You could credit that just as much to Nikita Khrushchev.
Nope. You’ve got Spike Lee, for example, who was already mentioned in this thread. And whenever I hear people say that we’ve finally got a capable President – long before he even stepped into office – I can only conclude that this adulation has gotten way out of hand.
That’s fair, but remember, the implication of these remarks is that they’re made largely in comparison. Obama has a pretty low bar to clear. I mean, Terry Schiavo, in her last days, would have been more capable than Bush.
I’m not sure Spike Lee is representative of anyone but himself these days.
He assumed the mantle of Messiah. Are we so out of line to expect him to deliver as much?
I think not.
Cite? Seriously, I want a cite for this. When did Obama himself EVER claim to be the answer to all prayers? He’s been nothing but upfront about the fact that cleaning up the Bush mess is going to be nothing but hard work, on his part and on ours. Give me just one actual, citable quote (IN CONTEXT) that he has ever claimed to be some sort of messiah.
Celebrities are always making ridiculous comments about politics, so Spike Lee is hardly representative of Americans in general.
As for the comment that “America finally has a capable president” does that really seem so unrealistic or pie in the sky? We should have a capable president, it’s an important job. I think many people feel that we have had an incapable president for 8 years and are ready for some competence. Reflief that the worst presidency in at least the last 100 years has come to an end is hardly messianic.
Negotiating, cool, collected, that’s for sissies. A true American macho man would have said to Kruschef “bring it on!” and started bombing away. Just ask W.
Nailing Marilyn Monroe does not count as something great? Really? It sounds pretty impressive to me.
Yeah, but this is the guy who sued Spike TV, claiming they were capitalizing on his fame. :rolleyes: He’s not exactly the brightest crayon in the box.
I’ve noticed that when conservatives are inspired it is considered patriotism, but when liberals are inspired it is called delusional.
Obama has already said that the fixes will take time. He has a handle on the scope of the economic mess. It will take time. Hopefully the people will never find out how dangerous this mess is. Part of our systems success relies on the people having faith in the system and in the currency.
He has taken steps to close Gitmo. That is a great thing .
I think the main reason people won’t be disappointed is that voters pretty much knew what the countries problems are, and pretty much know the direction Obama is taking in working towards solving them. Maybe not everything he does will work, but people can at least be reasonably sure that he will work towards specific things and if not make a lot of progress, at least take expected action.
Where as with Bush, the major course of his Presidency was changed after the election with the events of 9/11. Winning the second election probably had less to do with actual satisfaction of his job than with the notion that we were already committed to a certain course and had to stick it out. A lot of the things Bush did were reactions to a new set of problems and imagined potential problems that were not part of his campaign.
So I don’t think Obama will fail to meet expectations unless he changes his stated agenda, fails to take action, or encounters a major new problem.
True, but that’s irrelevant to the question at hand… namely, whether people are having ridiculously high expectations of Barack Obama. There is no “Idiots excluded” clause in that claim.
Besides which, I’d hardly call Spike Lee an isolated situation. On Inauguration Day, for example, I heard someone say that Barack Obama was the first real President that the country had in a century. This was before the man was even sworn in!
Some would say that all of this adulation – all the commemorative plates, the Barack Obama coins, the “Spider-Man Meets Barack Obama!” comic books – exist simply because he’s the first black President. Sorry, but I don’t buy it. Except for the occasional use of the word “historic” in all this advertising – a tangential reference to his ethnicity at best – there’s no indication that he’s simply being honored for being the first black President. And even if that were true, I daresay that while this occasion is truly historic, the degree of adulation being offered is way out of proportion.
Heck, where are the words of caution? When was the last time you heard someone point out that if Barack Obama does poorly, this could actually be a historical embarassment? That’s a legitimate concern no matter who gets elected, yet it appears to have been forgotten amidst all this hoopla.
I wholeheartedly agree that this is a historic occasion for the USA. Even as I say that though, I remind myself that if he winds up embarassing the country – a prospect that any dispassionate observer would have to acknowledge – then will we still look back at this period with fond memories?
When the man had not even served a single day as President of the USA… yes, it is unrealistic. Completely so.
Of course, we should. Nobody denies that. The question is whether it’s fair to say that BARACK OBAMA is a capable President, and you can’t make that judgment before he actually steps into office.
Maybe if he stopped beginning his sentences with “verily…”.
Spider-Man has a history of featuring real-world characters and events, and with Obama there was a certain amount of “payback” involved. Ultimately, though, I’m sure they realized it was a good way to sell comic books.
The thing is that “doing poorly”, for a President, doesn’t mean the same thing nowadays that it did back in January 2001.
I think that’s what part of the current euphoria is about. Many people are just so glad about finally having a President who is not Bush, and who is substantially different from Bush, that it feels as though Obama has already achieved something significant.
It’s the same sort of thing, only perhaps more so, that many Americans felt with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. Even those of us who strongly criticize much of what Reagan did recognize that many Americans viewed him, and still view him, as having produced a big improvement simply by being not Carter.
And continuing to do so will be one of his biggest jobs.
And when was the last time that Spidey met a President before the man had even taken office?
He met the Beatles, but this was after the Beatles had alread achieved superstardom. He has met political officials before, but typically only in passing. I don’t recall a single comic wherein any such politico was the principal character in the storyline (apart from Spider-Man himself). Heck, in the aforementioned comic, Barack’s face occupies most of the cover, pushing the webhead himself into the background!
Let’s not pretend that this “Spider-Man Meets Obama” comic is at all comparable to his “history of featuring real-world characters.” It isn’t.