Sorry, Liberal. I posted my comments about farce without seeing your post. I’ve not doubted your words about your feelings about Obama. I had just given up on their believing you.
I’ve started to make some changes too.
I dunno. I admit I see some evidence of tongues held in cheek in some of Lib’s Obama posts, but my irony meter can be a little sensitive at times .
At any rate, I agree with underlying point that Lib made here (also quoted in the OP). Obama’s conciliatory instincts reflect either political genius insofar as he shifts the discourse in Washington, or his skill set is tragically ill-matched for our day and is more attuned to the less partisan 1970s.
Of course in reality Obama is what he is: in Illinois I understand that he was able to shape some rather impressive bipartisan feats. Whether he can do that now remains to be seen. But surely the fact that he’s taking office amidst the intellectual and moral collapse of both the Republican party and modern conservatism has to offer certain opportunities.
The time is ripe for sensible centrism and a strong, level-headed, low-drama evaluation of the problems facing the country such as medical care finance, energy and CO2 policy and of course the financial/regulatory debacle of this decade. It just doesn’t make sense for the executive branch to keep its head embedded in sand.
I confess that I’m prudently optimistic and even somewhat psyched about the country’s prospects, once we recover from the recession.
Thank you and God bless the United States of America.
As long as Liberal isn’t talking about the non-coersion princible for 19 pages I’m happy.
Yup, really.
That’s the trouble with parody of liberals - you can’t make it up fast enough.
Like I’ve said before, that’s the fun thing about debating liberals on the SDMB - no matter what you accuse them of, there will always be someone along to prove you right.
Regards,
Shodan
(my emphasis).
I think **Shodan **needs a hug. Volunteers?
I’m sure he wouldn’t want a hug from anyone here. He might get the liberal.
Given this post, all I can say is that I’m sorry for doubting you. I hope that Obama lives up to all the hope you have for him.
No, Zoe. It’s not that he’s from Chicago, not that he’s a Democrat, and not that he’s from Illinois. It’s that it’s his senate seat the Governor was trying to sell. It’s that he’s about to become President, so the Governor thought he could strongarm a deal with him. It’s that he’s already had to make a statement to the Feds, and his employees’ voices are on the tapes. You don’t have to be guilty of something to be entangled. If my husband cheated on our taxes without my knowledge, I’d be entangled. If I inadvertently witnessed a murder, I’d be entangled.
Entangled ≠ guilty. You would think that someone who claims to be an English teacher would know that.
The point of my comment was exactly that…guilt and entanglement are not the same thing, and that Obama has seen enough corruption to know that many people are not pure of heart. One doesn’t have to be guilty oneself to understand that, especially someone who has been around the block in Chicago politics for the last 20 years or so. What is he, stupid?
Thanks, Sarahfeena. And again, thanks for asking. It gives me a very convenient cite if needed in the future. 
Well Lib if you are whooshing us you at least are really good at it! No, I believe you. And I can respect your POV even if I do not quite share it.
I’ll dispute your sense that any criticism of him is saying that we want “to chuck it all and say, ‘Fuck it. Let’s get Sarah Palin in there!’” … many of us agree with your general sense that he is the best we’ve seen. We have every intention of doing more than giving him a chance. But among Obama’s strengths is that he can deal with divergent opinions, be it as part of his inner circle team, or among his supporters, or among those who could not quite be called supporters.
You may actually indeed feel that “we should shut the fuck up” and let him lead but I have never gotten the sense that such is what he wants. He wants the discourse. He fears not the criticism.
Perhaps you should emulate him a bit more?
I agree with this. If there is one quality that Obama does not have, it is fear. And I think he respects the American people enough to listen to our fears and concerns.
I’m not sure I know Obama well enough to know if he is as kind and good-hearted as Liberal thinks he is. Frankly, I tend to think he has the hard edge you need to be sucessful as a politician (he got this far, didn’t he?)
I’m pretty sure that if I were in Obama’s shoes, I don’t think I’d want to be held to such a standard as Liberal is holding him to. I’ll be impressed if he can do a tenth the job some folks seem to think he can.
Hear, hear! Well put, very well put.
Hard to argue with that. I do wish, however, that once his decision has been made (as with Warren, for example), people who ostensibly support him would then say something along the lines of, "Okay, I disagreed, but I respect that he heard me or heard people with my point of view, " rather than, “Obama lied! Why has he betrayed us this way!?”.
If I could do that, I’d be someone else. I am Who I am.
I think it’s possible to have both. One example is — and God, I’ll probably catch hell for this — Jesus, Whose heart overflows with kindness and compassion, and yet Who did not hesitate to pick up a stick and drive money changers out of His father’s temple. No, I’m not saying that Obama is the returned Christ or anything like that. “Christlike” does not mean “is Christ”. There are lots of Christians — and frankly, lots of people of other faiths and of no faith at all — who are both highly compassionate and tough as nails. I think it is a rather fatherly quality.
Of course those qualities can exist together, and actually, you are right that in these ways, we are all called to be like Jesus. But in that case, I wouldn’t consider the compassion a potential flaw. Usually, the wisdom and the toughness temper the compassion and prevent the person from being taken advantage of. I’ve personally seen no evidence that Obama’s overriding quality is his kindness, to the point where I think it’s worrisome. Which I think is why your post enumerating the areas of his weaknesses seemed a little…disingenuous, I guess, for someone who admires him so. I think you may be standing alone, at least among his supporters, in your fear that he might not be tough enough for the job.
I’m not thrilled with that fatherly quality when it means denying gays equal rights based on religious morality.
Further, if you want a compelling reason to trust or not trust him, I can point to his past drug use. An average person can’t get a security clearance with his level of past drug use. We’re giving him the highest level clearance a person can have.
I’m glad he’s president, but he’s hardly infallible based on some claim there’s a lack of evidence to the contrary.
This “let’s just wait and see what he does” attitude bothers me as well. We elected him, we’re allowed to expect results. He’s not the affirmative action president, is he?
To be clear, Sarahfeena, the flaws I listed are flaws in the potential only, not in the actuality. I do believe he is tough enough for the job. I was challenged to list flaws, and I did the best I could. I honestly cannot think of a single thing that I would proactively change about him. I’m even glad that he doesn’t agree with me 100%. Maybe I really am in the tank. If so, so be it. Y’all are just gonna have to brace yourselves.
It’s almost as though I can’t help but defend him. This is at least partly because I think it is all to easy to descend from helpful suggestions to spiteful criticisms, and it tends to formulate over time in the same way that a terribly messy house begins with a couple of misplaced and strewn random items.
Maybe it’s the case that we all have our roles, and that mine is to rein in what I perceive as slippage, while yours is to voice your criticisms. I would point out, however, that it is easy to distinguish a snipe from a contribution. The former is characterized by its lack of any suggestion having greater merit than what it tears down.
I also don’t like projection of relativistic ethics. By that I mean declaring that a decision of his was bad for no reason other than the fact that if he were in my shoes, he’d see things a different way. I heard that sort of argument from some people condemning, again, his choice of Warren. Someone tried to reach me on that level by asking me how I’d feel if Obama hypothetically selected Indian Hater Jackson to be Secretary of State, or something like that. In point of fact, Obama has all but ignored the plight of Indian nations, and I do not expect him to work toward their sovereignty and liberation. But he would if he were in my shoes.
Still in all, even though nothing would please me more than the vindication of my ancestors who foolishly trusted white leaders in the past, it is Obama’s job to uphold, protect, and defend the Constitution. I honestly do not know of anyone, not a single soul, who could do a better job than he at this time and in this place.
Did you distrust Clinton and George W.? Because they both used drugs in the past too.
And your last point seems to be a contradiction. We DO expect results, but we have to wait until he’s in a position to achieve them. I think sometimes in this environment people forget that Obama isn’t actually President yet.
Could you please cite where Bush admitted having used illegal drugs, or a news article mentioning his conviction for using illegal drugs? Thanks in advance.
Regards,
Shodan