What are Obama's biggest flaws?

[Palo Verde]

Most people here are happy to see Obama be elected as our next president.

But every president makes mistakes, major ones. And these are often seen, in retrospect, as because of some inherent flow in the man himself.

We can generally look back and see the flaw as apparent, even during the capaign. Clinton's libido lad him astray, which surprised no one. Bush's stubborness of seeing only what he wanted to see probably led to the Iraq debacle.

So what are Obama's flaw that will most likely lead to errors down the road?

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

He already told you, at the Al Smith dinner: sometimes, he's just a little TOO awesome.

[LilShieste]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

He already told you, at the Al Smith dinner: sometimes, he's just a little TOO awesome.

It's totally a legitimate flaw.

ETA: Obama talks a lot about reaching across the aisle, and bridging the gap - I just hope that he doesn't sacrifice actually getting things done, in lieu of that (i.e., realize when you've got about as good a compromise as you're going to get).

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by LilShieste

Obama talks a lot about reaching across the aisle, and bridging the gap - I just hope that he doesn't sacrifice actually getting things done, in lieu of that (i.e., realize when you've got about as good a compromise as you're going to get).

This, in my opinion. Frankly, I have my doubts that the Republicans are going to be willing to compromise at all. I think that they'll either demand that Obama do everything their way or they'll oppose every proposal, or that they'll concentrate solely on trying to sabotage his Presidency. Cooperation and compromise needs to be two ways for it to work.

[Palo Verde]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

This, in my opinion. Frankly, I have my doubts that the Republicans are going to be willing to compromise at all. I think that they'll either demand that Obama do everything their way or they'll oppose every proposal, or that they'll concentrate solely on trying to sabotage his Presidency. Cooperation and compromise needs to be two ways for it to work.

But how is the Republican's behavior a flaw of Obama?

[LilShieste]

Originally Posted by autz

But how is the Republican's behavior a flaw of Obama?

The flaw is: sacrificing progress in the name of bipartisanship.

[Enola Gay]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

He already told you, at the Al Smith dinner: sometimes, he's just a little TOO awesome.

Yes, but that flaw is completely offset by his greatest strength, his humility.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by autz

But how is the Republican's behavior a flaw of Obama?

The flaw being that I think he'll go along with it; that he'll essentially concede to most of what they demand. Because that's what happens when you "compromise" with people who refuse to compromise themselves.

[Captain Carrot]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

This, in my opinion. Frankly, I have my doubts that the Republicans are going to be willing to compromise at all. I think that they'll either demand that Obama do everything their way or they'll oppose every proposal, or that they'll concentrate solely on trying to sabotage his Presidency. Cooperation and compromise needs to be two ways for it to work.

Given his history in both Senates, I have a great deal of confidence in his ability to recognize when a deal is acceptable to him and both sides in Congress, and when he's not done negotiating yet.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

The flaw being that I think he'll go along with it; that he'll essentially concede to most of what they demand. Because that's what happens when you "compromise" with people who refuse to compromise themselves.

While I think his desire for consensus is legit, I don't think he's so stupid that he doesn't know his own bargaining position.

There were a handful of times on the campaign trail where Obama got a little full of himself. It didn't sink his campaign but it lead to a few missteps, like "You're likeable enough, Hillary," which came across as dismissive. He's an intellectually curious guy, seems very stable and doesn't have any big personal vices that the public is aware of right now, so that's about all that stands out.

[dalej42]

He can't get Clintonized in his first few months in office. Don't pick gays in the military as an issue. Make sure you don't have an attorney general who has an illegal nanny. Also, don't put Michelle in charge of reforming health care.

[MEBuckner]

Subject-verb disagreement?

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally Posted by MEBuckner

Subject-verb disagreement?

So can't you correct it? It hurts every time I scan the threads in GD.

[xenophon41]

Seconded. Correcting the the thread title would be a mitzvah.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally Posted by autz

So what are Obama's flaw that will most likely lead to errors down the road?

You really have to scratch to come up with something. But the clinging to guns and religion episode and calling a female factory worker "sweetie" (a self admitted bad habit") is indicative of being out of touch with the core feelings of the lower middle class who are sensitive to how they are spoken to by higher ups. So far no problem,but I expect this issue might come up several times in the next four years and start getting spun relentlessly by the media after the honeymoon.

[Palo Verde]

Yes, please fix my title. Either "What are Obama's biggest flaws? " or "What is Obama's biggest flaw?"

I don't care which, but make it pretty.

[ManiacMan]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

The flaw being that I think he'll go along with it; that he'll essentially concede to most of what they demand. Because that's what happens when you "compromise" with people who refuse to compromise themselves.

So he isn't going to be a good leader in your opinion.

[MEBuckner]

Looks like Marley23 beated me to the punch.

[ASAKMOTSD]

Originally Posted by The Flying Dutchman

...calling a female factory worker "sweetie" (a self admitted bad habit")...

That was actually a local TV reporter and he called to apologize afterward.

[Stoid]

Smoking. I don't believe he's quit, he's just hiding it.

[panache45]

His biggest flaw is that he's a consummate politician, in that he'll do or say anything to gain (or keep) the Presidency. Of course, this is the "flaw" that got him elected.

An example of this is his opposition to same-sex marriage. A lot of people suspect that he's actually in favor of it, but obviously if he took that side it might be politically damaging. Yet he knows that he's got huge GLBT support. So it's a double-edged sword.

Another possible flaw remains to be seen: how he deals with any kind of failure.

[Captain Carrot]

Originally Posted by panache45

His biggest flaw is that he's a consummate politician, in that he'll do or say anything to gain (or keep) the Presidency. Of course, this is the "flaw" that got him elected.

I don't know about that. Throwing Reverend Wright under the bus would probably have been seen to be a better move, but in retrospect, his speech about race in America is perhaps one of his finest ever. I don't think he just says whatever will get him the most votes; acknowledging Wright's influence on him was very risky.

Originally Posted by panache

Another possible flaw remains to be seen: how he deals with any kind of failure.

He hasn't won every race he's run in, you know.

[Marley23]

Originally Posted by Stoid

Smoking. I don't believe he's quit, he's just hiding it.

That isn't a secret, as he's admitted to bumming a smoke at times during the campaign. Regardless of politics one hopes that this transition period lets him quit without any caveats.

[Shayna]

Originally Posted by Der Trihs

The flaw being that I think he'll go along with it; that he'll essentially concede to most of what they demand. Because that's what happens when you "compromise" with people who refuse to compromise themselves.

::sigh:: One would think I haven't been posting ad nauseum about his reputation for consensus-building on these boards for the past 11 months.

Illinois Death Penalty
Lugar-Obama Nuclear Nonproliferation
Coburn-Obama Transparency in Government Act
The Lobby-Ethics Reform Bill

I'm on my way out to dinner, so I don't have time to copy and paste quotes. But read the links yourself -- they'll give you insight as to how Obama handles "compromise" and "resistance inside his own party".

If you really came away from this campaign believing that Barack Obama is a capitulator, then you haven't done your due diligence to learn about the man who will become your President on January 20th.

As for answering the OP, I think what will be perceived as his biggest flaw will be that he won't tow the Liberal Line and steamroll the Democrats' agenda through Congress. There will be a lot on the Left who will be angry about this, and may judge his presidency harshly because of it.

[LilShieste]

I was completely aware of those cases, Shayna - I just couldn't come with anything else.

[Marley23]

Obama's choice of Rahm Emanuel, his win over Alice Palmer years ago, and many of the details in the beginning of Newsweek's big campaign piece also argue against the idea of Obama as a wimp.

[jtgain]

The fact that he has fathered two black children.

[Kimstu]

That man's mouth gonna get him in trouble. His well-polished and thoughtful public speaking persona doesn't reveal how brutally sharp and dismissive he can be if he wants to. At some point, he'll get impatient with someone being willfully obtuse or obstructionist, and he'll mutter something under his breath with a nasty edge, and won't realize till too late that the mike was on.

And a lot of the public will temporarily stop seeing him as "brown Ward Cleaver" and suddenly view him as "scary black guy". It will be blown out of proportion, sure, but it will take him a while to live it down anyway.

Moral: Even smart guys should resist the temptation to be smart asses.

[AuntiePam]

Kimstu, I think if he does that while we're still basking in the afterglow, it'll be viewed (and appreciated) as "Finally! Straight talk from a politician! About damn time!" Like the "fucking light bulbs" thing from the Newsweek article. And like Joe Biden asking that Fox reporter if she was serious when she asked a particularly stupid question. That was so refreshing.

He'll have to be careful not to be condescending when he's talking to idiots. I saw a little bit of that in him.

Speaking of idiots, in Iowa we voted to amend the State Constitution to substitute "mentally incompetent" for "idiot", in the clause that prevents people who are mentally incompetent (formerly known as idiots) from voting. There's a funny piece about it here.

[Sevastopol]

He doesn't look likely to push the limits of what appears possible.

[Rand Rover]

His biggest flaw is that when thinking about a societal problem, he first thinks "what can the government do to help" instead of "is this something the government should be involved in helping."

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

His biggest flaw is that when thinking about a societal problem, he first thinks "what can the government do to help" instead of "is this something the government should be involved in helping."

Really? He doesn't seem to shy away from the prospect of cutting out unnecessary government involvement. Didn't you read his Sept. 22 speech? (pdf)

Originally Posted by Barack Obama

I am not a Democrat who believes that we can or should defend every
government program just because it's there. There are some that don't
work like we had hoped - like the Bush Administration's
billion-dollar-a-year reading program that hasn't improved our
children's reading. And there are some that have been duplicated by
other programs that we just need to cut back - like waste at the
Economic Development Agency and the Export-Import Bank that has become
little more than a fund for corporate welfare.

I understand there are parts of these programs worth defending and
politicians of both parties who will do so. But if we hope to meet the
challenges of our time, we must make difficult choices. As President, I
will go through the entire federal budget, page by page, line by line,
and I will eliminate the programs that don't work and aren't needed.

[pseudotriton ruber ruber]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Didn't you read his Sept. 22 speech? (pdf)

No, no, no. You quoted from "Barack Obama." What Rand Rover is concerned about is "Liberal Boogeyman Haunting Rand Rover's Fevered Imagination."

Get with the program.

[Liberal]

He has no flaws. He's God.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

What Rand Rover is concerned about is "Liberal Boogeyman Haunting Rand Rover's Fevered Imagination."

Oh, that guy! Yeah, that guy sucks. He's going to take away my paycheck and my rights and make children study the Koran in school. It's true, I read it in an Internet banner ad.

By the way, in the intervals of a 48-straight-hour stint in the office hopped up on caffeine, I have compiled the following lexicon for handy reference when translating Freeperese and the like. You may find it useful for identifying Obama's flaws.

The Anti-Obama Dictionary

Arab, 1. n. A Kenyan-American with no Arab heritage and no knowledge of Arabic who does not set foot in the Middle East until he's over 40. 2. adj. Not decent.

Inexperienced, adj. Never having served as Governor of Alaska.

Marxist, n. A moderate follower of the Chicago School of capitalist economics who favors a slight increase in the progressivity of the federal income tax.

Muslim, n. A baptized, churchgoing Christian who has lived in a Muslim country. Other prominent Muslims in history include St. Albert, Richard the Lionhearted, and Napoleon.

Terrorist, n. A law-abiding opponent of terror tactics who has ever had any acquaintance with anyone who ever used or advocated any form of illegal violence at any point in the past.


Feel free to contribute your own entries!

[Least Original User Name Ever]

Originally Posted by Liberal

He has no flaws. He's God.

You may or may not have someone up in the clouds that may take offense to that.

[furt]

In my limited observation, he does not respond well to sharp questioning. Modern presidents have to put up with loaded, leading, disrespectful, biased, stupid and aggressive questions from the media; it's part of the gig. The media love Obama now, but they love themselves more, and at some point are going to start being adversarial. He'll need to deal with that.

IMO, it was not a good first step to snub Fox news at his first press conference. Like them or not, they're the highest-rated news network, and they have the right to ask him questions.

[Clothahump]

The fact that he is far, far more interested in doing things to spread the wealth around than he is in doing things to create wealth in the first place.

[Shayna]

Originally Posted by Clothahump

The fact that he is far, far more interested in doing things to spread the wealth around than he is in doing things to create wealth in the first place.

This is so ironic, given that "creating wealth in the first place" is exactly what he meant when he said he'd like to see the wealth spread around more in this country.

Perhaps if you actually paid attention and read/listened in context you'd be better informed and less concerned about boogeymen that don't exist.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by pseudotriton ruber ruber

No, no, no. You quoted from "Barack Obama." What Rand Rover is concerned about is "Liberal Boogeyman Haunting Rand Rover's Fevered Imagination."

Get with the program.

Reported.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

Really? He doesn't seem to shy away from the prospect of cutting out unnecessary government involvement. Didn't you read his Sept. 22 speech? (pdf)

Your post does not respond to my concern. In high school debate jargon, there's no clash. Stated another way, just because he will eliminate government programs that don't work doesn't mean that, when considering a societal problem, he actually considers whether a government program is the right way to solve the problem.

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Stated another way, just because he will eliminate government programs that don't work doesn't mean that, when considering a societal problem, he actually considers whether a government program is the right way to solve the problem.

The fact that he clearly states his intention to eliminate government programs that aren't needed doesn't tell you anything about his reluctance to implement government programs that aren't needed?

So you're expecting that at the same time as he's going through the list of government programs and eliminating the unnecessary ones, he'll just reflexively create more unnecessary programs without even thinking about whether they're necessary in the first place?

Doesn't sound very likely to me. I mean, I've seen nothing to indicate that Obama doesn't think, and ISTM that pulling off a trick like that would require positively Bushian levels of non-thinking.

[Palo Verde]

After reading some of the Newsweek articles, I think his flaw is his coolness, which can veer into coldness. It's the negative side of the positive 'No Drama Obama' Sometimes he can be too unemotional.

[Rand Rover]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

The fact that he clearly states his intention to eliminate government programs that aren't needed doesn't tell you anything about his reluctance to implement government programs that aren't needed?

So you're expecting that at the same time as he's going through the list of government programs and eliminating the unnecessary ones, he'll just reflexively create more unnecessary programs without even thinking about whether they're necessary in the first place?

Doesn't sound very likely to me. I mean, I've seen nothing to indicate that Obama doesn't think, and ISTM that pulling off a trick like that would require positively Bushian levels of non-thinking.

What exactly do you mean by "unnecessary" as bolded above? I contend that you mean something like "not effective to help the problem the program is designed to help."

The fact that Obama will eliminate programs that are unnecessary (as that term is defined above) says nothing about how he thinks about societal problems and the best way to solve them. I contend that he automatically and reflexively thinks about how the government can help solve a societal problem before thinking about whether using the government at all is a good thing or not. This leads him to implement or expand government programs in a way that I deem unnecessary (in the sense that the government is doing something it is not necessary for the government to do). If he implements a new program or expands an existing one, then he could later cut it as unnecessary (under your definition) because the program turned out not to be effective to solve the problem, but this doesn't change the fact that he thinks the government is the proper vehicle to solve lots of societal problems.

[Sarahfeena]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

The fact that he clearly states his intention to eliminate government programs that aren't needed doesn't tell you anything about his reluctance to implement government programs that aren't needed?

So you're expecting that at the same time as he's going through the list of government programs and eliminating the unnecessary ones, he'll just reflexively create more unnecessary programs without even thinking about whether they're necessary in the first place?

Doesn't sound very likely to me. I mean, I've seen nothing to indicate that Obama doesn't think, and ISTM that pulling off a trick like that would require positively Bushian levels of non-thinking.

What Obama said in your quote was that he would eliminate those programs that aren't working or are not needed because they are duplicating what is being done in other programs. That is not the same as evaluating whether or not the government ought to be involved in solving a particular problem in the first place. And it doesn't imply that he won't find new problems for the government to solve.

[Shayna]

Originally Posted by Sarahfeena

What Obama said in your quote was that he would eliminate those programs that aren't working or are not needed because they are duplicating what is being done in other programs. That is not the same as evaluating whether or not the government ought to be involved in solving a particular problem in the first place. And it doesn't imply that he won't find new problems for the government to solve.

I understand your gut-level concern, given that you come from a perspective that is generally opposed to modern-day Liberal politics. It's easy to hear or read things through our own biased lens. I admit to occasionally being as guilty of that as the next person.

Given that, I would implore you to re-read that quote, trying not to do so with pre-conceived notions.

Originally Posted by Barack Obama

I am not a Democrat who believes that we can or should defend every government program just because it's there. There are some that don't work like we had hoped - like the Bush Administration's billion-dollar-a-year reading program that hasn't improved our children's reading.

Some government programs simply do not work as was hoped when they were implemented. Those are the programs that Barack Obama says he will not defend "just because [they're] there."

Originally Posted by Barack Obama

And there are some that have been duplicated by other programs that we just need to cut back - like waste at the Economic Development Agency and the Export-Import Bank that has become little more than a fund for corporate welfare.

There are other programs that are being duplicated, and which also need to be eliminated.

These are not the same programs as mentioned first. Your interpretation is flawed when you combine these goals as the same.

Originally Posted by Barack Obama

I understand there are parts of these programs worth defending and politicians of both parties who will do so. But if we hope to meet the challenges of our time, we must make difficult choices.

He's referring to the programs that have overlap, where parts of them are duplicating other efforts already being funded through other programs, and parts of them are defensible because they stand on their own. He gets that every program can't, or shouldn't, be slashed and burned in their entirety, but also recognizes that tough choices will have to be made by both sides. I think this is sensible.

Originally Posted by Barack Obama

As President, I will go through the entire federal budget, page by page, line by line, and I will eliminate the programs that don't work and aren't needed.

This seems pretty straight forward to me. It also coincides with his repeated calls for parents to step up, turn off televisions, read to their kids; fathers to be present in their children's lives; and communities to organize together to improve their own lives through activism and participation.

When more people get involved at the community level, government needs to step in even less because people are taking care of each other more. That's why he put a tool on his campaign website for people to organize within their communities.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/event...source=sidenav

Anyone can create an event. It's a quick and easy way to get other people involved in the things you care about. To get started, just fill out the form below.

. . .

What type of event should I select?
Community Service: Help bring the change we need to our communities

. . .

I would like to encourage you to sign up at barackobama.com, create a profile and get to know some of the good folks over there, and connect to those in your own neighborhood. There are local groups in every corner of this country. Won't you join us and give it a try? What's the worst that can happen?

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by Sarahfeena

What Obama said in your quote was that he would eliminate those programs that aren't working or are not needed because they are duplicating what is being done in other programs.

You're half right, or in other words, wrong. He did give an example of a program that was unnecessary because its results were duplicated elsewhere (the EDA funding). But he ALSO gave an example of a program that was just plain not working (the children's literacy thing).

And he stated quite clearly that both kinds of failed programs would be ones that he would cut.

I realize that many conservatives (not necessarily you, Sarahfeena, but I've noticed this elsewhere) are heavily invested in thinking that Obama is a stereotypical liberal devotee of bureaucracy who doesn't know how to solve any problem except by running to Nanny Government. But the fact is, he has explicitly disclaimed that identity, although some conservatives have become so hypnotized by their own "Obama-is-a-socialist" rhetoric that they don't realize it.

Now of course, he might not be telling the truth. We'll have to see how he actually governs. But at this point, trying to portray him as a government-bloating bureaucrat requires you to ignore or deny his own explicitly stated positions.

[Sarahfeena]

Originally Posted by Shayna

I understand your gut-level concern, given that you come from a perspective that is generally opposed to modern-day Liberal politics. It's easy to hear or read things through our own biased lens. I admit to occasionally being as guilty of that as the next person.

Given that, I would implore you to re-read that quote, trying not to do so with pre-conceived notions. Some government programs simply do not work as was hoped when they were implemented. Those are the programs that Barack Obama says he will not defend "just because [they're] there." There are other programs that are being duplicated, and which also need to be eliminated.

These are not the same programs as mentioned first. Your interpretation is flawed when you combine these goals as the same. He's referring to the programs that have overlap, where parts of them are duplicating other efforts already being funded through other programs, and parts of them are defensible because they stand on their own. He gets that every program can't, or shouldn't, be slashed and burned in their entirety, but also recognizes that tough choices will have to be made by both sides. I think this is sensible. This seems pretty straight forward to me. It also coincides with his repeated calls for parents to step up, turn off televisions, read to their kids; fathers to be present in their children's lives; and communities to organize together to improve their own lives through activism and participation.

I am totally confused as to what you are reading my post to mean. I never said that both points were referring to the same programs. I said:

Originally Posted by Me

What Obama said in your quote was that he would eliminate those programs that aren't working or are not needed because they are duplicating what is being done in other programs.

See the word "or" in there? My point was that neither or those things addresses the concern that he is not going to evaluate the necessity of the government solving those problems. I appreciate that he recognizes that some programs duplicate efforts, and that this is inefficient. That doesn't mean that he's going to look at these duplicate efforts and say, do we need either one of these programs addressing this problem?

Originally Posted by Shayna

When more people get involved at the community level, government needs to step in even less because people are taking care of each other more. That's why he put a tool on his campaign website for people to organize within their communities. I would like to encourage you to sign up at barackobama.com, create a profile and get to know some of the good folks over there, and connect to those in your own neighborhood. There are local groups in every corner of this country. Won't you join us and give it a try? What's the worst that can happen?

I'm not sure what you are asking me to do. If you suggesting that I use barackobama.com to figure out how to volunteer in my neighborhood, thank you, but I already do so through my church.

[tomndebb]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Reported.

prr, we really do not need to take the feuds over the quality of Obama's presidency to the personal level, just yet. (I'd like to say never but then someone will note that they want a pony.)

OTOH, R R, this does not quite rise to the level of direct personal attack or insult.

= = =

EVERYONE: let's be a bit less hostile to other posters and read with a bit thicker skin.

[ /Modding ]

[Sarahfeena]

Originally Posted by Kimstu

You're half right, or in other words, wrong. He did give an example of a program that was unnecessary because its results were duplicated elsewhere (the EDA funding). But he ALSO gave an example of a program that was just plain not working (the children's literacy thing).

And he stated quite clearly that both kinds of failed programs would be ones that he would cut.

You are half missing my point, or in other words, completely missing it. My point applies to BOTH his intention to cut programs that aren't working AND programs that are being duplicated elsewhere. In none of that is there an evaluation of whether the problem ought to be solved through government involvement. "Not working" doesn't necessarily mean "Government trying to solve this isn't working," it may very well mean "this program isn't working, let's see if we can figure out what kind of program WILL work." Nothing in that quote gives me confidence that he means the former and not the latter.