Social Question

zen_'s avatar

Obama - from hero to zero to...? Just another politician?

Asked by zen_ (6245points) August 25th, 2010

Obama-care, Tea Parties, Iraq and Afghan wars, the economy, the recovery, the not really recovery…

Now he is taking credit for aspects of the war he opposed when he was a Senator – and hey – what does he know about war anyway, civilian that he is.

How will history remember him: I ask because he looks like a one term Prez.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

36 Answers

Qingu's avatar

What parts of the war is he taking credit for?

Also, do you feel that Abraham Lincoln and FDR didn’t know about war because they were civilians?

Austinlad's avatar

What you say about Obama may be true—may be. I won’t debate that. But I honestly believe that given the extreme polarization in Congress and in our society in general, nobody from either Party has much chance for the kind of success in that job we hold them to.

john65pennington's avatar

I did not vot for Obama. the following comments are not because i did not vote for him, but rather my initials beliefs, concerning him, are coming true. Obama had no experience as a leader. what little he had, was short-lived and not enough to lead America. Obama had no military experience. this is vital to be a leader of the worlds most powerful nation. and, giving personal opinions, which harms our country more than it helps. his rating is now around 41%. maybe he is listening to the wrong people that are guiding him.

Blackberry's avatar

I could have told you that before he was elected lol. Like many say… is picking the lesser of two evils. I am aware that many people expected him to save the world, but that is pretty uneducated.

lucillelucillelucille's avatar

He will be known as the Socialist failure who was good at bowing to foreign dictators.

Cruiser's avatar

Anybody who didn’t know the next President to take over was going to be a fall guy for where our country was heading was not well informed to our state of affairs both domestically and internationally. Whether Obama or McCain either was destined to fail as there was and is just way too much going wrong then and now.

But what is easy to forget is Obama is as much a “President” of this country as you or I. What he is is a figure head and dare I say leader as I have not seen much leading. He is manged by his team and like all other Presidents before him it is his Chief of Staff that directs most if not all decision activities. Rhom is the one who will have to fall on his sword for this train wreck in order to allow for Obama’s great legacy to be engraved in our nations history books as the first black president.

ucme's avatar

Well as an outsider looking in (little Englander) i’d say he’ll be remembered as the president who couldn’t possibly live up to the hype. Style over substance, seems to be how the dice fell for him.

mowens's avatar

He always was zero….

janbb's avatar

Wow – a lot of Obama bashers! I think he is a good, if flawed man in an impossible job. I will vote for him again and I think he may win. Am I disappointed? Yes, very.

ragingloli's avatar

He will be the president who, while being flawed, achieved a lot (the most notable being the prevention of the Second Great Depression), but will be remembered as a “total failure”.

Cruiser's avatar

@ragingloli I wouldn’t be so quick to put away the “Depression” lifeboats as last I looked our ship was still sinking and faster than ever.

ragingloli's avatar

Last time I checked (a few days ago), global economy is in a state of growth. (The US’ is stagnant though.)

Austinlad's avatar

I agree, @janbb, and will buy you an Indian meal.

janbb's avatar

It’s a date @Austinlad. If I’m ever in Austin in the summer, we’ll go out for a curry together. (Talk about a hot date!)

Cruiser's avatar

@ragingloli I am sorry I did not see your reference to “global” second great depression in your comment and since I live in the US I am a bit more sensitive to the economic reality I live here every day.

Also IMHO “stagnant” is bit on the optimistic side

TexasDude's avatar

The last president that impressed me was dead before I was even born. I know I’m supposed to be a youthful idealist and all that jazz, but I have about zero trust for just about any politician, Obama included.

ragingloli's avatar


Stagnant is not “optimistic”. It is realistic.

Austinlad's avatar

@janbb, you’ve curried my favor.

bob_'s avatar

He’s a politician who gives pretty speeches, not some dude who can walk on water.

IchtheosaurusRex's avatar

I call him Big O. That’s the letter ‘O’, not a zero.

Obama came into office with a clear mandate from American voters only to face a dysfunctional legislative branch dominated by obstructionist Republicans. Despite the obstacles, he managed to get major legislation passed, and by the way, to pull the country out of a certain depression.

If he manages to stave off the wave of rabid wingnuts threatening to trash Washington in November, he should be able to accomplish a good deal more over the next 6 years. I said 6 years, not 2, because every Republican currently looking to run in 2012 is a douchebag, and Obama’s numbers are similar to Clinton’s and Reagan’s at this point in their presidencies. Both were reelected.

kevbo's avatar

@zen_, all presidents are civilians. It’s required by the Constitution to ensure a separation of powers (at least in theory). Most of the warmongers in politics are chickenhawks, anyway.

I pretty much expected these kinds of results six months prior to the election. So much of national politics is a shell game.

Cruiser's avatar

@ragingloli Perhaps I can agree that unemployment rates hovering at or above 9.5% for the last year as stagnant but in reality that is a horrific statistic especially given the length of time. But a drop from 8.4% – .9% in labor productivity over the last year is hardly stagnant!

ragingloli's avatar

It is not a drop to 0.9%. It is a drop by 0.9%.

Qingu's avatar

It would be nice if the Obama critics would explain what they would have done differently in Obama’s position, and why they think it would have worked better.

IchtheosaurusRex's avatar

@Qingu , the Democrats keep pressing their opposite numbers on that very point. They continually sidestep the question.

Qingu's avatar

I also think it’s sort of ridiculous that Obama’s willingness to compromise—something he campaigned on, repeatedly, positioning himself as a centrist pragmatist—somehow means he’s “just another politician.”

I think people who make this criticism tend to put very little thought into what they’d like to see in the political process, or what is realistic, and instead simply like to feel “above the fray.” After all, it’s easy to criticize the president; it’s easy to criticize “both parties” and say they’re “just as bad” as each other. It takes zero thought or effort on your part, because you excuse yourself from having to pick a side and having to compromise your beliefs in the face of reality.

Qingu's avatar

“He’s a civilian”
“He’s not a good leader”
“He bows to foreign dictators” (nevermind that Bush did the same thing)
“He’s a socialist failure”

Do you guys have any specific criticisms? Or just vague name calling?

Cruiser's avatar

@zen_ and that he had a respectable golf handicap. ;)

zen_'s avatar

@kevbo I don’t think you’re right: Here’s a list of Presidents who served, many of them were Generals. Sheesh, even Reagan was a Captain. Carter was an officer too. What you on?

Qingu's avatar

Hi @zen_

What’s your opinion of Abraham Lincoln (president during the Civil War) and FDR (president during WW2)?

Neither of them served.

Also: can you please explain, specifically, what your problem is with Obama’s military policy? Or do you not actually have a problem with his policy?

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

He was always just another politician but I did vote for him and he has turned out to be a lesser of two evils – Bush was a nightmare and so were his policies and the wars he led us into. Obama has a difficult task of making a divided country happy, so many issues are being polarized, sensationalized. I think he needs not pander so much to some people but the same can be said about my people and the views I hold by those who disagree with me. A government should take care of its people and for that he need not be a military leader but, of course, I am pretty anti-military going to other places for imperialistic purposes so I give it little value.

zen_'s avatar

@kevbo You kinda said, and I copy/paste here: all presidents are civilians. It’s required by the Constitution to ensure a separation of powers (at least in theory). Most of the warmongers in politics are chickenhawks, anyway. Both sides of the sentence are simply not true. You are indeed on another level, my jelly friend, but perhaps semantics is just a nice word for wrong?

kevbo's avatar

It would appear so. I suppose this is what I mean…

The President is not himself a member of the armed forces even in his capacity as commander in chief. To preserve the principle of civilian control of the military, it is a custom, adhered to by all candidates beginning with Washington, that a member of the armed forces will resign before running for President or taking the oath of office. Ulysses S. Grant, for example, did so in 1868, and Dwight Eisenhower did so in 1952.

Perhaps I should have said “many” or “some” or “the more significant,” but I will readily admit I don’t know the facts about how many or what percentage or any other meaningful statistic about chickenhawks, so I will concede that point as well.

Answer this question




to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther