"Wait, what?" Actual or potential Obama disillusionment

Great Debates
61

I doubt the second part of this.

You may have put your finger on it. There are very few people on earth, who I trust more than myself. Especially not a politician.

And double especially not a politician who hasn’t proved himself yet.

Maybe he will turn out to be the greatest President since Lincoln; maybe he will turn out to be the worst one yet. We don’t know yet. But I am not prepared to fall at his feet any more than I am prepared to start impeachment proceedings.

I think he will have to be an above-average President to have any success at all. From Day One, he will have to be off and running. Can he do it? Who knows?

Regards,
Shodan

62

Of course not. It just surprised me that the majority of his picks are Clintonites. I guess I was expecting people to be picked from a broader spectrum.

63

Wow. You must think that Lib has an IQ of 200 or something. You should follow his opinions slavishly.

I’m egotistical enough to think that I’m reasonably smart, and Obama is smarter than me. Who remained calm and held course when his advisers were panicking about Palin? Who was President of the Law Review? Who outsmarted the supposedly unbeatable Clinton machine?
What would make you think he’s smart - saying Bush is Ghod?

There’s your problem right there. You must think you do everything right.

Given how many Cabinet nominations he has made by November, do you think he won’t hit the ground running? He said that there is only one president at a time - do you think he should be undercutting Bush now?

64

I have said elsewhere I think Lib is one of the smartest Dopers. But I don’t follow anyone’s opinions slavishly.

Would you say that you follow Obama’s opinions slavishly? No matter what he says, you buy it, right? No questions, no analysis - Obama said it, I believe it, that settles it. Right? Or is it possible to examine what he says before accepting it?

No, hitting the ground running and getting up to speed on the multifarious tasks of the Presidency, as mentioned. And again, if he can do it without much, if any, experience in that sort of thing, he will be demonstrating a well above-average aptitude for executive office.

I would hope that I take the same attitude towards my own opinions that a reasonable person would take towards Obama’s - if they are correct, well and good, but let’s not automatically assume that. What is the reasoning underlying those opinions? Is it valid? Is it consistent with a world view that makes sense?

Are you saying that Obama is automatically right on any topic? Do you agree with Farrakhan that Obama speaks with the voice of the Messiah?

It would be unfortunate if the attitude towards politicians could only be that of a badly socialized dog - either at your feet, or at your throat. That’s the fallacy of the excluded middle writ large.

If Obama is making the same promises as he did during the campaign, well and good. We can evaluate those claims after he has been President for a while, and see the results, if any. If he is changing his tune, then I would hope we would evaluate those new claims in the same way that we should have done during the campaign.

But this apparent attitude that “his will is not to be questioned, but obeyed” starts to verge on the sort of Obama-worship I have objected to in the past.

When Nero was Emperor, and he played the lyre in public, there were said to be people wandering thru the audience to detect and punish any slackness in the applause. If the SDMB is volunteering to serve that function on Obama’s behalf, be aware that this isn’t imperial Rome, and any flaming crucifixions you can perform are going to be purely symbolic. And it is going to be problematic when people show up with pitch and torches and nails, metaphorically speaking, and all the intended victims do is giggle. If you see what I mean.

That remains to be seen. I hardly think the fact that he has managed to pick out Cabinet nominees shows extraordinary brilliance - he is required to do that before he takes office.

Perhaps what is making some of the difference is the fact that Obama can pick the Whore of Babylon as his secretary of State, a figure nearly universally excoriated on the SDMB as an evil, dishonest, lying bitch queen, and nobody lifts an eyebrow. Apparently she has received the the king’s touch, and all her sins are forgiven. Isn’t it interesting how y’all can turn on a dime like that?

No, I don’t. Do you?

Regards,
Shodan

65

**Shodan **- people did lift eyebrows. Me not least of all. I think Hillary is an extremely poor choice, made from politics rather than from expediency. Yeah, she’s tough, but so is Condi Rice. Doesn’t mean she’s any good.

Sec State is one of the most critical choices for any administration, and I think this one was flubbed. Hillary has little to no international experience, little to no executive experience, and I believe is emotionally unqualified for the position. It requires someone with great intelligence, great political sense, and a capability to find compromise with rock-hard adversaries yet be someone who wouldn’t hold a grudge if you burned their house down, none of which Hillary has in any quantities. And the idea of introducing Ol’ Billy Boy back into the White House environs in any capacity scares me a bit.

Nothing could be more devastating to an early Obama Administration than having to fire his Sec State because she refuses to honor his agenda and instead pushes her own forward. So I guess you can chalk me up on your mental list of those Obama supporters who are reviewing his decisions with a clear eye, free of partisan blinders.

66

Your blinders may not be partisan, but they are blinding nonetheless. Hillary was chosen because she is respected by ordinary people and leaders around the world and by the US military, including General Petraeus. There is no reason not to take Obama at his word, namely that he chose in each case the person he believes to be best suited for the job. I know that it is unusual to have a president who has the confidence to surround himself with big egos and boisterous opinions, but that is what he has said consistently since day one that he wants. He wants them to disagree with each other and with him. As he said yesterday, the greatest pitfall of the White House is group-think. And if you’re worried about Clinton drama, you don’t know Jim Jones. As for Rice, Condi Rice is an ineffective Secretary of State for the same reason Colin Powell was: they both have served an ineffective president.

67

I respect Mr Rodgers. Doesn’t mean he’d be a good SecState. And what should I respect HRC for exactly? Dodging sniper fire in Kosovo? Senatorial junkets? Her pathetically mis-managed nomination bid? Her placing of personal victory ahead of either national or party politics?

Could I ask for a cite that Petraeus respects her? I fail to imagine where this would ever come from. And believing that the US Military respects a Clinton, any Clinton, is a straw too far for this particular camel. Follow Bill’s orders as CinC, sure, but respect or like them I strongly doubt.

I have no problem with Obama’s theory of picking strong egos and working with people who disagree - it’s a refreshing change of 8 years of loyalty politics. I have a problem with this individual choice in that I don’t believe she is a good choice due to her track record and personality, nor is she a good choice based on expertise or experience on the international stage which is absolutely critical for the position she’s been selected for.

68

She worked with Newt Gingrich a few years of years ago on a couple of issues. You’re not going to come much closer to literally burning the house down than that. She made a lot of enemies during the '90s and I think her Senate record shows she learned that lesson.

69

Yet she holds grudges, and punishes those who went against her. She plays personal politics, and the position of SecState is anything but personal.

And it was supposed to be Bill working with Newt, not her. She wasn’t elected, remember?

70

Would you like to provide some examples? She definitely did some of that when she was first lady. What’s she done recently that falls into this category?

I’m talking about the work they did together during her Senate term. She also reached out to Lindsay Graham and I think she got generally high marks for bipartisanship.

71

My blinders?

Do I really need to repost what people have claimed about Hilary Clinton?

And still, Obama picks her to be third in line for the Presidency, and instantly, she is as pure as the driven snow, and deeply respected by exactly the same people who were screaming about how horrible she was not three frigging months ago.

Unbelievable.

Regards,
Shodan

72

I’m afraid you’ve confused yourself with GomiBoy. I was responding to him or her.

73

Shit, six months ago, people thought she was trying to get him killed! A lot of what people said about her during the primaries was an emotional reaction, although there was real political disagreement in there too. It’s not a surprise that the emotional component has faded for a lot of people. And some posters do trust that Obama will be able to use her effectively.
I still think that if she’d actually won the nomination, though, a lot of the people who openly dislike her would’ve rallied to her side.

74

  1. "We need to redistribute the wealth . . . " :eek:

  2. Nothing says “Change” better or more loudly than . . . nominating a beltway insider of 35 years as your VP (Biden). :dubious:

  3. Naming mostly re-treads from the Clinton administration, including Hillary herself! What part of “change” does a former First Lady and now a New York Senator-and-failed Prez. nominee exactly represent? :smack:

Yes, Obama isn’t yet president. But I promise to give Obama the exact same “balanced” treatment that Lefties gave Bush and the GOP for the past eight years. Did you miss that balanced coverage? So did I!:smiley:

75

The quote was “When you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.” ‘Redistribute’ was used as a paraphrase because it sounds socialist.

76

Here’s how I see it, not that that’s worth anything but still. The American president is both head of government and head of state. His vice-president is his right hand for the former and his SoS is his right hand for the latter. She is to represent him in matters of state only — sort of a Queen Elizabeth of the US. Having done exactly that sort of task in more than 80 countries as first lady, she is uniquely qualified to act in that capacity. The same qualifications that fall short for the presidency work fine for SoS. Keep in mind that Obama is appointing Jim Steinberg as deputy SoS. Steinberg can manage Foggy Bottom while Hillary travels.

MSNBC yesterday. A talking head said that Petraeus was asked who in the Senate he most respects, and his answer began with, “Aside from Senator Clinton…”. It really is common knowledge that her respect for him likewise has grown by leaps and bounds since her famous “suspension of disbelief” comment. It was during her tenure on the Armed Services Committee that she and various military leaders came to respect one another. It does not surprise me that they are capable of separating in their minds the two individuals: the secretary-designate and the former president.

You’re certainly entitled to your opinion, just as he is to his. But I don’t think it’s fair to say that because he has done what you would not have done, that he was wrong. Sometimes, a thing can be wrong for one person, but right for another. If you were unable to work with her, it would make sense for you to turn to someone else. But if he likes working with her, then she is exactly the right choice for him.

77

Exactly. What he meant was what Austan Goolsbee had explained to him early on as an advisor. A capitalist economy needs money to move around. It is impossible to make money unless it is moving from one place to another.

78

That’s what happens when reason is based on spite — there’s no logic to it.

79

Oh. yeah. that’s. what. he. meant. :rolleyes:

I might have got the original exact words wrong, but you and I both know what Obama really meant when he said “spread the wealth” and it’s ***not ***Goolsbee’s definition.

If you remember, Obama was talking to a guy who feared taxes may prevent him from taking over a small business [note: save the tar-and-feathering of the plumber for another thread, because Obama didn’t know whom he was speaking to at the time, either].

But how Obama answered his question about higher taxes possibly preventing the small business owner from taking over the shop was essentially to shrug it off as "Thems the breaks, kid. You are fortunate enough to be able to buy a business, therefore I deem you wealthy enough already and I must now penalize you for your success. So a few more taxes I’m sure you’ll see are good for America."

But, in a rare moment where Obama let his polish down, it came out of his mouth as “*We’e got to spread the wealth around . . . *”

You and I – and everyone listening – knew exactly what he meant. It was a gaffe worthy of Biden-hood. You can try to revise the meaning of it all you want, but it’s on YouTube for everyone to see for themselves.

80

My first “Wait . . . what?” moment came with Hillary’s nom as SoS too. I was hoping for Attorney General for her, or maybe a Supreme Court appointment. I don’t know what problems she’d face in being approved for those posts, but I don’t want her in a position where she has a lot of input on policy. Even though she and Obama are close in lots of areas, I don’t think she’ll do well at taking direction from him.

My second “Wait … what?” moment was today, when MSNBC reported that Obama is buying Michele a $30,000 diamond ring. Even though it’s his money and he can do what he wants with it, and lord knows Michele deserves it (and more) and has earned it, and I’m sure they donate heavily to charity, etc., it just doesn’t seem like a good time for an extravagant gift. Especially not when the story following was about a woman whose baby almost died because she was diluting his formula to save money.