You think this is the world’s (semi-) greatest question? It isn’t even up there with “why do we drive on a parkway”.
What about the things he did to reach out to Republicans, like keeping Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense?
I’m not sure you have a complete grip on the direction of change that Dems were looking for when they voted for Obama. Not entirely complete. You might off a little. Just a little.
Not paying attention to what anyone else is saying is a key factor in his logic’s unassailability.
Oh, I just love logic battles 
(1) Washington can only be changed from the outside.
(2) Obama works in Washington.
Now let’s assume that both one and two are correct. That means that:
(3) Obama can’t change anything in Washington while actually being in Washington.
MUST be true for the only change to Washington can take place while outside of Washington.
Now there is one way for statement three to be false and that it’s either the first or second statement is false. I’m sure no one would ever contest the second statement, as it’s one of fact. That leaves us with the first statement. The only way, therefore, for the third statement to be false is if the first statement is false, whereas Washington can be changed from the inside, contrary to what Obama says. If so, it means that not only is Obama a liar when he says that “Washington can’t be changed from the inside”, but he’s also a failure as he failed to institute the change he said he would (apparently, you guys have conveniently forgotten the lofty promises he made in 2008).
Boom! Introductory logic
(As I said, my logic is unassailable, though you may continue to try.)
I think you may want to try this again.
If he changed things in Alabama, Mississippi, the Carolinas, Georgia, Texas, and Arizona, that would certainly be an accomplishment worth celebrating.
So God can make a burrito too big for Him to eat?
(4) Obama can go to Camp David whenever he likes.
(5) Camp David is not in Washington, so he can just change it from there.
Consider yourself assailed.
I find it slightly odd how “change” now means “changing who goes to Washington”, instead of changing how Washington works*, which is what he said in 2008. Funny how you guys and gals can’t remember the things Obama said in 2008, but sure as hell know every little thing a Republican says from the beginning of the decade until now.
(*Yes, it links to Breitbart but don’t worry. The real gems are the two Youtube videos. I await to hear your spin.)
I just noticed the really big lie in Obama’s statement: health care. Health care was the ultimate in inside dealing. There was no outside pressure to pass the bill. All of the outside pressure was to kill the bill.
I mean, I’m used to this guy just saying things that don’t mean anything, but wow.
Wow. We have different recollections of that time. It was a divisive issue, for certain, but there was plenty of outside pressure clamoring to pass the bill. I’d guess that by the time it passed, public opinion was about 50-50. In the early stages, there was more pressure for health care reform, and single payer even seemed like a possibility.
OK, so we’ve gotten all the way to the third sentence:
So, people outside Washington elected Obama. That’s what he meant!
But, wait, look–there’s another sentence!!!
Wow, four sentences! (Kind of a run-on sentence, so it’s practically five sentences.)
I know this is pretty dense textual analysis here, but I’ll see if I can boil it down:
- Only people outside Washington can change things.
- By electing one candidate instead of the other one.
- And by “mobilizing” and “speaking out” in favor of one side or the other side’s ideas.
Of course, this is all godless un-American Muslim communistic ideology here–people outside Washington making a difference by electing the leaders who go to Washington, and then mobilizing and speaking out in favor of some kind of legislative agenda.
Next thing you know, this rabble of 47%ers will be claiming that government derives its powers from the consent of the governed or some kind of Communistic claptrap like that. A whiff of grapeshot, that’s what this rabble of Nazi Muslim socialists needs!
Interesting fact about pressure to kill or pass the healthcare bill: the majority of republicans support the provisions of Obamacare if you don’t call it Obamacare.
I don’t see any evidence that “all” of the outside pressure was to kill the healthcare bill. At the very least, I supported it, and I’m not nothing. 
Public opinion was more like 45-50, with the opposed being by far the loudest. There’s just no way he can make a valid claim that health care happened because of outside change. It happened because of inside dealing and the most rank legislative sausage making we’ve seen in some time. The health care bill was the very definition of change from the inside.
You’re substantially moving the goalposts. You remember saying “all” the outside pressure was to kill the bill, right? It was only four or five posts ago.
Regardless, I reject your conclusion. Healthcare is something many, many people want, including republicans as my previous link shows. You can’t just dismiss those people because they’re inconvenient to whatever point you’re trying to make. It’s not “the very definition” of change from the inside. Hell, even the insurance companies are in favor of the provisions in the healthcare bill. It’s got a large amount of outside support from everyone except the “Anything Obama wants is bad” crowd.
So I take it that neither did you click on the link I provided, but you watched NEITHER of the videos? Why am I not surprised? This is one of Obama’s EXACT quotes (it’s taken from the second video):
“So as you’re making your decision going into this week, what I want you to focus on is who can actually deliver on change because I believe that change will not happen unless we change how politics is done in Washington.”
Obama was elected under the promise that, if elected, he would change how things work in Washington. But now he can’t change things in Washington as that change has to come outside of Washington? Say what? Then why did he say to send him to Washington and he’d change things? Either he lied then or he’s trying to cover up the fact that he can’t, or is unwilling to do, what he said he would do if elected. To channer my inner adolescence, gtfo with your stupid spin. It doesn’t even make sense. If Obama was elected because he said he would deliver change Washington, yet he says he can’t elicit change in Washington while being in Washington then, by his own logic, HE SHOULDN’T BE IN WASHINGTON as he can’t do the very thing he promised to do while being there. If “change” is caused by voters then you agree that Obama should be voted out since he’s inept by his own standards.
This is just a gigantic straw man. Seriously.
Omg, I think the question people are struggling with is “when does Obama stop being an outsider?”
For instance, let’s say through some freak chance I got elected. I’ve never held any political seat and I have no experience. When do I cease to be an “outsider?” After four years, when I’m up for re-election? But four years is a fairly arbitrary number. Do I cease being an outsider, say, two years into my term? But then, why two years? How about a week into my first term. Am I an insider then?
Basically, I think people are objecting to the idea that Obama can’t still be an outsider and still working to change things “from the outside.” Obviously he technically ceased being an outsider the second he stepped into Washington as president, so it’s purely semantics to say he’s “now” an insider, and can no longer be the change we elected him to be.
People may have wanted it, some people anyway, but that’s not how the bill passed. It passed because of inside dealmaking and the President knows that, assuming he was doing the dealmaking. THey made deals with the insurance companies, with the drug companies, with the AMA, and with Democratic legislators whose votes were in question.
Oh dang, better get the impeachment lawyers warming up. I think you have an airtight case to fall back on, if by some stroke of terrible luck Romney isn’t elected.
Well, many of his supporters didn’t care about change and knew it was just a message thing to win him some swing voters. that’s inoperative now of course, so they have to win swing voters by portraying Romney as worse. Which is also a lie, but all’s fair in politics.
:dubious:
How come I see people working so damn hard to edit and cut videos in a way to make Obama look bad? Where do you all get these videos from? Is it some sort of conspiracy.
I mean really? :dubious: A 7 second video? Just how stupid do you think people are?