keynesian econ is what got me into political observation...that is what made me pay a lot of attention to politics because historically it has proven, in the US and Europe, to cause huge problems in terms of long term solvency and fiscal flexibility even in autonomous currency issuers like the US.
Once again, I was only speaking to the blackness factor, not saying that Jessee Jackson, Sharpton or Chisolm were ideal candidates or equal to Obama in any way in that respect. In research terms, I was just isolating the variable.
Anyway I agree with the entire bolded paragraph! So it looks like we are in about the same place. I don't think race was the most important factor... his political skills got him in the game.... but once he took off his race turned into more of an asset than a debit among democrats anyway. I've never argued his race was a non-factor, just that it wasn't the only one or even the most important one. I think it has some real advantages and some serious negatives, but he wouldn't have been able to access the positives at all if he wasn't good at what he was doing.
As far as his rise being perplexing in terms of economic policy... it's only perplexing if you assume a big swath of the electorate has any idea what Keynesian policies are, and once more that all the ones who know have an unfavorable view of it. Neither of these statements is true. There are people who think what he's done is good or at least passable under the circumstances, and people who have no idea of any larger economic theory whatsoever who think the same thing. In fact I would say most people couldn't name a single economic theorist if you held a gun to their head. That may be more of an explanation along those lines than the fact that he's black.
There has been a lot of ignorance on forums (such as this) where people are accused of being racist if they don't re-elect Obama. I don't think that can be argued. It's sad, but true. 2008).
I think this is absolutely true, and totally unfair as a practice. Not everyone who does not like Obama is racially motivated to feel that way. He leaves plenty of room for criticism like practically every president before him. I'm pretty cynical when it comes to presidents. LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos
What stands out to me, though, is that no one thinks he's an incredible president... and, to my thinking, if the best thing one can think of (even the largely liberal-controlled mainstream media) is that he's either "better than the alternative" or "okay", then he's really not that good. (My opinion! lol)
That's fair I think. He's been heavily criticized from both sides. There are people on the far left that REFUSE to vote for him, mostly over drone strikes and things of that nature. Honestly I think he made too many promises all around he could not possibly keep and ended up disappointing everyone. I do think he's done some things well and other things not so well, so I guess I occupy the muddy middle on Obama. I'm very disappointed in his unwillingness to build relationships up with the other side to get stuff done. He has not tried to make the personal connections one needs to make to move mountains in Washington.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rathagos
As a side note - something to think about: When Bush was in office, the mainstream news media outlets kept a daily running body count of U.S. servicemen/women (and civilians) killed in the wars... daily. But, how often do you hear about it under the Obama term in office? The war is just a passing subject. Media/news bias? Or just coincidence since we know more people have died since Obama took office?
(Sorry this is off-topic, but you came up with some great points! LOL )
I'd actually like to talk about this more since I don't know if I've ever really gave the "media bias" thing much real thought. I mean I have given it some, but not in a long while. I guess there should be another thread for that? But yeah, MSM was no friend of Bush. At all. On that I agree.
Once again, I was only speaking to the blackness factor, not saying that Jessee Jackson, Sharpton or Chisolm were ideal candidates or equal to Obama in any way in that respect. In research terms, I was just isolating the variable.
Anyway I agree with the entire bolded paragraph! So it looks like we are in about the same place. I don't think race was the most important factor... his political skills got him in the game.... but once he took off his race turned into more of an asset than a debit among democrats anyway. I've never argued his race was a non-factor, just that it wasn't the only one or even the most important one. I think it has some real advantages and some serious negatives, but he wouldn't have been able to access the positives at all if he wasn't good at what he was doing.
As far as his rise being perplexing in terms of economic policy... it's only perplexing if you assume a big swath of the electorate has any idea what Keynesian policies are, and once more that all the ones who know have an unfavorable view of it. Neither of these statements is true. There are people who think what he's done is good or at least passable under the circumstances, and people who have no idea of any larger economic theory whatsoever who think the same thing. In fact I would say most people couldn't name a single economic theorist if you held a gun to their head. That may be more of an explanation along those lines than the fact that he's black.
Well, what really got me was the fact that his rise was huge despite not having economic experience. If you think about it...being the President of the USA is essentially like managing the largest corporation in the world. The USA matches a large corporation in as much as it has a protection source (military), it has human capital (citizens), it has a alpha and beta infrastructure (bigger and smaller cities), it has PR (the white house staff), it has advertising for itself (USPS and ARMY on Nascars), and it has a product to pedal to the world (Our currency and international support). Just as Apple or Cisco or Samsung produce their product...the US as autonomous currency issuers can basically issue our product as readily as we want and for what purpose we want. IMO, the person with command of this post absolutely MUST have experience in governing, management, or economic theory. To me, it just doesn't make sense otherwise.
But I'm happy to see we've met common ground on the bolded paragraph. Obama's race definitely wasn't the initiating factor...but to say that it played no role in accelerating it is just nuts. Moreover...what gets under my skin is, upon questioning this, you're labeled a racist. I just can't understand this....but oh well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
!!
). But, I still have been called racist for no other reason than I disagree with his policies and voted against him this time (even though I voted for him in 2008). 
