The Problem with Barack Obama... to me...

[Article 15]

He lacks balls.

I agree. He looks for compromise too much. He needs to grab an issue and drive it home. LBJ got Civil Rights through even though he had strong opposition in both parties. Obama needs to show more strength within his party and just screw the Republicans. They are not going to support anything he does anyway

/agree

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh.............ohhhhhh!!!!! California Girl...........as usual.........pwning the k00ks on the US Message Board!!! How astute a thread is this???!!!!!!!!!


Yup.......as Ive been saying for over a year, Obama is the modern day Wizard of Oz. In 2008, he was one guy.........in 2009, hes a completely different guy. 2008? Modern pragmatist!! 2009? Committed ideologue!! These video's are a perfect illustration of that. And the American people are catching on..........one by one.........

Of course, Obama will never fall below 40% because a huge number of his constituency are sheep and have no clue on most issues and were duped by the PC police years ago!! But the critical 10% that swing elections are increasingly viewing this guy as a fraud!!! And thats good for America!!!



Watch THIS video and you get an idea of how independents are now viewing this phoney president of ours...................ps, one of the funniest videos you'll ever see!!!

Zero to Ghetto in 3, 2, 1 Video by Splibit - MySpace Video

 

[California Girl]

I wouild be extremely disappointed in any president that was "passionate" about sending 30 thousand young americans into harm's way.

The very best of war time leaders - like Churchill - managed to combine the compassion of sending soldiers into war, with passion for the just cause. I expected more from Obama - I think you give him too much credit. His lack of passion wasn't about the seriousness of the issue, it was because he just doesn't give a shit.

 

[California Girl]

I keep reading on here (and elsewhere) how these mythical 'right wingers' all loathe/hate Obama. To be clear, I don't hate Obama. Actually, there was a time - back in 2004 - when I thought he might be a Democrat I would vote for as POTUS. Rare as hens teeth! And, as I am 28, I have never seen a Republican that I thought I might vote for as POTUS.

But when I stopped watching his speeches, and started reading the transcripts instead, I found I was - yet again - disappointed. He's not an honest man. I'm not saying he's less honest than the rest, just that will not vote for a dishonest politician. I find that quite hard every election day.

Anyway, while watching his Afghan speech this evening (1am UK time), I remembered what it is that first started me questioning him. So, to explain it, here are two videos of his speeches.

The first is one of his speeches to the SEUI. This is Obama, passionate, caring, totally commited to the cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ1NJaCtIkM

This is his Afghan speech from last night. Nothing - no passion, no commitment, no rallying the American people to a just cause.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXxBAOXCqEw

That's what I don't like about Obama. He's a community organizer - and we need a world class leader. Now, if anyone wants to define that as 'hate', then feel free but I don't hate the man - I fundamentally disagree with his policies. But the issue I have with Obama - he is just not good enough to lead our country.

Discuss, or not... either is fine by me.

I feel that you hate him not for your simple disagreements, but when I see you go along with the little "side" digs on him that are totally unnecessary.........................the unwarranted criticisms(not on policy, but on corny shit that has no bearing on anything), etc.

Therein lays my issue - you 'feel' that I 'hate' him - I don't hate him. I clearly stated what I dislike and why. And yet, you still have to start whining about 'hate'. That is pathetic.

 

[skookerasbil]

Hey California Girl............check out the vid in my last post!!!!! A carbon copy of Obama ( no pun intended!!)

 

[maineman]

I wouild be extremely disappointed in any president that was "passionate" about sending 30 thousand young americans into harm's way.

The very best of war time leaders - like Churchill - managed to combine the compassion of sending soldiers into war, with passion for the just cause. I expected more from Obama - I think you give him too much credit. His lack of passion wasn't about the seriousness of the issue, it was because he just doesn't give a shit.

and you know this how?

and you think that anyone should take you seriously when you claim that the president of the united stated doesn't "give a shit" about having to send young men in harm's way?

GMAFB

 

[Ravi]

The problem with Obama is that he's not Hillary Clinton, someone that actually has balls and isn't afraid to use them.

 

[skookerasbil]

http://http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=53093030

 

[California Girl]

I wouild be extremely disappointed in any president that was "passionate" about sending 30 thousand young americans into harm's way.

The very best of war time leaders - like Churchill - managed to combine the compassion of sending soldiers into war, with passion for the just cause. I expected more from Obama - I think you give him too much credit. His lack of passion wasn't about the seriousness of the issue, it was because he just doesn't give a shit.

and you know this how?

and you think that anyone should take you seriously when you claim that the president of the united stated doesn't "give a shit" about having to send young men in harm's way?

GMAFB

Yea, because I provided video evidence of why I think he doesn't give a shit. There are two videos - one when he gives a shit and one when he doesn't. Any strong leader who really cared would have managed to stir Americans. Instead, he simply delivered a speech which he clearly did not believe in.

And that pisses me off. These are my family, my friends, he wants to send - And if he's sending another 30,000 - then there are hundreds of thousands of 'me', around the country. These are our troops - he owed it to them to care and he didn't.

 

[tigerbob]

Did anyone notice they didn't play "Hail to the Chief" when Obama gave that speech? Wouldn't it be normal to play that? Especially at West Point?

 

[Dr.Traveler]

But the issue I have with Obama - he is just not good enough to lead our country.

Discuss, or not... either is fine by me.

The same could be said about a great deal of the Presidents since FDR. Of the Presidents I've lived through, only George H.W. Bush was really and truly worthy of the office. And yes, I did live through Reagan.

I don't regret my vote for him, but I do regret that he isn't a stronger President. He seems hobbled by the fact he has his own party controlling the Congress, much like Bush seemed to be hobbled by DeLay and Frist. They seem to be leading him, rather than the other way around.

I'm kinda hoping that the GOP picks up seats in 2010. I'm a fan of divided government and both Clinton and Reagan shined as Presidents when they were forced to deal with an opposition controlled Congress. I think Obama will be a stronger, better President with a reasonable GOP party to work with.

 

[maineman]

The very best of war time leaders - like Churchill - managed to combine the compassion of sending soldiers into war, with passion for the just cause. I expected more from Obama - I think you give him too much credit. His lack of passion wasn't about the seriousness of the issue, it was because he just doesn't give a shit.

and you know this how?

and you think that anyone should take you seriously when you claim that the president of the united stated doesn't "give a shit" about having to send young men in harm's way?

GMAFB

Yea, because I provided video evidence of why I think he doesn't give a shit. There are two videos - one when he gives a shit and one when he doesn't. Any strong leader who really cared would have managed to stir Americans. Instead, he simply delivered a speech which he clearly did not believe in.

And that pisses me off. These are my family, my friends, he wants to send - And if he's sending another 30,000 - then there are hundreds of thousands of 'me', around the country. These are our troops - he owed it to them to care and he didn't.

"evidence"??? ROFLMFAO

like I said... it is strictly your opinion, and "evidence" of nothing. I would be extremely disappointed if the president were "passionate" about sending 30 thousand american troops to clean up the mess that Bush left us. This is a terrible mess... and Obama knows it. This was not a joyous decision for him and I think he showed us the gravity of it quite well.

 

[nodoginnafight]

But the issue I have with Obama - he is just not good enough to lead our country.

Discuss, or not... either is fine by me.

The same could be said about a great deal of the Presidents since FDR. Of the Presidents I've lived through, only George H.W. Bush was really and truly worthy of the office. And yes, I did live through Reagan.

I don't regret my vote for him, but I do regret that he isn't a stronger President. He seems hobbled by the fact he has his own party controlling the Congress, much like Bush seemed to be hobbled by DeLay and Frist. They seem to be leading him, rather than the other way around.

I'm kinda hoping that the GOP picks up seats in 2010. I'm a fan of divided government and both Clinton and Reagan shined as Presidents when they were forced to deal with an opposition controlled Congress. I think Obama will be a stronger, better President with a reasonable GOP party to work with.

I might agree if the GOP could provide any evidence of being something other than just "NOT what HE said."

I LIKE governance from the middle and our system is set up to encourage that. So I have to disagree with those who call for a "just ram it down their throats" approach.

A real leader (imho) is someone who listens all around the table, THEN makes a decision, and THEN goes about the process of getting everyone else on board. In THIS respect I have to say his speech was somewhat effective. I am one of those who opposes sending more troops to Afghanistan, but his speech did accomplish softening my opposition somewhat. Folks who were more on the fence than I was about it - were probably swayed to be more supportive of the decision.

In terms of honesty or a lack thereof, I am ambilvalent. I've seen no evidence to support the conclusion that he is more dishonest than any president within my lifetime and I have seen evidence to support the conclusion that he is significantly MORE honest than most. That might just be a function of how I translate "politi-speak" and set my expectations accordingly.

Just MHO.

 

[Zoom-boing]

My statement stands. He was announcing a strategy change that will result in 30 thousand americans being placed in harm's way. That is nothing to be enthusiastic about imo.

Enthusiasm is often mis-portrayed as an appetite for conflict. If he'd been upbeat, Fox would have been all over it. Obama is surrounded by image consultants and speechwriters now - they would be unlikely to let him make such an obvious mistake.

'Passion' and 'enthusiasm' convey more of a 'positive pleasure' message, which is not what I meant; wrong words. I wish he had displayed much more conviction in his speech; confidence that, although this is something we wish we didn't need to do, we're going to do and we're going to win. I wish I had seen that which he displayed in the first video in his speech last night. I didn't.

I think his image consultants need to tell him to show some damn emotion. He may very well be getting advice to 'stay cool as it exudes confidence'. To me that comes off as indifferent and uncaring.

 

[tigerbob]

My statement stands. He was announcing a strategy change that will result in 30 thousand americans being placed in harm's way. That is nothing to be enthusiastic about imo.

Enthusiasm is often mis-portrayed as an appetite for conflict. If he'd been upbeat, Fox would have been all over it. Obama is surrounded by image consultants and speechwriters now - they would be unlikely to let him make such an obvious mistake.

'Passion' and 'enthusiasm' convey more of a 'positive pleasure' message, which is not what I meant; wrong words. I wish he had displayed much more conviction in his speech; confidence that, although this is something we wish we didn't need to do, we're going to do and we're going to win. I wish I had seen that which he displayed in the first video in his speech last night. I didn't.

I think his image consultants need to tell him to show some damn emotion. He may very well be getting advice to 'stay cool as it exudes confidence'. To me that comes off as indifferent and uncaring.

I agree with the statement that a little more conviction would be a good thing. Last night's speech was rather flat from that perspective.

 

[nodoginnafight]

He may very well be getting advice to 'stay cool as it exudes confidence'. To me that comes off as indifferent and uncaring.

To me it comes off as intelligent, thoughtful, and under control. And since I value those traits, it doesn't bother me at all.

To each his/her own I guess.

 

[Claudette]

Couldn't agre more Cali.

I don't hate the guy. I just think he's in way, way, way over his head. I don't think he has a clue. He's a community organizer not a POTUS and it shows. He leans way to far left for me as well and wants to take this country in his direction. Not my cup of tea at all.

 

[G.T.]

Yea, because I provided video evidence of why I think he doesn't give a shit. There are two videos - one when he gives a shit and one when he doesn't. Any strong leader who really cared would have managed to stir Americans. Instead, he simply delivered a speech which he clearly did not believe in.

And that pisses me off. These are my family, my friends, he wants to send - And if he's sending another 30,000 - then there are hundreds of thousands of 'me', around the country. These are our troops - he owed it to them to care and he didn't.

Yea, you're reaching for shit that's not really there and we're expected to think you simply disagree with his actions but don't hate him, or at least hate on him. *pathetic* back atcha.

Who are you to say whether a man, who says he cares for the lives of our Armed Forces in-fact does, or not.....Jesus? Moses? Muhammad? Allah? Buddha? Ghandi?

awful. Partisanship personified. Casting on him that he doesn't give a fuck about our troops with nothing but unsubmissible bumble-fuck evidence. Real nice! Stay classy, America!~

 

[California Girl]

Did anyone notice they didn't play "Hail to the Chief" when Obama gave that speech? Wouldn't it be normal to play that? Especially at West Point?

Yes, it would be normal to play it. According to media reports, Obama decided not to because of the 'seriousness' of the speech.

Or maybe he thought it would be laughed at.

 

[nodoginnafight]

As to the speech not being "passionate" enough - I personally respond better to intellectual arguments/decisions than I do to emotional ones. Krathammer (and others) may respond more to emotional appeals and to each his/her own.

But I think the rest of the world was looking for some indications that this was not some emotional, ginned-up, war whoop like Bush used to dupe others into Iraq.

On that score, I'd have to say mission accomplished.