I don't like his use of the english language as a tool to say one thing but lead people to believe another...and then when he is approcahed with the contradiction, he reminds people of what he said..and clarifies it...making himself right everytime.
It is the role of a public speaker to ensure the listener understands exactly what he means when he speaks. Obama uses words to do the opposite.
One of Gibbs' most used lines is "that is not what he said...I have the transcript...look at the transcript"
Likewise, I do not appreciate his constant berating of American businesses and his implication that the wealthy are wealthy due to greed and dihonest business practices.
Finally, his policies, like them or not, are class divisive. He claimed tpo be a uniter yet he is proving to be a divider.
1. I'd argue that if the political use of language is your problem, you'll have a problem with all politicians. There is an 'art' to listening to a politician and discerning the real truth that's being spoken.
2. The role of a public speaker is to ensure that the listener 'hears' what the speaker wants the listener to hear. Understanding is not required in all cases. In some cases, understanding is the last thing a speaker wants.
3. There are three reasons people get rich. Inheritance, greed, and dishonesty. A non-greedy honest person will never get rich unless he/she hits the lottery or inherits.
4. When we have two parties who claim they represents different ends of the political spectrum, then all of the policies will be divisive as they try to cater to the people who they feel beholding to. It's practically impossible to cater to the poor/middle class while at the same time catering to the rich/upper class. If you know of a way to pull that off, I'm sure democrats and republicans will be 'all ears'.