Really? You can’t glean the thread of log from the spot?
Was really happy about Obama coming onto the scene and being elected. He seemed smart and was a breath of fresh air. He was inspiring. He said he was going to bring people together. And have an administration that was more transparent than any other. All really good things.
Four years ago I was a little disappointed. His speeches didn’t resemble the reality. But still, I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt
I’ve become increasingly disappointed. So much so that if he were to be running again, I would want to give someone else the opportunity instead of him.
He’s still going to be president for 2 more years, but that doesn’t mean that I have to support him, certainly not the policies he’s enacted that I don’t agree with, like Obama care, nor the people that have joined forces with him.
Pretty obvious, if you ask me.
Only a smidgen of truth to that. Clinton did it, sort of. Reagan didn’t need to claim he was different, that was what Carter tried to use AGAINST him. Otherwise, candidates often run on “change”, but only Barack Obama actually claimed that he was not going to be the politics as usual guy. And even if you think all candidates do it to an extent, he actually made people believe it. Maybe the liberals don’t care because they knew it was hokum from the start, but the people who voted for him who normally don’t vote Democrat or don’t vote at all supported him because they actually believed he was different.
The ad is designed to remind those voters why they should continue to be cynical. And stay home.
adaher, if your opinions of Obama were the widely accepted opinions, he wouldn’t even have come close to winning in 2012. But he won big. Since then, even if his only concern is his legacy, he doesn’t have to worry about approval ratings – no one cares, years down the line, if a two-term president had approval ratings in the 40s in his second term.
Everyone claims they’re not the “politics as usual guy”. Whether or not the public believes it, this is something candidates absolutely have to say, and always do. Your selective memory is failing you here.
Who made the promise to bring people together? Who was going to have the most most transparent administration in history? Who raised his hand and said “pick me”, I can do these things?
I’m sure the ad will appeal to lots of women, because of course we all know women are idiots who are more interested in the substance of conservative advertising than in the law Republicans enact and the policies they want to adopt.
Barack Obama: “OMG! There are people involved in this who don’t agree with me or even like me? Why didn’t someone tell me it was gouging to be like this?”
It wasn’t as widely shared in 2012. Now it’s the consensus, mainly due to all the problems within his administration that he read about in the paper. Now he’s not considered honest, not considered a good leader, and not considered an effective manager of the federal government. The honesty part is the one that’s most contributing to his decline.
As for approval ratings and legacy, only one unpopular President has ever had a good legacy: Harry Truman. The rest that left office unpopular remain unpopular. The passage of years can sometimes give better insight, but most of the time the general feeling about a President’s success is established by the time he leaves office.
Obama’s waging a war right now and that could change how he’s viewed by the public. He has an opportunity to lead and so far he’s doing pretty well other than making his dumb promise to not use ground troops(which like all his other promises, are just words). the war will probably raise his approval rating. Although by preemptively throwing Joe Biden under the bus by saying he’s managing the Iraq war, maybe not. If the war succeeds, Joe Biden gets the credit.
To be fair, do you honestly think Obama anticipated that the Republicans would meet on Inauguration Night 2009 and decide to not cooperate with him on any issue?
OMG! Irrelevant! His promises were not all policy promises. They were process promises and behavioral promises. He had total control over that and reneged on almost all of it. Pointing to the fact that he kept most of his policy promises is not only irrelevant, but contradicts the argument that the GOP stymied him.
None of these are factual statements, and further, besides the point – Obama doesn’t care (and doesn’t need to care) about opinion polls, at this point. He can govern for achievement, or for legacy, but he doesn’t need to worry about polling, as far as either is concerned.
Complete bullshit. GHW Bush left office pretty unpopular, and now he’s thought of as a pretty solid president. Even Nixon has been rehabilitated in many ways, in terms of his achievements. LBJ’s legacy is extremely mixed, but he’s widely praised for his domestic achievements.
I think this has been blown way out of proportion. When either McConnell or Bohner said that it was their goal to meme him a on-term President, that was both honest an unsurprising. Do you think the leadership in 2001 was rooting for Bush to serve two terms?
The GOP has been an unhelpful clique of bratty children for the past 8 years who have refused to even contemplate cooperation or bipartisanship. I don’t really begrudge Obama’s difficulties getting things done given the attitude and behavior of the House. I think in 2008, we all expected it would be a tough fight but no one really understood how unconcerned with actual governance the republicans would be.
I’m sure you aren’t ignorant of the polling on the specifics of his job performance. I’ve cited them often enough. And approval=political capital. Unpopular Presidents are ignored Presidents. Sure, Obama wants to govern for achievement. What do you think he’s doing right now to achieve that?
LBJ was an utter disaster. He could pass ten civil rights bills and new entitlements, he could have ended poverty for all time. He still killed 2 million Vietnamese and 50,000 American soldiers in the most mismanaged war of all time. This is one case where the more radical left had it right, while the mainstream left is still out to lunch.
Bush 41 looks good mainly because his son made him look good by comparison. And OBama’s doing a heck of a job making GWB look better. The man’s never been more popular. But neither are going to ever be anything more than mediocre Presidents. Truman went from poor to good. Bush 41 went from medicore to maybe kinda okay. And I dare say that Obama isn’t a tenth the man Bush 41 was.
Right now, trying to get Democrats as much as they can in the midterms. After that, probably action on immigration. He’s well aware that there’s nothing he can do with regards to working with a Republican-controlled House.
He accomplished one of the greatest domestic achievements in American history, while also presiding over perhaps the worst foreign entanglement. That’s a pretty mixed legacy. You’re way, way off if you think Civil Rights wasn’t as important in a positive way to America as the Vietnam war was in a negative way.
No, he looks good because he was a mostly pragmatic, measured, and moderate leader. A lot like Obama, actually.
Totally ridiculous, and just further crap that proves how completely incapable you are of talking about Obama in any manner without your extreme personal dislike for the man leaking through.