Well, no liberals anyway. I think that FDR and JFK especially are vastly overrated and Obama is seriously one of the best Presidents since the 20th century. I am a flaming socialist democrat and I am both amused and disturbed at the blatant hagiography (bordering on delusions) people have of their administrations.
Please give examples.
There will be a test on Tuesday.
Well, there’ve only been two, so his statement is demonstrably correct.
Damned smart, for a foreigner. 
Sorry, I meant to say since the 20th century started. Or since the 19th century, whatevers.
Well, first, are you a liberal or a conservative? My comment was directed at liberals; I’m not especially interested in defending Obama to a conservative because of basic political philosophy differences, but I am willing to defend my claim that compared to the other Democratic presidents since the advent of the 20th century he ranks pretty highly. I’d put him before LBJ and Truman but after FDR, JFK, Carter, Clinton, and Wilson. Of course I also think that Nixon and Eisenhower were underrated.
I’m a Democrat.
Hillary would have been a better president. She would have not pushed through with UHC and spend political capital needlessly on a bill that was compromised from the start anyway. She would have been better at dealing with the Republicans. She would have focused on the economy and jobs creation much faster and with better results. Obama was an empty suit then. He is an empty suit now. A lot of people just got suckered in with the flowery rhetoric and the promise of a transformative presidency. Where is he with that, btw? Where’s the rising above the fray? Where is he with “transforming Washington DC?” It sounds absolutely ridiculous now, but a lot of you got thrills up your legs back then. Mwehehehe.
I don’t think a Hillary presidency would have been all that much different. If anything I think she would have been even quicker to fold than Obama has been in key moments. She might have been better at the backroom sort of politics just from years of observing Bill close-up, but the days when the parties wheeled and dealed behind closed doors seem to be over.
One potential difference–I think that if Obama had lost he would have stayed in the Senate, where he might have provided some much-needed leadership.
I think as far as their policy positions go, Hillary and Obama would not be all that different. As far as strategy is concerned, I think Hillary would have been more up to the challenge. Obama was saddled with his ‘post-partisan’ BS while Hillary was not. Hillary would have been more nimble and effective.
Being quicker to fold is not necessarily a bad thing if the tactical victory would be more costly in the long run. Case in point: Healthcare. The political capital he spent there didn’t get the results needed. Obama started with an already compromised version of the bill and the Republicans smelled weakness. If he had been any quicker at folding when the negotiations happened, how much more compromised would the Health Care Bill have been?
I absolutely agree. The noisy stuff he capitulates on allows him greater ability to get the quiet things done that matter. The Democrats don’t have as much ideological unity, but it allows them more flexibility in policy and sometimes both sides are wrong. I really do get the feeling Obama is directing Congress to the best course of action, and he has the brains to know when that isn’t necessarily the Democratic one.
Is he the best candidate for the Democratic Party? I don’t know or care. He is definitely the correct choice for president of this nation.
All righty then. First, let’s go over FDR then. I’m not going to cover the period of time from WW2 to his death or any other foreign policy partially because it’s not really possible to imagine how other Presidents would have done in that situation (unlike Truman, whom I’m willing to give high marks to or JFK where I think he was an incompetent fuckup) and we’re probably going to do nothing but get into arguments about it because I think that Hoover and Carter had some of the best foreign policy of this century. Carter was still a fuck-up though. Of course I don’t think that the Head of State and Commander and Chief roles a President performs should be taken into account when evaluating one or the other. But anyway.
Liberals have this idea in mind of FDR bringing in the New Deal as this well-defined package and programs that transformed American society. While it’s true that the New Deal had a bunch of stuff in it that was incredibly helpful to FDR at the time (Social Security, TVA, FDIC, so-forth) it pays to keep in mind a few things:
1.) The idea of the government investing in the economy directly with moneys was not some brand new idea that FDR had. A lot of it were continuations or extrapolations of programs by Hoover. Nor was FDR a Keynesian by any stretch of the imagination.
2.) While the Supreme Court did strike down some of his programs, two of them (the AAA and NRA) were extraordinarily bad ideas. He’s actually pretty damn lucky that the USSC came down on him for that, because the NRA probably would’ve sunk his Presidency.
3.) FDR had some blatantly anti-liberal ideas, such as cutting teacher’s wages and veteran’s pensions. He got way too much of a pass from liberal intellectuals in my opinion. Remember, FDR blasted Hoover for running deficits - you might have seen this just as a political ploy but see number four.
4.) Roosevelt Recession. Massive fuck-up. In fact I’d go as far as to say that this was the greatest domestic policy fuck-up in the 20th century. Yes, Roosevelt was weakened from the court-packing scheme and there were calls of austerity (sound familiar), but there was absolutely no reason for him to request and sign budget cuts other than ignorance. Of course I subscribe to Grey’s Law that sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.
5.) A large gap of doing little after his first few legislative years and WW2.
6.) Court-packing scheme. Finally, this is the reason why I brought up FDR in the first place. FDR met massive resistance, but not insurmountable resistance. FDR did exactly the kind of thing that people chide Obama for not doing; watched the helplessness of Congress, decided on a course of action without consulting Congress, sprung the plan as a surprise on Garner and other politicians, made a grievously bad error by concocting some half-assed justification (make the courts run more efficiently) and telling his Senate Committee stooges to uncritically parrot it in such a way that the Chief Justice was easily able to shut it down. And despite all that the court-packing scheme still could’ve been saved - a compromise scheme was concocted to expand the court size to two justices, easily enough to get Roosevelt what he wanted after the retirement of one of those. But in classic ‘my way or the highway’ he refused it and the plan went down in flames.
If Roosevelt hadn’t expertly led the U.S. through WW2 he would’ve in my eyes been, well, not a failure but a mediocre President. For the amount of political power he had well enough time to do more with the economy from that dead stretch of time from 1936 to 1939. But I like using him as an example because the court-packing scheme is a great counter-example to the Obama liberal criticism of ‘man, he should’ve fought harder’.
My analysis of Clinton is simpler. He wasn’t a bad President (I think his biggest missteps were being uncompromising on his UHC plan and the Assault Weapons Ban), it’s just that he got dealt a poor hand and during his first two years in office didn’t demonstrate anything that I would call genius or even inspired - unlike Obama. I don’t think that he was a great President by any means, just a good one whom we have no idea if he or she would’ve done better given slightly different circumstances. While he does deserve some major props for preventing the acceleration of income inequality and balancing the budget - though I highly doubt that he had 5-6 years foresight - the actual increase in the economy’s strength was out of his hands. I strongly think that in a post-WW2 economy the ratio of political power/economic power is probably the weakest in the hands of the President. If you want to credit someone for the good times of the economy, you need to thank Greenspan, Gore, or pre-1994 Gingrich since the Internet was the latter two’s babies.
Not to say that there isn’t some criticism on my end to be had of Obama. The bank bailouts and loans, while necessary, should’ve come with a pound of flesh. I also think that he underestimated his political capital and should’ve bargained harder with the Bush Tax cuts. Some of his foreign policy decisions where, while not mistakes in a realpolitik sense, unconscionable.
Okay…I’ve been meaning to read a biography of Roosevelt since I read Roosevelt’s Secret War. I’ll get back to you. 
Not to say that I actually supported the court-packing scheme. The U.S. Constitution sucks when it comes to the organization of the judiciary and I think that USSC opposition to his programs were more an artifact of conservative economic philosophy than principled objections (though I totally agree with them on the AAA and NRA), but if you’re going to go for a blatant power grab you gotta do it correctly. So Roosevelt gets a fuck-up from me both from going for a naked power grab and actually messing it up in the first place.
This is besides the point, but considering how blatantly undemocratic the U.S. court system is it causes me physical pain at how, all in all, they’ve been defenders of our rights well ahead of Congress and the Executive Branch. It implies rather unkind things about the system, representatives, and/or voters.
You mean that we elect popular personalities rather than good rulers and lawmakers?
I admire both of them. Obama may be too pragmatic and willing to compromise for my taste, but that posture may be best for the country. The key question is: Which would have a better chance of unifying the country? Does anyone remember the “good old days” when a President would get respect from both his own party and the opposition?
Amidst all the nattering some people may overlook that there is one reason and one reason only why Obama is denied general respect. He is a nigger. OTOH, were Hillary President, I’m sure we’d still be hearing all about the semen-stained dress.
What did Obama do that’s genius or inspired? A heavily compromised UHC bill that he got with a Democratic majority wasting tremendous political capital in the process? An economy that’s still sagging? What?!?
I seem to be getting a lot from Obama apologists that Obama would have shown himself to be the Messiah that they’ve longed for were it not for the Republicans. :smack: Being able to handle the opposition is part of the job. If he can’t handle the Republicans, it’s his failure.
I don’t recall this tooth spitting hatred by the Republicans of a Democratic President before Clinton, however.
What do you hold the Republicans responsible for, by comparison?
The stupid oppositionist stance that they’re taking. What’s your point?
That your attribution of “failure” requires a bit more thought.