Robert Redford on CNN: Obama is not up to the challenge of leading this country

Not exactly the words he used, but that is an accurate paraphrasing of what he said.

“Sitting Down With The Sundance Kid”, interview on CNN, about 5mins ago

Interesting, since he’s a supporter.

So what were exactly the words he used? And how reliable is Redford’s opinion about Obama’s abilities as an indicator of Obama’s abilities?

Redford is an actor and his opinions are worth about as much as yours and mine.

Obama may not be up to the challenge of leading this country, but who is? I can’t remember the last Presidential candidate who I was reasonably confident was up to the challenge of the Presidency.

A lot of centrist commentators make it sound as if only Obama would “show leadership” in some unclear fashion, or alternatively “reach across the aisle,” a lot of our problems could be resolved. It’s quite possible that Redford has absorbed a bunch of that bullshit.

But Obama spent the first three years of his Presidency trying to “reach across the aisle,” and only got mugged for his efforts. And the sharp interparty divisions we’ve got are beyond anyone’s ability to overcome by “showing leadership.”

If the Dems can keep their 2014 Senate losses down to 2-3 seats, and Hillary has a good year in 2016, she just might have a Dem Congress with a filibuster-proof Senate majority. That’s probably the next time a Democratic President can get anything remotely controversial through Congress. And it’s got nothing to do with whether Obama is up to the job or not.

Most of the time when I hear such an opinion, it really means, “Obama wants things different than I do.” It’s funny, he’s even presented his opposition’s own plan back to them and they still oppose it.

I would sort of agree. While he is the president, he doesn’t seem very presidential. He doesn’t seem to have a lot of natural charisma or leadership skills. He seems like a pretty bland person. His speeches are a bit boring and go on too long. Fortunately, he seems to look at all the facts when making a decision and tries to do what he thinks is best.

Redford is a very engaging actor. It’s not just that he says his lines so well or hits his marks perfectly. Something about the way he delivers his performance creates an emotional connection with the audience. I would say that Obama does not create that sort of connection with the people. A president should have that ability because he is trying to get a nation to follow his vision.

The Republicans often bring this up, as if it means they should have won the election. That is hardly the case. I will take any reasonably competent Democrat over any Republican at this point. There is way too much derp policy in the Republican party and they all seem to vote as one block. It doesn’t matter how charismatic and brilliant a Republican is if all he does is vote along party lines. So even if the perfect Democrat is not running, I don’t care. At least he’s not a Republican. Hopefully the R’s can turn it around so I feel like I’m picking between two candidates again.

There’s also the phenomenon I postulate in this thread. Solving the problems we face will require sacrifices that no politician could propose to the American public and win elections. There are too many voters who think the budget can be balanced by eliminating “waste”, which is often a euphemism for “other people’s benefits”.

Never mind, everybody. Here’s a link to the interview. The political stuff begins at 2:00.

Yeah, those aren’t the words he used, nor is it in any way an accurate paraphrasing. This is what he said:

“When you have a system that’s supposed to serve the public good by being bipartisan–cause that’s the point of it all, bipartisanship is meant to serve the public good. When you have one half whose only motive is to destroy the motives of the president of the United States, then you have a diseased system. And I don’t think that’s his fault. I think it just makes his job tougher.”

He goes on to compare the bipartisanship of the Watergate hearings to the utter lack of bipartisanship today. Not a thing about Obama not being up to the challenge of leading the country. So where did you get that?

Here’s a link to a full transcript. The question and answer were:

Certainly the Republicans have prevented Obama from doing a lot of things he wanted to do.

However what many of us have a problem with is what he actually accomplished. For example:

  1. Massive NSA spying: this is an invasion of civil liberties, has cost massive amounts of money, and has had no major success stories.
  2. Continuing the war in Iraq: it has cost thousands of lives, hundreds of billions of dollars–and the result seems to be it simply delayed the civil war in Iraq for a few years. Likewise Afghanistan.
  3. Obamacare. He could have compromised with the Republicans to get some significant improvements over the status quo. Instead he comes up with something which the majority of Americans don’t approve of and he doesn’t even care enough about the legislation to ensure that the website is working–even though he had 4 years to set it up.
  4. Cash for clunkers. This was a program which significantly raised used car prices for poor people (by taking clunkers out of the market), just so a few of his labor union buddies could keep high paying jobs.

Yeah, he’s got no shot at being reelected now!

But seriously, what you posted is NOT an accurate paraphrasing. After all this time, why do you even bother playing these games?

raises hand

Made it up?

Imagined it?

Had one of the lizard people whisper it in his ear?

For future reference, while “flammable” and “inflammable” mean the same thing, the same is not true for “accurate” and “inaccurate.” Nor, for that matter does “accurate” mean “incredibly deceptive strawman.”

Glad I could clear that up for you.

All of the above, plus “pulled it out of his ass and stunk the place up”.

I know this isn’t the thread, but I find it continually bizarre that so many Democrats have settled on Hillary Clinton to be the next President, though there are so many more qualified and interesting candidates.


Obamacare already was a massive compromise considering it was essentially implementing a plan formulated by the Heritage Foundation and instituted in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney on a federal level rather than a single-payer system as many progressive wanted or something like the German system where the government has real power to negotiate for lower rates. It is a testament to the extremnism of the Republican Party that even the supposedly “moderate” (simply because they are pro-choice and pro-gun control) Republicans like Olympia Snowe voted against a health-care reform bill far more modest than even Richard Nixon’s plan forty years ago.

The only reason why the majority of Americans are against it is because of ceaseless right-wing propaganda denouncing it as “socialism” and instituting “death-panels”. Indeed, the individual provisions of the Affordable Care Act have the support of the majority of the public.

Qin - you’re maturing and that’s a good thing to see. (And not meant in a snarky partisan way just in case some readers may think that is implied.)

Thank you. :smiley: