What do historians really think of Obama

[thereisnospoon]

This is spot on...
Read...
What do historians really think of Obama? | Fox News.

Liberals will not read this because it's found on the foxnews.com website. Or they will read it and instantly show a wide range of emotions. From dismissive to down right furious anger.
That does not make this man's views any less correct.

 

[jillian]

well, if fake news says it...

it must be true.

 

[hortysir]

Can't we wait until he's actually out of office before instilling him in to the annals of history?

 

[hortysir]

well, if fake news says it...

it must be true.

Debating the source rather than the content?

Is it untrue that Obama has been dining with historians through the vourse of his Presidency?

 

[thereisnospoon]

well, if fake news says it...

it must be true.

Ok, Pay attention. Now, try debating the content of the article.
You will not get away with simply dismissing the messenger.
Have at it.

 

[Lakhota]

This is spot on...
Read...
What do historians really think of Obama? | Fox News.

Liberals will not read this because it's found on the foxnews.com website. Or they will read it and instantly show a wide range of emotions. From dismissive to down right furious anger.
That does not make this man's views any less correct.

Well, it's pure bullshit for several reasons:

1. It's Fox News - and was written by Ed Klein (he's an Obama smear merchant).

2. Not even one live source link.

3. Obama hasn't even completed one term in office.

 

[Annie]

Can't we wait until he's actually out of office before instilling him in to the annals of history?

Well it wasn't 'us' that asked the historians to multiple dinners, it was Obama. My money would be on Brinkley.

 

[Lakhota]

What have these "historians" written about Obama so far?

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Clementine]

I think the article was interesting and I think the guy nailed it.

I agree that Obama hasn't connected with people. After listening to him for the last few years, I fail to see why he is considered such a good orator. He gets stumped easily without a teleprompter, and even with it, often mispronounces words, like 'corpseman.' There are a lot of er, ah , ehs....... and so forth. In his campaign, he came off sounding like a preacher and demanded attention. He gave the usual promises and his supporters anticipated that he'd be delivering the sun and moon. They're still waiting.

He's divisive and I, for one, have felt more like a target than someone the president is addressing. I'm an enemy for wanting secure borders. I'm a racist for disagreeing with Obama's policies, particularly the oppressive health care reform. I'm greedy for wanting to keep enough of my money to send my own children to college. It's okay that I can pay hefty taxes for others to benefit, but don't have enough left for my own. And I don't qualify for giverment help. Between a rock and a hard place.

Obama comes off as an arrogant elistist. He seems to fancy himself as the greatest president ever, surpassing Reagan, Lincoln and JFK. In reality, as the article points out, he will be in the same category as Jimmy Carter.

He'll go down in history as the most divisive and least experienced CIC we've ever had.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

When one of the historians brought up the difficulties that Lyndon Johnson, another wartime president, faced trying to wage a foreign military venture while implementing an ambitious domestic agenda, Mr. Obama grew testy. He implied that he was different, because he could prevail by the force of his personality. He could solve the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, put millions of people back to work, redistribute wealth, withdraw from Iraq, and reconcile the United States to a less dominant role in the world.

It was, by any measure, a breathtaking display of grandiosity by a man whose entire political curriculum vitae consisted of seven undistinguished years in the Illinois senate and two mostly absent years in the United States Senate. That evening Mr. Obama revealed the characteristics—arrogance, conceit, egotism, vanity, hubris and, above all, rank amateurism—that would mark his presidency and doom it to frustration and failure.

During the presidential campaign, most of the evening’s dinner guests, like their liberal counterparts in the media, had dropped any pretense at objectivity. For instance, Michael Beschloss ('Presidential Courage: Brave Leaders and How They Changed America, 1789-1989') described Obama as “probably the smartest guy ever to become president,” which appeared to put Thomas Jefferson in his place.

I remember when the media was shoveling that crap about how Obama was the smartest president ever (one week into his presidency). Then when he proved to be a stuttering, teleprompter reading dullard, they had to revert back to bragging about how smart Clinton was.

These characteristics had already set the pattern of his administration. Mr. Obama personally conducted his own foreign policy more than any president since Richard Nixon. He made all the decisions, because he believed that only he truly understood the issues. He spent his evenings writing decision papers on foreign affairs when, instead, he should have delegated that chore to experts and devoted his time to schmoozing members of Congress and convincing them to support his programs. He still loved making speeches to large, adoring crowds, but he complained to foreign leaders on the QT that he had to waste precious hours talking with “Congressmen from Palookaville.”

Arrogant piece of garbage.

The senior people in his administration proved to be just as inexperienced and inept as Mr. Obama when it came to the business of running the government. Members of his inner circle—David Axelrod, campaign manager David Plouffe, press secretary Robert Gibbs, and éminence grise Valerie Jarrett—had proven their mettle in the dark arts of political campaigning, but they had no serious experience in dealing with public-policy issues. If they could be said to have any policy exposure at all it was their ideological enthusiasms for the left.

Interesting.

Over the two-hour dinner, Mr. Obama and the historians discussed several past presidents. It wasn’t clear from Mr. Obama’s responses which of those presidents he identified with. At one point, he seemed to channel the charismatic John F. Kennedy. At another moment, he extolled the virtues of the “transformative” Ronald Reagan. Then again, it was the saintly Lincoln…or the New Deal’s “Happy Warrior,” Franklin Roosevelt….

Obama only knows the pup culture version of history.

Mr. Obama told the historians that he had come up with a slogan for his administration. “I’m thinking of calling it ‘A New Foundation,’ ” he said.

Doris Kearns Goodwin suggested that “A New Foundation” might not be the wisest choice for a motto.

“Why not?” the president asked.

“It sounds,” said Goodwin, “like a woman’s girdle.”

Hmm. Sounds like his New Party.

In the wake of the shellacking the Democrats took in the midterm elections in 2010, Mr. Obama held a second dinner with the historians, which was devoted to the question of how he could “reconnect with the public.”

I take it he didn't listen to a damn word they said. Because I doubt the historians advice was to blame Republicans and continue with the same bloated failed policies.

A third dinner took place in July 2011, shortly after Mr. Obama and his team botched the budget-deficit negotiations with Congress, and the United States government lost its Triple-A credit rating for the first time in history. It revolved around the theme “the challenge of reelection.”

Yup. Thinking about himself rather than the American people.

That fall, I spoke to one of the historians who attended all three of the dinners. We met in a restaurant where we were unlikely to be seen, and our conversation, which lasted for nearly two hours, was conducted under the condition of anonymity.

Getting good.

I wanted to know how this liberal historian, who had once drunk the Obama Kool-Aid, matched the president’s promise with his performance. By this time, most of Mr. Obama’s supporters were puzzled by the sense of disconnect between the sharply focused presidential candidate of 2008 and the dazed and confused president of the past three years. The satirical TV show "The Onion News Network" had broadcast a faux story that the real Barack Obama had been kidnapped just hours after the election and replaced by an imposter.

“There’s no doubt that Obama has turned out to be a major enigma and disappointment,” the historian told me. “He waged such a brilliant campaign, first against Hillary Clinton in the primaries, and then against John McCain in the general election. For a long time, I found it hard to understand why he couldn’t translate his political savvy into effective governance.

“But I think I know the answer now,” he continued. “Since the beginning of his administration, Obama hasn't been able to capture the public's imagination and inspire people to follow him. Vision isn't enough in a president. Great presidents not only have to enunciate their vision; they must lead by example and inspiration. Franklin Roosevelt spoke to the individual. He and Ronald Reagan had the ability to make each American feel that the president cared deeply and personally about them.

“That quality has been lacking in Obama. People don’t feel that he’s on their side. Obama doesn't connect. He doesn't have the answers. The irony is that he was supposed to be such a brilliant orator. But, in fact, he’s turned out to be a failure as a communicator."

I actually find his preacher style voice to be pretentious and annoying now. Once you realize a guy is full of hot air, it's just not inspiring at all. And frankly, he can't even do that when he's not giving a pre prepared speech that someone else wrote. There will be no "Dammit I paid for this microphone." moment for Obama.

"More than that, Obama might not have the place in history he so eagerly covets. Instead of ranking with FDR and Reagan and other giants, it seems more likely that he will be a case-study in presidential failure like Jimmy Carter."

LMAO. Actually, I don't think Obama gives a damn about where he actually ranks. There's enough apologists who can make him look good enough. He actually gets his jollies from f'ing over the American people who he hates in the first place.

 

[Annie]

What have these "historians" written about Obama so far?

Historical rankings of Presidents of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What you are missing here, is trying to equate 'historians' speaking in a historical sense and as pundits. From what I can see from the OP it's the later. It's way too soon to see Obama in 'history.' Contrary to so many liberals it's too soon to see Carter or Reagan historically in any sense of the word, either.

In a 'modern historical perspective', Ford, Nixon, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Truman. Roosevelt is now getting close to being able to be viewed with some distance, though opinions of parents and grandparents come into play.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

No. Aspects of history may be further known down the road. But a president's worth is readily apparent.

 

[Lakhota]

Someone like Ed Klein commenting on what historians "really" think about Obama at this point is about as meaningful as hearing it from Pee-wee Herman.

 

[Annie]

Someone like Ed Klein commenting on what historians "really" think about Obama at this point is about as meaningful as hearing it from Pee-wee Herman.

So you are accusing Klein of lying? That none of the invited historians talked?

 

[Lakhota]

Klein has been criticized for his biography of Hillary Clinton titled, The Truth about Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President, which was released on June 21, 2005 and which has a strongly republican tone [3]. Politico criticized the book for "serious factual errors, truncated and distorted quotes and overall themes (that) don't gibe with any other serious accounts of Clinton's life."

Edward Klein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even Fox Guests Say Ed Klein Isn't Credible -- So Why Can't The Network Stop Talking About His Book? | Media Matters for America

Professional Hack: A Review Of Ed Klein's* The Amateur | Media Matters for America

The book’s foreign policy complaints are noisier, especially on what it calls Mr. Obama’s “Jewish problem.” Mr. Klein had no trouble finding angry on-the-record complaints about this administration’s treatment of Israel. He raises questions about whether Mr. Obama’s attempts at an evenhanded approach to the Arab world has reduced American influence there. And while carefully steering clear of the Bush administration’s foreign policy record, he accuses the president of botched, inconsistent handling of the tumultuous Arab Spring.

More: Edward Klein’s Invective-Laden Obama Book - The New York Times

 

[Artevelde]

Too early to tell.

 

[Annie]

Klein has been criticized for his biography of Hillary Clinton titled, The Truth about Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President, which was released on June 21, 2005 and which has a strongly republican tone [3]. Politico criticized the book for "serious factual errors, truncated and distorted quotes and overall themes (that) don't gibe with any other serious accounts of Clinton's life."

Edward Klein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even Fox Guests Say Ed Klein Isn't Credible -- So Why Can't The Network Stop Talking About His Book? | Media Matters for America

Professional Hack: A Review Of Ed Klein's* The Amateur | Media Matters for America

The book’s foreign policy complaints are noisier, especially on what it calls Mr. Obama’s “Jewish problem.” Mr. Klein had no trouble finding angry on-the-record complaints about this administration’s treatment of Israel. He raises questions about whether Mr. Obama’s attempts at an evenhanded approach to the Arab world has reduced American influence there. And while carefully steering clear of the Bush administration’s foreign policy record, he accuses the president of botched, inconsistent handling of the tumultuous Arab Spring.

More: Edward Klein’s Invective-Laden Obama Book - The New York Times

So, are you accusing Klein of lying? That none of the invited historians talked?

 

[Lakhota]

So, are you accusing Klein of lying? That none of the invited historians talked?

I don't know if they talked or not, but I wouldn't trust Klein to report it accurately.

 

[MuadDib]

Klein nailed it and the central point that the Obama doesn't get is right there in the article.

America doesn't want "A New Foundation". We want the foundation that was established by the Founders and Framers, and we expect the Obama to work and govern within that foundation and its principles.

 

[editec]

An historian believes that Obama hasn't connected with the public? Well I think there's some truth to that too. AFter all there are plenty of polls documenting that his popularity with the public as waxes and wanes over time

But historians aren't in the belief business.

They're in the discovery of what occurred business.

Basically what this article is discussing isn't history, so much as it is the opinion of a a few historians about Obama's popularity.