If Obama left office right now, I suspect his legacy will be that of a middling caretaker president who had the misfortune to be presiding over a period of particularly intense partisan division.
So, neither particularly good nor particularly bad, but viewed in extreme terms during his tenure because of partisan politics.
I also loathe “make us look weak” – it makes foreign policy sound like the posturing of a bunch of teenage boys. Normal adults don’t care about looking weak – they care about being weak.
It’s all relative. I’m not afraid of sharks if I’m standing on the beach. Get me in the water however…
I thought it self evident in my post I was speaking mainly about the ME.
With Russia, I’d say there is a mutual respect with what we could do to each other militarily wise.
To analogize: If Florida were its own country and a trusted ally of Russia and the US decided to annex Florida, Russia wouldn’t do a damn thing except lay back and watch that train wreck.
Furthermore, bullies usually only tend to be bullies to people who are weaker than they are.
What was it they said when Clinton took any military action? Oh yes… “He’s wagging the dog!”
Yes, of course, either every single country in the world including Russia views us as monsters, or not. It couldn’t possibly be the case that nuclear-armed Russia doesn’t give much of a shit what we do while we terrorize the skies of weaker countries with robot killers piloted from somewhere around Las Vegas. Exclude the middle much lately? Yeah, we know, you have to be the pragmatic moderate contrarian or whatever. You could try a little harder.
And Eisenhower as a great president? He gets to own the U2 incident, failing to address McCarthyism, and had a mixed record, at best, on civil rights, and frequently authorized CIA attempts to overthrow legitimate foreign governments. I shudder to think how his record would have fared in the partisan climate of today’s politics.
Which, ironically, comes from the book “Wag the Dog”, in which the President is SPECIFICALLY George H W Bush
Pure nonsense. Much of his weakness as a leader is that he’s been willing to “compromise” so much - because when dealing with the Republicans, “compromise” is always just giving them everything in return for nothing. He’s spent years caving in to them over and over, and it never gets Obama anything in return from the Republicans but yet more demands and more hate.
What Obama and the Democrats need to learn to do is to never compromise with the Republicans, because it just doesn’t work. The Republicans are dishonest, dishonorable and disloyal; they neither keep their bargains nor do they have any interest in the welfare of the nation.
Of course you can. America is a bully and a coward; we attack the weak, but flinch away from confronting anyone who can fight back. Russia can fight back, therefore they know we’d never confront them - and that’s leaving out their nukes, which render the issue moot.
There’s a lot of historical forgetfulness going on today. When I asked my Tea Party colleague who his favorite presidents were, he said Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon and Reagan. All presidents who would have been chased out of Washington with torches by today’s GOP.
Makes sense, the economy’s been in the toilet for the entirety of Obama’s term. Most people probably had better standards of living under Bush, even if he was a walking disaster.
If only the U.S. was blessed with the leadership of a Putin. Or an Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi! That guy gets shit done.
That’s fair and balanced!
Not true at all. He’s let his friends plunder the country and blundered into an invasion of Ukraine that trashed Russia’s international reputation and made the rest of the world reluctant to invest in the country. Although put that way I can see why conservatives admire the guy. They loved the idiot who did that to the U.S.
A lot of people do have the memories of goldfish, but GDP has been growing since the end of 2009 and the economy has regained the jobs that were lost. And the housing market fell apart in 2007, which didn’t help a lot of people’s lifestyles.
Yeah, I can’t fault Obama for economic management, although you have to give credit to who controls the purse strings too. Given the last three years, plus the Clinton years 1995-2000, I bet you’d find that the economy performs best when REpublicans control Congress and there’s a Democratic President.
As for Obama being the worst since WWII, no. Bush was worse. I don’t think it’s short memories or the new guy always being the worst though. I think it’s incompetence combined with indecisiveness. Bush was incompetent but decisive and always sure of his course, and sneered at his critics when he bothered to acknowledge them at all. Americans admire a strong horse and Bush does better in this poll than Obama because in spite of how bad he was, he was strong.
I think another issue with Obama that fosters partisan hatred is the fact that he’s a very overtly partisan President. I’ve never heard a President spend more time explicitly attacking the other party the way he does. When you show off that kind of awful diplomatic skill of course people are going to hate you. What Republican could possibly like Obama when he’s always on the attack against them?
In case you haven’t noticed, Putin is doing a pretty good job of flexing Russia’s muscles. They’ve upstaged the US in Syria & the Ukraine, and will most likely do so in Iraq too. At this rate, there’s a pretty good chance of Russia becoming a major world power again. That’s some good leadership, there.
Also, I think we need to step back and separate the issues of character and performance*. As a person, I agree that Obama is better than Bush ever was, but as a leader, I’d have to say Bush edges out Obama. Both are dreadful compaired to either Reagan or Clinton, however.
Now that you mention it, this is an excellent point. Obama may pay lip service to the idea of compromise, but then he turns around and demeans the Republicans, thus losing any chance of real compromise .
I don’t buy this. How has he demeaned them, beyond pretty standard political criticism? And how does this compare to “YOU LIE!” and the like from Republican office-holders?
Take a look at what they were really asking. They asked who is the worst president. They didn’t ask the respondents for an assessment, such as “On a scale of one to ten…” or anything like that. If they had asked that exact same question in August 1974 who do you think the “winner” would be?
I have great confidence that asking this at any point in history, regardless of the personal merits or flaws of any particular president, the vast majority of respondents would answer with whoever committed the most recent scandal or whoever was the most recent opposition president. And I am certain that our next President will be the Worst Person in History, as well. And probably the one after that, too.
This is laughable. The Republicans made it their #1 priority to oppose anything the President did before he even took office. Crossing the aisle to support one of the President’s issues is tantamount to political suicide in the GOP. They constantly question his own citizenship and attack his patriotism. They even go after his wife for having the audacity to encourage exercise and healthy eating habits. Gee, I wonder why he isn’t sucking up to them more?
It’s not Presidential. Typically the President has people who do this for him. Sure Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi’s rhetoric is far more heated, but Obama has taken the unprecedented step of attacking Republicans after agreeing to compromises with them, which is just awful diplomacy. Imagine signing SALT 2 and then Carter going off on the Soviets for not agreeing to an even better treaty at the press conference announcing it? That’s the kinda dumb shit he pulls.
They did the same thing to Clinton. He handled it quite well, actually. He beat them politically then forced them to the compromise table.
If Bill Clinton can find a partner in Newt Gingrich, Barack OBama can negotiate with the much more decent John Boehner.
Boehner doesn’t have control of his caucus the way Gingrich did.