The Obama's took on Europe, and did a great job. Wow, they are good. The handshake with the policeman. The hugs the First Lady gave out. Getting the other countries to cough up more money than they planned, and making them actually seem to like it. Man, they are good.
Time will tell. Probably better if the reception had been neutral, as usually the "good" comes with huge expectations. The higher a person climbs in ratings, the further he can fall. Think what particularly worried me was the nuclear speech in Prague. It could have been much shorter, and perhaps with less detail on Iran. For certain the US military must be very concerned as Obama put so many expectations in that speech, so many undertakings of the kind that probably should have been publicly deliberated in the US first. He is still a relatively new guy and I think that speech must have a number of people worried, including the US military, Nato and neighbours of Iran.
Last edited:
I think you are right about expectations. It's part of the 'Obama as saviour' thing, which essentially says that he must walk on water or else.
I have a lot of contact with Europeans, and it is so nice to at least have a president that garners some respect. He has already improved relations with Europe.
I have a lot of contact with Europeans, and it is so nice to at least have a president that garners some respect. He has already improved relations with Europe.
Think I'm a little cynical. I'm sure there has to be some discerning Europeans that are looking past the public niceties for substance, and that is yet to be proven. He has been in office for less than four months. The verdict is very much still out on this.
He's intellilgent, articulate, well-educated, and knowlegeable. That's a whole lot more substance than we have had for the past eight years.
He's actually been in office for less than three months.
And he has done a great deal in those months, much more than I thought he would be able to accomplish.
He is a very accomplished orator. Very good at marketing the little he has achieved. Also, remember he started with a nice 1.2-trillion to fund a number of programmes that he obviously will take credit for. Probably in the short term the perception is good, but I have not seen him in a situation where he has really been tested yet. For example: he made it a big issue about ending GITMO but only one prisoner has been released yet. He made a big issue about reducing nuclear arms, but that has been talk of Presidents for the last at least four Presidents. He just made it sound so good. He has the perception of being very able for the very reason than he got elected, which is a very good public relations strategy. I would like to give him the benefit of the doubt, but so far I have not been impressed yet.
Good grief, the man has been in office less than three months. Things take time. Economic stimulous takes time. And negotiations for arms reduction typically take years. I think the first ones took close to ten years before we got an agreement. This is like saying a pregnant woman is failure because she promised to deliver a baby and its been five months and you don't have your kid yet.
Exactly. However his very successful media campaigns are sending out messages to the equivalent of being God's new gift to not only the United States, but all of the world.
IF he really wanted to save energy he could park Air Force One. And congress could curb their little side trips too.
But no! Stick it to people who really need to get to work, doctors and to the grocery stores. They could set an example if any of them really cared.
But no! Stick it to people who really need to get to work, doctors and to the grocery stores. They could set an example if any of them really cared.
Last edited:
I don't think he is promoting that, because it just sets him up for failure. The goal is realistic, and slightly low expectations, so as to always excel. I think the 'saviour' role is being forced on him both by the media and the situation. We need a saviour, and so he has been so annointed.
I don't think that is entirely correct. He has a very active media campaign looking after his image, which started during his presidential campaign. The whole package of a happily married couple with two wonderful kids and a cute puppy. Anything that is marketable is being marketed and I believe it is done consciously on a hands-on basis.
Sorry, but he will never be anointed my savior. I don't even consider him "my" president. And it is not being "forced" on him. He is eating it up. He loves being the "koolaid" man. And many are blindly drinking it up.
100% agreed. You have put it much better than I did. Especially the part about him being the "koolaid" man. I think the bad part may be that it is going to backfire sooner or later. I really hope the Tea Parties will become something of substance and not just one-off events.Sorry, but he will never be anointed my savior. I don't even consider him "my" president. And it is not being "forced" on him. He is eating it up. He loves being the "koolaid" man. And many are blindly drinking it up.
Sorry, but he will never be anointed my savior. I don't even consider him "my" president. And it is not being "forced" on him. He is eating it up. He loves being the "koolaid" man. And many are blindly drinking it up.
I didn't say he was your saviour. You have been posting about people thinking he is so wonderful, and I'm saying a lot of that isn't his doing, it would have happened to some extent to whomever followed Bush, because Bush was so bad.
Again, it isn't in his best interest to have expectations raised too high, because it sets him up for failure.
The man obviously enjoys politics, but then so did Bush. Except Bush had no substance to go along with it.
That is also very true. Obama is however very good with his media campaign in taking credit where he can at the expense of Bush, and blaming all the not so good things as an inheritance from Bush. At some or other time he will have to take responsibility fully, including GITMO. GITMO has been signed off in January by Obama, and they are still selling it as a Bush disaster. At some or other point Obama has to start taking responsibility of the almost four months with no real progress made in setting trial dates and releasing the prisoners. In my mind he has proven with GITMO that is much more complicated than just releasing prisoners, but he is very artful in being completely quiet about it these days.
So now we have another "no substance" president. Just how does that make it better? This dude in there now makes me feel just about like you would feel if they brought Bush back in the middle of the night. And he has done nothing to make me feel that I misjudged him in anyway.
What in the world are you talking about? We rounded up a bunch of people after 9/11, held them without due process, denied them attorneys, and tortured them for eight years, and somehow this has become Obama's fault? Gee, then I guess I can blame you for all the mistakes I made in the last eight years, because you bear as much responsibility for them as Obama does for Gitmo. I suppose you blame FDR for the Great Depression, too! And Ford for Watergate. Well, I think that while I am at it, I'll blame you for my divorce, too. You may not have even been born yet, but what the ..., logic and facts seemingly have no meaning here.
What do you mean 'signed off on'? Are you referring to his decision to close it? It's a big place, and they have to work out what they are going to do about the people there that are actually guilty of something. I believe they have stopped the torture, which to me is one of the most critical things.
I'm beginning to wonder why you are reaching so far to find something to blame on Obama.
Looks like we (republicans) are already getting the blame. As far as me, I would "torture" them and more if that is what it takes. I make no "apology" for the water boarding and anything else they needed to do. I do not believe that kissing their butt will make them treat our people any better. They will still "behead" any American they can. There has to be one set of rules! And since they refuse to play by ours, we need to play by theirs.
But no! Now we are just playing the "chump"!Someone needs to "grow up". This is a "nasty" world. And kissing b--- will not protect this nation. But it can destroy it.
Looks like we (republicans) are already getting the blame. As far as me, I would "torture" them and more if that is what it takes. I make no "apology" for the water boarding and anything else they needed to do. I do not believe that kissing their butt will make them treat our people any better. They will still "behead" any American they can. There has to be one set of rules! And since they refuse to play by ours, we need to play by theirs.
Someone needs to "grow up". This is a "nasty" world. And kissing b--- will not protect this nation. But it can destroy it.
Your attitude is thoroughly immoral. No, make that amoral. You seem to believe it is OK to do anything, no matter how cruel, as long as you feel a little bit threatened. Next you'll be sympathizing with the Nazis, and saying that the US progam to eliminate Native Americans was OK.
The danger in "retaliating in kind" or "going them one better" is that you become the very thing you are fighting.
Do you not believe in the rule of law at all? Do you think that if someone should, for instance, murder a member of my family that I have acquired the right to torture them and drive them to suicide, without benefit of trial or legal representation?
Doesn't it bother you even a bit that a lot of those that were tortured were just people rounded up on the street with no evidence against them at all?
And if waterboarding isn't torture, I think you should offer yourself up as a volunteer for an evaluation of whether it is or not. Get yourself waterboarded 22 times, then come back and tell me it isn't torture.
