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.
What you overlook is what could have been said about this President had he actually been successful. The conspicuous absence of what the historians AREN'T saying about him is just as important as what they ARE saying. Context is key. The high expectations of hope and change turned into a lot of coulda woulda shoulda. And that's the point..... there's nothing there o really brag in this President about. If there was, they would have said it.
What you overlook is my direct question regarding Obamacare throughout your article.
You're heralding these people as experts on the matter of Obama's presidential history.
These experts have high praise for Obamacare.
Since you place so much faith in these historians, I assume you are an ardent Obamacare supporter.
Otherwise you're just cherry-picking Politico.
I feel that History will view Obama much in the same way I currently view him:
More inept than Carter.
More corrupt than Nixon.
Truly great leaders prove their worth, and others will follow. Truly lousy leaders point the finger of blame at anyone BUT themselves.
Barack Obama could have been the former, but instead, he chose to be the latter. He had virtually EVERY MSM outlet giving him unprecedented ground cover from Day 1, but he squandered that away by failing to take ownership. Even when he was confronted with his lies -- you choose which one -- he slithered away, secure in the knowledge that the MSM was going to be there, like a favorite blanket to a child.
What you overlook is my direct question regarding Obamacare throughout your article.
You're heralding these people as experts on the matter of Obama's presidential history.
These experts have high praise for Obamacare.
Since you place so much faith in these historians, I assume you are an ardent Obamacare supporter.
Otherwise you're just cherry-picking Politico.
I recognize, just like everyone else, that the historians herald Obamacare. But that doesn't change the fact that the general consensus is that, in totality, he's just mediocre. If you think they come to a different conclusion (better than mediocre), then feel free to show us how you came to that conclusion.
I feel that History will view Obama much in the same way I currently view him:
More inept than Carter.
More corrupt than Nixon.
Truly great leaders prove their worth, and others will follow. Truly lousy leaders point the finger of blame at anyone BUT themselves.
Barack Obama could have been the former, but instead, he chose to be the latter. He had virtually EVERY MSM outlet giving him unprecedented ground cover from Day 1, but he squandered that away by failing to take ownership. Even when he was confronted with his lies -- you choose which one -- he slithered away, secure in the knowledge that the MSM was going to be there, like a favorite blanket to a child.
I admit that I thought he'd be a more competent and capable leader than he is. I certainly didn't vote for him, but with all the powerful forces working with him after the 2008 election, I thought he would be invincible. He squandered all of it.
I recognize, just like everyone else, that the historians herald Obamacare. But that doesn't change the fact that the general consensus is that, in totality, he's just mediocre. If you think they come to a different conclusion (better than mediocre), then feel free to show us how you came to that conclusion.
I admit that I thought he'd be a more competent and capable leader than he is. I certainly didn't vote for him, but with all the powerful forces working with him after the 2008 election, I thought he would be invincible. He squandered all of it.
Again.... most filibusters in history have been used against Obama. Can someone copy and paste it to this poster, he doesn't like me as I show his threads to be ill-conceived.
Again.... most filibusters in history have been used against Obama. Can someone copy and paste it to this poster, he doesn't like me as I show his threads to be ill-conceived.
You completely ignore the leadership factor when throwing around your filibuster argument. Its almost as if you forget that governance in a divided government requires more than demagoguery. It requires reaching out to make a deal whenever necessary. Read up on Lyndon Baines Johnson if you not sure what I'm referring to.
Filibusters do not exist in a vacuum. They exist when no other feasible and prudent alternative exists.
I recognize, just like everyone else, that the historians herald Obamacare. But that doesn't change the fact that the general consensus is that, in totality, he's just mediocre. If you think they come to a different conclusion (better than mediocre), then feel free to show us how you came to that conclusion.
Again - not debating the mediocrity of any presidency, just the article. Interesting read and an odd question to to ask historians about an unfinished term. I did enjoy Jeremy Mayer from George Mason predicting the future.
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.
