If you were an Obama VOTER/SUPPORTER, has he lived up to your expectations?

[liduponmyhead]

Originally Posted by Lcsulla

While I was never a supporter I had hoped he would govern like Bill Clinton in a sense, being more towards the center. For all his faults; Clinton could read the public and would abandon ideas that were wildly unpopular. Obama will not do this and by extension Congress will not either. It is their way or the highway, Chicago style. In that way he has failed MY expectation. I thought if he governed moderately he had a shot to be a decent President - a placeholder of sorts like Clinton or Bush 1 but no. We are just stuck with an egomaniac radical for at least 3 more years.

Like what? Health care? :rolleyes Clinton wanted to do all the things that Obama is doing now, and will do. He compromised on some things because Congress wouldn't let his agenda pass through.

Why would Obama abandon ideas that he was elected for? Why would any President? Did Bush? He was admired for sticking to his guns, (no pun intended) yet, Obama is supposed to abandon his platform?

If he is an egomaniac radical now, he was an egomaniac radical when he got elected. He's no different. This criticism from the right that Obama has turned into a radical is just dumb. Just say you never liked the guy. That makes more sense.

[Lcsulla]

Clinton was more respected by the conservatives for his pragmatism than Obama could hope for. The man had a lot of faults but he could gauge the public and change with the prevailing winds of opinion. Obama does not appear to care in the slightest what anyone thinks except his yes men. Both Clinton and W Bush were arrogant but heir arrogance was in America and its strengths, Obama's arrogance is rooted not in our country but in himself.

As for saying I never liked him that is true on a political level but most Presidents grow when they assume office and realize the position is to SERVE the people, not FORCE the public to do things their way. Obama is far more uncompromising than any President in my lifetime. It truly is his way or not at all.

[hmich176]

Originally Posted by clemson357

You make no sense. What has "already happened?"

The already happened part is when he signed the executive order to close Gitmo. It was hailed as a great moment, his first action. And it was celebrated. And now people are pissed that it's slowly getting done. They went "mission accomplished" all over that executive order and now they're paying for it.

Originally Posted by FunkyTeaParty

I am not particularly pleased so far. I think the escalation of troops in Afghanistan is another swirl or two down the toilet for this country. I plan on never being more disgusted by Obama than I will be when he gives this prime time address to announce it.

That being said, I am still happy Obama is president and not McCain.

We committed to Afghanistan when we were attacked on 9/11. I believe Hamid Karzai is the wrong leader for Afghanistan, but there's not much you can do with the democratic process other than accept it for what it is.

Originally Posted by rconverse

I'm sorry, but I would have to 100% disagree with the bolded. He may not be using those exact words, but come elections, the left will be "bragging" that they passed healthcare.

Also, the analogy stands whether it has happened or not as I said it will be their "Mission Accomplished" moment.

As I said above, they already had that moment. But of course the Administration will be "bragging" about passing health care; Obama campaigned on it! And the Administration will hail it as a great accomplishment, which it is considering it's what he campaigned for. He'll be campaigning for office in 2012 presumably and that campaign will be defined by what he did between 2009 and 2011. What's the two most important things he'll be campaigning on? Healthcare and the economy (if it recovers). So calling it their "mission accomplished" moment is still off.

[hmich176]

Originally Posted by Lcsulla

Clinton was more respected by the conservatives

:haha

[ShotgunDMB]

I don't "respect" Bill Clinton. But I think he was an average president. And he moved the Democratic Party to the right on numerous issues. Part of it was being forced to because we had both parties controlling different branches of government, and some of it was him being able to see what was popular, and going along with that.

The best chance Obama has of being a successful president is for Republicans to win back Congress, so he could persue a similar formula as Clinton. He has no shot with the big government policies coming out of this Congress.

Clinton said "the era of big government is over". Obama's philosophy isn't even close to that.

[Lcsulla]

Originally Posted by hmich176

:haha

Did I miss a joke?

[dmbinchicago]

Originally Posted by FunkyTeaParty

I don't think the vast majority of people that voted for him did so with an escalation in Afghanistan in mind.

I also think it is a terrible idea.

"As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan ... We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there" - July 2008

[Beebz]

Originally Posted by ShotgunDMB

I don't "respect" Bill Clinton. But I think he was an average president. And he moved the Democratic Party to the right on numerous issues. Part of it was being forced to because we had both parties controlling different branches of government, and some of it was him being able to see what was popular, and going along with that.

The best chance Obama has of being a successful president is for Republicans to win back Congress, so he could persue a similar formula as Clinton. He has no shot with the big government policies coming out of this Congress.

Clinton said "the era of big government is over". Obama's philosophy isn't even close to that.

wait, so you like Clinton because he made democrats more like conservatives, but hate McCain because he wasn't conservative enough and folllowed a more pragmatic path? Ok......

[ShotgunDMB]

Originally Posted by liduponmyhead

Why would Obama abandon ideas that he was elected for? Why would any President? Did Bush? He was admired for sticking to his guns, (no pun intended) yet, Obama is supposed to abandon his platform?

Obama's platform sucks. He needs to realize the reality of the times we're in and adjust what he does accordingly. You don't try and push through a ridiculous healthcare bill that gives government more control over 15+% of the economy, that includes tax hikes, and all kinds of horrific things during the worst recession in at least 25 years, and possibly longer.

You don't spend a trillion dollars on a "stimulus" package that does absolutely nothing to help businesses create jobs in the private sector.

And you certainly don't try and push an energy tax on people when they're already having trouble paying their bills in the first place.

Bush campaigned on a "humble" foreign policy in 2000. After 9/11 that clearly changed. Point is, Presidents have to look at the world as it is, not how they wish it would be.

[ShotgunDMB]

Originally Posted by bbianca1982

wait, so you like Clinton because he made democrats more like conservatives, but hate McCain because he wasn't conservative enough and folllowed a more pragmatic path? Ok......

Um, of course.....I always want things moving towards a conservative/smaller government direction. Democrats/Clinton learned their lesson after losing 3 straight presidential elections, and from Bill Clinton's poor start in 93 and 94. On gun control, taxes, spending, size of government, and even abortion rhetoric, you saw a move to the right at the presidential level starting with Clinton's reelection campaign.

[liduponmyhead]

Originally Posted by Lcsulla

Clinton was more respected by the conservatives for his pragmatism than Obama could hope for. The man had a lot of faults but he could gauge the public and change with the prevailing winds of opinion. Obama does not appear to care in the slightest what anyone thinks except his yes men. Both Clinton and W Bush were arrogant but heir arrogance was in America and its strengths, Obama's arrogance is rooted not in our country but in himself.

As for saying I never liked him that is true on a political level but most Presidents grow when they assume office and realize the position is to SERVE the people, not FORCE the public to do things their way. Obama is far more uncompromising than any President in my lifetime. It truly is his way or not at all.

Are you kidding?! The Repub's hated Clinton, absolutely hated him! As soon as Gingrich became Speaker, it was all out obstructionist. Clinton and the repub congress did battle and literally shut down government for a couple months because Congress wouldn't approve the new budget Clinton wanted. He said, fine, shut it down. He ended up being the victor in that one, because he let the public know what that cost the country per day. Gingrich lost all credibility after that. Then they tried to morally defame Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal. That didn't work either. Clinton shot back up to 75% approval rating after that fiasco.

Listen to Clinton talk now. He fully approves of everything Obama is doing and tried to do many of the same things himself, and he would have done more of them if he would have had majority in congress.


His way or not at all?! He isn't letting his VP make policy and override Congress. He isn't letting one staff members decide a strategy for invading a country before any of us can blink. He isn't allowing a war to give himself carte blanche to limit our civil liberties. He hasn't come up with a document called "the Obama Doctrine." If you don't remember this happening in the last 8 years, you must be about 5.

[manderso]

I expected Hail to the cheif to be changed to a smooth jazz version. Obama let me down.

[liduponmyhead]

Originally Posted by ShotgunDMB

Obama's platform sucks. He needs to realize the reality of the times we're in and adjust what he does accordingly. You don't try and push through a ridiculous healthcare bill that gives government more control over 15+% of the economy, that includes tax hikes, and all kinds of horrific things during the worst recession in at least 25 years, and possibly longer.

You don't spend a trillion dollars on a "stimulus" package that does absolutely nothing to help businesses create jobs in the private sector.

And you certainly don't try and push an energy tax on people when they're already having trouble paying their bills in the first place.

Bush campaigned on a "humble" foreign policy in 2000. After 9/11 that clearly changed. Point is, Presidents have to look at the world as it is, not how they wish it would be.

Oh please. What do you think the "war on terror" is? You don't think that's just a bit of Captain America idealism? We were attacked, so we are going to just go out and pick a middle eastern country and invade it? What was the strategy there? You don't think we've spent all this money and wasted lives based on some idealistic notion?

Did Bush ever look at the budget and adjust accordingly? No, he raised spending and gave more tax cuts.

[BotheLaneFan]

Originally Posted by manderso

I expected Hail to the cheif to be changed to a smooth jazz version. Obama let me down.

I expected Theme From Shaft, myself.

[TwoStep2888]

Originally Posted by manderso

I expected Hail to the cheif to be changed to a smooth jazz version. Obama let me down.

smooth jazz sucks,

Originally Posted by bothedmbfan

I expected Theme From Shaft, myself.

this is the correct answer. Also, his inaugural address should have been Parliament's "Chocolate City" verbatim, in its entirety.

[ShotgunDMB]

Kenny G, man.

[manderso]

Naked baby charmer

http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/image...2a5de010.L.jpg

[ShotgunDMB]

:lol

Look at that bad ass.

[manderso]

It's a dangerous art

[ShotgunDMB]

Only thing cooler than Kenny G is Enya..or maybe Celine Dion.

[Pengin4192]

Originally Posted by TwoStep2888

smooth jazz sucks,



this is the correct answer. Also, his inaugural address should have been Parliament's "Chocolate City" verbatim, in its entirety.

Definitely. Should have had Bootsy up there laying down the bass line too.

[VanHorneDog]

Originally Posted by TwoStep2888

no, he kinda sucks, imo.

yeah about there,

i thought he would reach across the isle more, but all he does is talk about the Repubs coming to him.

he also has let special interests get to him more than i would have thought he would have, considering the way he fund raised.

[Lcsulla]

Originally Posted by liduponmyhead

Are you kidding?! The Repub's hated Clinton, absolutely hated him! As soon as Gingrich became Speaker, it was all out obstructionist. Clinton and the repub congress did battle and literally shut down government for a couple months because Congress wouldn't approve the new budget Clinton wanted. He said, fine, shut it down. He ended up being the victor in that one, because he let the public know what that cost the country per day. Gingrich lost all credibility after that. Then they tried to morally defame Clinton in the Lewinsky scandal. That didn't work either. Clinton shot back up to 75% approval rating after that fiasco.

Listen to Clinton talk now. He fully approves of everything Obama is doing and tried to do many of the same things himself, and he would have done more of them if he would have had majority in congress.


His way or not at all?! He isn't letting his VP make policy and override Congress. He isn't letting one staff members decide a strategy for invading a country before any of us can blink. He isn't allowing a war to give himself carte blanche to limit our civil liberties. He hasn't come up with a document called "the Obama Doctrine." If you don't remember this happening in the last 8 years, you must be about 5.

I never said Republicans didn't hate Clinton, I said they respected him more than Obama. No one had to defame Clinton with the Lewinsky incident, he did it to himself.

Yeah, I am sure he approves of everything. A compulsive liar publicly agrees with everything his wife's boss thinks is a good idea. I am stunned. :lol

He is not using a war to limit liberties - he is using the economy. His VP is a caricature and his administration is a bunch of yes men. He is using a recession to federalize the country and redistribute wealth.

[liduponmyhead]

[quote=Lcsulla;10384321]

I never said Republicans didn't hate Clinton, I said they respected him more than Obama.

This is totally wrong. They didn't respect him anymore than Obama. They didn't think he governed to the center. This is truly a misconception on your part. They tried to block him on everything he did. Back then, they habitually threw around the word "liberal" because it was considered a dirty word. (Now, it's been up-ed to "socialist")and continually called Clinton a liberal, because, well, that's what he is.

Yeah, I am sure he approves of everything. A compulsive liar publicly agrees with everything his wife's boss thinks is a good idea. I am stunned. :lol

Oh wait, I thought he was deserving of our respect more than Obama? So he's really just pretending to be a Democrat? Is that what you're saying? Just to help make his wife look good? :rolleyes

He is not using a war to limit liberties - he is using the economy. His VP is a caricature and his administration is a bunch of yes men. He is using a recession to federalize the country and redistribute wealth.

So, you do admit that other Presidents have been just as unflexible then, and tend to stick to their own agendas as much as possible?

[ShotgunDMB]

Bill Clinton was not a liberal......

He was Governor of freakin Arkansas, not exactly the land of liberal Democrats.

Centrist.

[AJF_41]

Originally Posted by ShotgunDMB

Bill Clinton was not a liberal......

He was Governor of freakin Arkansas, not exactly the land of liberal Democrats.

Centrist.

plus, he got sum

[BotheLaneFan]

Originally Posted by ShotgunDMB

Bill Clinton was not a liberal......

He was Governor of freakin Arkansas, not exactly the land of liberal Democrats.

Centrist.

Romney was the Governor of freakin' Massachusetts.

[rconverse]

Originally Posted by hmich176

As I said above, they already had that moment. But of course the Administration will be "bragging" about passing health care; Obama campaigned on it! And the Administration will hail it as a great accomplishment, which it is considering it's what he campaigned for. He'll be campaigning for office in 2012 presumably and that campaign will be defined by what he did between 2009 and 2011. What's the two most important things he'll be campaigning on? Healthcare and the economy (if it recovers). So calling it their "mission accomplished" moment is still off.

Who already had what moment? Do you undersand analogies and the past, present, and present perfect tense of the verb will? If not, then you're not going to get it. If so, it stands as an analogy.

To review, I never said it WAS their "Mission Accomplished" moment. I said it will be. In other words, they'll be claiming something that's not actually true.

Even if healthcare passes, nothing is going to start until 2013 (except the collection of money to pay for it - that starts right away. it's bullshit accounting). So, in 2010 elections and 2012, democrats will be touting that they tackled and passed meaningful healthcare. They will claim that they accomplished their mission. However, that would be very, very immature in timing. The truth is, we won't know if the mission is truly accomplished for a while (years).

Similarly, Bush declared Mission Accomplished in Iraq way too early, as we're still in the same mess 5 or six years later, I believe since he said that.

Now, you may disagree and think that in 2010 and 2012, the democrats will be claiming there is still work to do in healthcare. However, that's different than thinking the analogy doesn't apply. I'd completely diagree with that opinion regardless.

[Lcsulla]

[QUOTE=liduponmyhead;10384709]

Originally Posted by Lcsulla

This is totally wrong. They didn't respect him anymore than Obama. They didn't think he governed to the center. This is truly a misconception on your part. They tried to block him on everything he did. Back then, they habitually threw around the word "liberal" because it was considered a dirty word. (Now, it's been up-ed to "socialist")and continually called Clinton a liberal, because, well, that's what he is.


Oh wait, I thought he was deserving of our respect more than Obama? So he's really just pretending to be a Democrat? Is that what you're saying? Just to help make his wife look good? :rolleyes

So, you do admit that other Presidents have been just as unflexible then, and tend to stick to their own agendas as much as possible?

No, Clinton was certainly not a left wing liberal. Obama is. I am not a Clinton fan but I will give the man kudos for being a relatively moderate President.

I, and presumably most conservatives, respect Bill more than Obama. His paying lip service to Obama is not exactly groundbreaking news.

Not what I said

[Bluecow2]

To soon for me to answer this. Need to see what the actual results of his agenda will be. There are things that I applaud him for, and things that I wish he would have handled better out of the gate.

When I voted for Obama, I voted for him based on what I hoped and expected he would accomplish over a period of 4 years....not 1 year. Luckily, I have almost 3 years until I need to feel confident I have the necessary results in front of me in order to weigh in on this question.