President Obama is not the best president, not yet. Not in the last 50 years or even the last 20

[mtnsnake]

although he has the potential when all is said and done to MAYBE become one of the best 5 presidents ever, that is if he follows through on becoming the anti-war president and making the world a more peaceful place.

The best president in the last 50 years is John F Kennedy, followed by Bill Clinton, then by President Obama with a chance for Obama to move ahead of both of them by the time he's done.

As far as the BEST presidents ever, the two Roosevelts are often considered the two best presidents in US history.

[ananda]

1. Obama will never be close to the best president ever.

But he is not the worst either. I'd put him somewhere in the bottom 20.
I put George W. Bush in the bottom 5.

[mtnsnake]

2. How can you say for sure when he's barely through his first two years?

[CakeGrrl]

3. There is no absolute "best president"

He's the best some have seen, and you can't take that from him because you don't hold the same opinion. You're just opining what it would take to raise your own personal estimation.

[Democrats_win]

4. Harper Magazine said Obama resembles Herbert Hoover.

Yes, that magazine was a few months ago. Yet with the passage of the borrow-to-pay-billionaires tax breaks, it seems impossible to call Obama the "best." In fact, the best we can say about Obama is that he is a nice place-holder who took over after the failed bush presidency (which was in fact was the worst presidency in over 100 years).

Obama's work has not had a positive impact on most Americans and the economy will not improve without real initiatives such as tariffs on Chinese crap.

[mtnsnake]

6. US News had Obama ranked 15th overall back in July

I don't feel that any president should be ranked against past presidents until his terms are fully over, but this poll was done by presidential scholars, which ranked all the past presidents in this country. Bush was ranked in the bottom 5 of course.

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2010/07/02/survey-ranks-obama-15th-best-president-bush-among-worst.html

[ProSense]

7. President Obama

debuted highest (No. 15) of any President ever, and based on his first year. The poll has LBJ at No. 16.

So there is that.

[ProSense]

5. Rebuttal

Clinton's first two years:

February 5, 1993 — Family and Medical Leave Act, Pub.L. 103-3, 107 Stat. 6
May 20, 1993 — National Voter Registration Act of 1993, Pub.L. 103-31, 107 Stat. 77
August 10, 1993 — Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub.L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312
November 16, 1993 — Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Pub.L. 103-141, 107 Stat. 1488
November 30, 1993 — Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill), Pub.L. 103-159, title I, 107 Stat. 1536
November 30, 1993 — Don't ask, don't tell (as § 574 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994), Pub.L. 103-160, 107 Stat. 1670
December 8, 1993 — North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Pub.L. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057
May 26, 1994 — Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, Pub.L. 103-259, 108 Stat. 694
September 13, 1994 — Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (including the Violence Against Women Act), Pub.L. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796
September 23, 1994 — Community Development Banking and Financial Institutions Act of 1994, Pub.L. 103-325, title I, subtitle A (§101 et seq.), 108 Stat. 2163


Obama's first two years

January 29, 2009: Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-2
February 4, 2009: Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (SCHIP), Pub.L. 111-3
February 17, 2009: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), Pub.L. 111-5
March 11, 2009: Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub.L. 111-8
March 30, 2009: Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-11
April 21, 2009: Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, Pub.L. 111-13
May 20, 2009: Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-21
May 20, 2009: Helping Families Save Their Homes Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-22
May 22, 2009: Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-23
May 22, 2009: Credit CARD Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-24
June 22, 2009: Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, as Division A of Pub.L. 111-31
June 24, 2009: Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2009 including the Car Allowance Rebate System (Cash for Clunkers), Pub.L. 111-32
October 28, 2009: National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, Pub.L. 111-84
November 6, 2009: Worker, Homeownership, and Business Assistance Act of 2009, Pub.L. 111-92
December 16, 2009: Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, Pub.L. 111-117
February 12, 2010: Statutory Pay-As-You-Go Act, as Title I of Pub.L. 111-139
March 4, 2010: Travel Promotion Act of 2009, as Section 9 of Pub.L. 111-145
March 18, 2010: Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act, Pub.L. 111-147
March 23, 2010: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub.L. 111-148
March 30, 2010: Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, including the Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act, Pub.L. 111-152
May 5, 2010: Caregivers and Veterans Omnibus Health Services Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-163
July 1, 2010: Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-195
July 21, 2010: Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, Pub.L. 111-203
August 3, 2010: Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-220
August 10, 2010: SPEECH Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-223
September 27, 2010: Small Business Jobs and Credit Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-240
December 8, 2010: Claims Resolution Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-291, H.R. 4783
December 13, 2010: Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-296, S. 3307
December 17, 2010: Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-312, H.R. 4853
December 22, 2010: Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010, Pub.L. 111-321, H.R. 2965

Add the START treaty

[Pisces]

8. Nice hard facts.

[mtnsnake]

9. So you're saying the legacy of a president is his first two years only. Wow.

I guess you didn't read the entire thread, just the Clinton part, which set you off on a two year comparison only.

You must have missed the "not yet" part in my title and the part where I said Obama could become one of the top 5 presidents ever.

[ProSense]

10. "set you off on a two year comparison only."

Do you anticipate that Clinton will surpass Obama's achievements?

[mtnsnake]

11. "Do you anticipate that Clinton will surpass Obama's achievements?"

:wtf:

[ProSense]

13. It was a simple question.

In two years, President Obama accomplished significantly more historic legislation than Clinton. That is not going to change despite your assertion about Obama's legacy being defined in two years and runs counter to your point that Obama will "move ahead of" Clinton by the time he's done.

[mtnsnake]

22. I never said that. I said the opposite.

despite your assertion about Obama's legacy being defined in two years

I never asserted any such thing. I asserted, "I don't feel that any president should be ranked against past presidents until his terms are fully over."

[ProSense]

23. Well

"I don't feel that any president should be ranked against past presidents until his terms are fully over."


...that contradicts this point, albeit the first part: "The best president in the last 50 years is John F Kennedy, followed by Bill Clinton, then by President Obama with a chance for Obama to move ahead of both of them by the time he's done.

[mtnsnake]

27. I supplied a link when I made that statement. It's right there in post #6.

I made that statement because I felt that Obama had room to go up in the poll, being he was only 2 years into his first term. He could also go down in those rankings, too, of course. It wasn't my poll, nor was it yours. It was done by presidential scholars.

[ProSense]

29. And I'm saying

that the survey was based mostly on his first year. Yet he still managed to debut higher than every other President.

I'm also saying that his achievements have already surpassed Clinton. That is a fact.

[mtnsnake]

32. No. What you are doing is making this strictly Obama vs Clinton, period

but have at it.

I hope he does surpass Clinton someday in the list of best presidents. That would be nice for all of us. I'm a huge fan of both men.

[Name removed]

36. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Autumn]

61. Doesn't make no sense at all does it? n/t

[Milo_Bloom]

33. QUANTITY does not equal QUALITY.

[ZombieHorde]

84. There is a lot of good stuff there. nt

[Laelth]

12. In my lifetime, I vote LBJ.

Just look at all he accomplished: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson

-Laelth

[dennis4868]

16. yes...

LBJ accomplished alot but he had a super majority of dems in congress....he hardly ever had to deal with a fillubuster....Obama on the other hand has to overcome a fillubuster ON EVERY FUCKING VOTE!!!!!!!

[Laelth]

24. LBJ had a favorable Congress, yes.

But Obama has betrayed the left on issue after issue, and he made a number of right-leaning decisions that did not require approval from Congress. He's no liberal.

As I argued here: http://laelth.blogspot.com

An excerpt, in case you don't want to go look:

Another theory holds that Obama is some kind of liberal pragmatist. He takes what he can get, according to this theory, and given the intransigence of congressional Republicans, especially in the Senate, it is impossible for Obama to enact truly liberal legislation. Liberals are supposed to be pleased that Obama managed to accomplish as much as he has given the current political climate, and liberals are supposed to presume that in a more favorable political climate, Obama would have had the power to effect the transformative change we were promised in the 2008 election campaign. The flaw in this theory is that it ignores everything Obama has done that did not require congressional approval. Appointing Rahm Emanuel, a died-in-the-wool corporatist and leader of the DLC, as Chief of Staff? An industry insider, Ken Salazar, as Secretary of the Interior? Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education? Tim Geithner and Larry Summers as the foxes guarding the financial industry hen house? Republicans didn’t force Obama to appoint any of these people, and each one of these appointments constitutes a direct attack on a core Obama constituency. Environmentalists hate Salazar. Teachers hate Duncan. Most Americans who realize that bankers and financiers are making record profits and pocketing record bonuses on the public dime, while working Americans are forced to tighten their belts, hate the people who got us into this mess. Both Geithner and Summers played key roles in creating the financial meltdown from which we are now trying to recover. Everybody, of course, hates Rahm Emanuel, but liberals have more reason to hate him than most given that he is fond of calling them “fucking retarded.” To argue that Obama has liberal political instincts, but that he has been constrained by congressional Republicans, is patently absurd given the people he appointed to run the Federal Government.

And it’s not just his appointments that have irked liberals. Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay. It’s still open for torture and unconstitutional detention. Obama promised to end the Iraq war. Our troops are still there. Obama said he would escalate the war in Afghanistan, and he has kept his word on that, but he also promised to bring the troops home in 2011. Whoops. Now liberals are supposed to be happy that they’ll be coming home in 2014 ... maybe. Obama promised open government, but in nearly every case that has come before the Courts, Obama’s Department of Justice has argued for secrecy and for denying the public the right to know exactly what our government is doing in our name. Even worse, the Obama administration has taken a hard line on whistleblowers and is dead set on punishing Julian Assange for having the audacity to actually provide the people with some knowledge about the inner workings of their government. Obama could have eliminated “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” with the stroke of a pen. Instead, he ordered a survey and drug his feet on this issue for two years. Environmentalists were hoping that Obama would actually do something about global warming, but the Obama delegation effectively sabotaged negotiations in Copenhagen. Those of us who value our constitutional rights were hoping that Obama would put an end to warrantless wiretapping. That practice has been endorsed by this administration, not to mention that this administration is fully responsible for the electronic, full-body, naked-image searches that are now routine practice at airports across the country. Those of us who care about the republic were hoping that Obama would disavow the unconstitutional “Unitary Executive” theory of government propounded by George W. Bush. Instead, time after time, Obama has fought to preserve executive privilege and power.

Given all of this, liberals are supposed to believe that Obama has liberal instincts and intentions, but that he has been stymied by Republican resistance? Republicans didn’t force Obama to take any of the positions he took on the long list of issues cited above. The argument that Obama is some kind of “liberal pragmatist” is patently absurd.

If you're a liberal, it's hard to argue that Obama is a "great" President, and his failures have little to do with Republican obstruction.

-Laelth

[dennis4868]

26. and LBJ did not betray the left...

when he lied us into war?

[Laelth]

30. One betrayal vs. twenty.

Look at what LBJ got for his one betrayal ... a lot.

Look at what Obama has gotten for his twenty betrayals ... very little.

LBJ was a better President by far, if being liberal is how you define "good."

-Laelth

[Swede]

46. 40,000 soldiers died from 1963 to 1969.

That is a lot.

[dennis4868]

50. CORRECT...

but i am sure that according to the obama haters here that is not alot in comparison to tax cuts for the wealthy for 2 years....

[dennis4868]

49. How many deaths were caused by...

LBJ's betrayal? A FUCKING HELL OF ALOT!!!!!

[obxhead]

45. Obama has had to overcome the threat of a filibuster.

Show me one time Democrats forced Republicans to actually use a filibuster.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

76. Yes, if the Dems had forced the Republicanites to do an actual filibuster...

Caving at the THREAT of a filibuster makes them look like wimps (which they are).

[MadMaddie]

47. Yep

but facts really have no place in historical context do they?:sarcasm:

[pampango]

75. Salon article comparing this congress with the LBJ congress of 1965-66

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/us_senate/?story=/politics/war_room/2010/12/24/schulman_111th_congress

In the short term, the historical record suggests, the nation recoils against far-reaching change; it’s not unusual for the most successful Congressional majorities to lose seats in the next election as the American people collectively utter a breathless, “wait a minute.” But, if the lessons of the 1960s offer any guide, the brick-by-brick accretion of significant legislation can construct enduring new features of the political system.

The Congress of 1965-66 secured not only the civil rights, health, education, and welfare measures commonly associated with Johnson’s Great Society, but a host of other reforms too. The Immigration Act of 1965 eliminated the odious quota system which first became law amidst an outburst of racist nativism in the 1920s. The national origins system, as it was called, had severely limited immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe and all but blocked arrivals from Asia. The new law banned ethnic quotas and opened the doors to a steady stream of arrivals from Asia, making possible the large migrations of Koreans, Filipinos, Japanese and Vietnamese to the United States that have contributed so much to the nation's economic and cultural life.

The current Congress has amassed a record nearly that impressive. It passed controversial legislation to stabilize the financial sector, bail out the automotive industry, and stimulate the sluggish economy. Lawmakers enacted landmark health insurance reform, realizing a legislative goal frustrated since the 1940s, re-regulated Wall Street, compromised on a major tax bill, and passed the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. In the waning days of the lame duck session, the leadership scraped together bi-partisan majorities to repeal “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and ratify the most significant arms control treaty since the end of the Cold War. Unlike their 1960s forbears, who reserved the filibuster for extraordinary measures and did their legislative horse-trading in private, Reid and Pelosi accomplished all this against a determined opposition and in the glare of 24-hour press coverage. For better or worse, their legislative achievement is remarkable.

In 1966, Johnson’s legislative staff and the leadership on Capitol Hill took justified pride in their accomplishments. But, much like last November, the voters balked at the pace and direction of change. In the mid-term election, the Democrats lost 47 House seats; the informal liberal majority took a harder hit, as most of those losses affected progressive northerners (conservative southern Democrats, still a large part of the party’s caucus, held their own). The Democrats also lost three seats in the Senate, where renowned Illinois liberal Paul Douglas, architect of many anti-poverty programs, met defeat.

[cottonseed]

14. I think that's fair. I'm waiting for his term(s) to end before accessing.

Even then it will take some time after to get a sense of where he stands.

[obxhead]

15. How does massive expansion of war especially into

Pakistan become anti war?

Just curious.

[dennis4868]

17. HE ENDED WAR COMBAT...

in Iraq as promised!

[obxhead]

21. Sure.

When we stop firing ammunition in Iraq we'll be able to live up to Obama's claim.

Until then it's not all that different than a mission accomplished banner on a war ship.

[dennis4868]

25. some refuse to believe it...

but we ended combat in Iraq....it's just a fact....do we still have some troops there to help in the transition, yes, but that is very different than combat...we just cannot pick up and leave all at once....that never happends after war....

[obxhead]

28. It's a fact that we are still killing people in Iraq.

It's either combat or it's murder.

[Laelth]

34. +1 Well said.

"It's either combat or it's murder."

-Laelth

[dennis4868]

51. name me one war....

that the USA was involved in that they left all in one shot with nobody staying over for transition, reconstruction, etc...WHY DO PEOPLE EXPECT OBAMA TO BE SUPERHUMAN!

[obxhead]

54. Give me a break.

We're not there because we can't get the troops or equipment out. We're not there for reconstruction. Private contractors doing any reconstruction are using their own private army.

The fact is we are there in a combat capacity and we will remain there long after Obama is out of office.

WHY DO YOU GIVE OBAMA SUCH A PASS! (yeah, I can use caps too)

[Name removed]

83. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mtnsnake]

19. It doesn't.

That's why I included the "that is" part of my post.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Sounds like your opinion.......

and I just want you to know that mine differs greatly.
But thank you for letting us know who YOU THINK was best, etc....

Thank goodness, we're all very different people, with different criteria
as to what constitute the best, and how we see the world.

What I know definitly, is that I'll be working my ass off to re-elect THIS President,
and more progressive candidates for congress than what we will have in the congress
coming in January....
and I'll be doing that from now on as we approach election 2012.

In electing a proven community activist President,
I always understood that in this age of 24/7 corporate media punditry whose
main goal is to ensure that this country has more than enough voters who will
buy into what they are selling, what we should want to do more of
is support this administration (even while pulling their coattails)
in the best way that we can,
as opposed to giving the GOP a helping hand.

[AtomicKitten]

44. +1

thanks

:hi:

[bigwillq]

48. When will your list be available

for viewing?

[FrenchieCat]

66. Op didn't have a list. He simply TOLD us, as though a fact, what he believed.

I was just making sure he understood that the declarative tone of his OP
on a subject matter that is relative to each individual is a ridiculous one.

[bigwillq]

67. OP had a list

"The best president in the last 50 years is (1) John F Kennedy, followed by (2) Bill Clinton, then by (3) President Obama"

".....chance for (1A)Obama to move ahead of both of them by the time he's done."

Seems like a pretty positive list to me. Many are bugging out because OPs opinion differs from theirs.


Would like to hear yours.

[mtnsnake]

68. Yes, I did come off as a little strong. I often do add IMO or "I think" but I didn't this time...

mostly because the prevailing mood lately has been equally strong in other similar threads that occurred before mine.

Curiously, I notice you don't seem to hold others equally accountable to the same standards as you do for me. For example, where were you when someone before me asserted that Obama was the best president ever, as if stating it as fact? Where were you in any such similar threads where they made similar assertions and stated them as if it was fact? Why didn't you go into those threads and offer the same sentiments to them as you did to me?

I admit you are correct that I shouldn't have asserted my post as strongly as I did, but you should admit that you are being selectively critical as well.

[Laelth]

20. Just take a look at this.

Obama pledges more concessions to business at White House summit

By Barry Grey

16 December 2010

At a five-hour summit with top corporate executives on Wednesday, President Obama signaled his readiness to slash corporate income tax rates, weaken business regulations, cut social spending, and drive up US exports at the expense of the wages and conditions of American workers.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/dec2010/obam-d16.shtml

That's no "great" Democrat, though it sounds like a pretty-good Republican.

-Laelth

[Ikonoklast]

31. And the WSWS reporter was in the room?

Opinion presented as fact does not an unbiased news article make.


This thread is full of it.

[Laelth]

38. I just asked you to take a look at it.

If the predictions made in that article prove to be false, I will be relieved. If the predictions made in that article prove to be true, will you eat crow?

-Laelth

[Ikonoklast]

57. I'd be in another dimension of reality if that ever comes true.

WSWS is propaganda, and facts are made to fit the narrative.

Fox News and they have plenty in common.

[Laelth]

81. Fair enough. I will expect you to humbly apologize if any of that comes true. n/t

-Laelth

[FrenchieCat]

35. An article based on speculation from a publication that would rival the most HardRightWing mag for

for the most anti-obama spin!

From same article......The event was closed to the press, and Obama refused to answer questions shouted out by reporters afterward as he left Blair House and walked back to the White House.

So in essence, they don't really know what was discussed, and therefore we don't know either.

To puzzle together what MAY or MAY NOT not have been said by one particular individual in a
5 hour meeting, means that this World Socialist Publication actually doesn't have a clue, apart of what they cherry picked to be chosen as clues of what MAY or MAY NOT have happened to sell you so that you can be satisfied in your unwarranted speculative (mainly made up) wholecloth distrust and dislike for this President.

That's not even close to journalism; its propaganda you're peddling....

and BTW, your slip is showing! :rofl:

[Laelth]

39. If you can't win on facts, attack the messenger.

Nobody can prove, at the moment, what happened in that meeting. As I said above, if the predictions made in that article prove to be false, I will be relieved. If the predictions made in that article prove to be true, will you eat crow?

-Laelth

[FrenchieCat]

42. If one has no facts, than attacking the President based on what he didn't say...is not journalism.

That's what that publication you proudly cite is about.....
and worse still; you know that.

As for eating crow, let's not even go there.....
cause I don't think there is enough crow in the world
that would be needed for those who have predicted
everything and anything based on bad faith, only to
see it not happen....meanwhile moving the goalpost
to some other part of the field.

At some point, it gets fucking tiring to see those twisting themselves
in order to make the one person that can help us the most look bad.
How fucked up is that?
Why help the GOP by participating in a disinformation campaign based on fear,
innuendos, and plain out fabrications?

[Laelth]

82. For a President who promised open government ...

... Obama appears to like to keep his secrets. Why is it, I wonder, that the people are not allowed to know what happened in that meeting?

Can you blame me for being suspicious?

-Laelth

[great white snark]

37. You accept this as fact?

And you speak for the entire left regarding his "betrayals"?

[Laelth]

40. As for the article, it points to suspicious behavior and makes reasonable assumptions.

As for the left, I can give you my list of betayals, but, as you know, nobody appointed me spokesperson.

Another theory holds that Obama is some kind of liberal pragmatist. He takes what he can get, according to this theory, and given the intransigence of congressional Republicans, especially in the Senate, it is impossible for Obama to enact truly liberal legislation. Liberals are supposed to be pleased that Obama managed to accomplish as much as he has given the current political climate, and liberals are supposed to presume that in a more favorable political climate, Obama would have had the power to effect the transformative change we were promised in the 2008 election campaign. The flaw in this theory is that it ignores everything Obama has done that did not require congressional approval. Appointing Rahm Emanuel, a died-in-the-wool corporatist and leader of the DLC, as Chief of Staff? An industry insider, Ken Salazar, as Secretary of the Interior? Arne Duncan as Secretary of Education? Tim Geithner and Larry Summers as the foxes guarding the financial industry hen house? Republicans didn’t force Obama to appoint any of these people, and each one of these appointments constitutes a direct attack on a core Obama constituency. Environmentalists hate Salazar. Teachers hate Duncan. Most Americans who realize that bankers and financiers are making record profits and pocketing record bonuses on the public dime, while working Americans are forced to tighten their belts, hate the people who got us into this mess. Both Geithner and Summers played key roles in creating the financial meltdown from which we are now trying to recover. Everybody, of course, hates Rahm Emanuel, but liberals have more reason to hate him than most given that he is fond of calling them “fucking retarded.” To argue that Obama has liberal political instincts, but that he has been constrained by congressional Republicans, is patently absurd given the people he appointed to run the Federal Government.

And it’s not just his appointments that have irked liberals. Obama promised to close Guantanamo Bay. It’s still open for torture and unconstitutional detention. Obama promised to end the Iraq war. Our troops are still there. Obama said he would escalate the war in Afghanistan, and he has kept his word on that, but he also promised to bring the troops home in 2011. Whoops. Now liberals are supposed to be happy that they’ll be coming home in 2014 ... maybe. Obama promised open government, but in nearly every case that has come before the Courts, Obama’s Department of Justice has argued for secrecy and for denying the public the right to know exactly what our government is doing in our name. Even worse, the Obama administration has taken a hard line on whistleblowers and is dead set on punishing Julian Assange for having the audacity to actually provide the people with some knowledge about the inner workings of their government. Obama could have eliminated “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” with the stroke of a pen. Instead, he ordered a survey and drug his feet on this issue for two years. Environmentalists were hoping that Obama would actually do something about global warming, but the Obama delegation effectively sabotaged negotiations in Copenhagen. Those of us who value our constitutional rights were hoping that Obama would put an end to warrantless wiretapping. That practice has been endorsed by this administration, not to mention that this administration is fully responsible for the electronic, full-body, naked-image searches that are now routine practice at airports across the country. Those of us who care about the republic were hoping that Obama would disavow the unconstitutional “Unitary Executive” theory of government propounded by George W. Bush. Instead, time after time, Obama has fought to preserve executive privilege and power.

Given all of this, liberals are supposed to believe that Obama has liberal instincts and intentions, but that he has been stymied by Republican resistance? Republicans didn’t force Obama to take any of the positions he took on the long list of issues cited above. The argument that Obama is some kind of “liberal pragmatist” is patently absurd.

http://laelth.blogspot.com

In case you're honestly interested.

-Laelth

[FrenchieCat]

43. When one starts quoting their own self as evidence of a point......

then I honestly call Bullshit on such. :rofl:

[WonderGrunion]

69. Nobody appointed you or any of the other 600 odd members

of that waste of a website you've been directing people to attack Obama and his supporters on DU.

[Laelth]

80. Your vitriol serves no useful purpose.

You should be ashamed.

-Laelth

[ZombieHorde]

85. Do you think FDR was a "great" Democrat, or does rounding up people by race, taking away their

property, and imprisoning them disqualify him?

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JoePhilly]

52. I'll ask the question no one else seems to have asked ... why JFK?

[mtnsnake]

53. civil rights, environment, outer space, eloquent, courageous w/a capital C, honorable, inspirational

He was the perfect medicine this country needed in some of the most turbulent times we've ever faced. If only he had lived a full life. We'll never know what we missed out on by him only getting a chance to serve us for a thousand days, he was that good. Maybe you had to be there to understand.

[JoePhilly]

55. I asked you this because ...

I posted an OP about "best President in my lifetime" here on DU the other day, and there were many responses, and from my count, only ONE who picked JFK.

And I definitely get the "eloquent and inspirational" ... space exploration which he started ... and he did start the civil rights work ... which many in the related threads on this attributed more to LBJ.

[mtnsnake]

58. Though LBJ had some good civil rights things atttributed to him in your thread

LBJ really wouldn't make a pimple on Kennedy's ass in any comparisons between the two of them.

One of the saddest things about Kennedy is that there are so many other good things he wanted to do....and he would have gotten done....had he not been assassinated. This country, and probably the world, would have been a better place had Kennedy not been shot.

[JoePhilly]

60. Definitly agree about the "what if" around JFK.

He was very inspirational and could very well have converted that into real results.

[terrya]

56. Abraham Lincoln is considered the best President we ever had.

[BeyondGeography]

59. I enjoy your posts, but you have always seemed conflicted about Obama to me

Which is fine. He has that effect on people. I hope (as I know you do), that he has the full eight years to achieve "greatness." If given that opportunity, I agree with you that he will.

[mtnsnake]

62. Thank you, and thank you for your honesty

in telling me about how I seem conflicted about Obama. I understand why you feel that way. I'm a huge fan of Obama. I always have been. If he had entered the primaries before Hillary, I probably would have chosen him to support and stuck with him, but Hillary entered first, and I stuck with her. Just the same, while I vigorously defended Hillary from all the abuse she got, I tried not to do it at the expense of attacking Obama in a nasty way. About the worst thing I said about him during the primaries was that he was leaning more DLC than what other people would admit to. Regardless, the positive things I've said about Obama have far outweighed the negative. For me, Obama vs Hillary could only end up as a win win situation.

As far as President Obama, most of my family, including me, worships the guy and are pulling for him 100%. Where I am conflicted with Obama today has mostly to do with the tax issue. The tax deal was hard for me to stomach and I'm still disappointed over that. However, the tax issue isn't everything and I still love the guy. I think he's got a chance to go down as one of the great ones. He's got all the tools. However, it won't stop me from criticizing him in the future if I see fit.

Sometimes it's easy to carried away on a posting board and come off as sounding like you don't like someone as much as you do. For example, this is probably the only place where I ever criticize Obama for anything. In real life, when I get stuck talking to a Republican about politics, like at a Christmas party or something, they're gonna get an earful from me if they say anything critical of Obama, even the tax issue.

Also, it's hard for a few people on DU to understand how I can like both the Clintons and Obama as much as I do. It just doesn't seem possible to them how someone can like both President Obama and President Clinton.....and Hillary at the same time.

Did you know that I was one of the first people on this forum to lobby for Obama to run for president? I started a thread back in 2006 calling for an Obama run for President in 2008, and more than a few people thought I was nuts!

[BeyondGeography]

63. The tax issue was brutal, indeed

A blow to the solar plexus. My puppy love phase finally ended there. I don't rule out a relapse.

You're very even-handed; good to see you back here posting regularly again.

[robcon]

64. Bill Clinton was the best president of my lifetime.

Welfare Reform, NAFTA and WTO will keep paying dividends to the country for decades.

[BklnDem75]

65. Thanks for your opinion

I have my own.

[OhioBlue]

70. I agree about JFK

I wasn't yet born, but he was inspirational. I think he is the main factor that cemented many of my Irish-Catholic relatives as Democrats. Without JFK, I don't think LBJ's great society programs would have passed. (Plus LBJ may have never even become President). He set a vision for the Country.

Just my opinion - I think Clinton has/had the magic of a JFK - maybe not quite to that extent, but different times, different outcomes. Clinton had to deal with the Reaganism and JFK was able to ride the New Deal. Again - I wasn't yet born, but it also seems that people were more respectful of the President in JFK's time.

I definitely think Obama has the magic - the situation in which he Governs seems even worse - being handed 2 wars, a huge deficit, the worst economy since the great Depression and dealing with a Country that is perhaps more polarized than it has been in a century. He also has to deal with the 24 hour news cycle, the RW echo chamber, the internet, etc.

I think the circumstances and obstacles are unique for each and it would be hard to only compare their legislative victories. I can understand your rankings for the last 50 years and agree that we will have to wait until Obama's Presidency is complete before the Historians can truly evaluate his "greatness". Personally, I would put him ahead of Clinton at this point but we have to see how the next 6 years go. I don't expect the next 2 to be progressively spectacular. My guess is that it will be highly pragmatic and focused on the deficit and economy. But, I also think that he can win big in 2012, have some coattails and then the next 4 will be bold and exciting.

[Clio the Leo]

71. lol ... "if he follows through on becoming the anti-war president"

NEVER made such claim.

"I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstances.... I don’t oppose all wars."

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

[mtnsnake]

72. That he is anti war is the perception Obama gives me but thanks for the technicality

and your "correction."

That's pretty sad that you'd rather perceive Obama as a war president instead of as an anti-war president, Clio, but to each their own.

[Clio the Leo]

74. and how did he "give" you that idea?

Was it at the 2008 DNC convention when he said he'd kill Bin Laden if he found him?

Or was it when he said, "When I am President, we will wage the war that has to be won, with a comprehensive strategy with five elements: getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in Afghanistan and Pakistan," in August of 2007?
http://www.barackobama.com/2007/08/01/the_war_we_need_to_win.php


This notion that some have that Obama is an anti-war pacifist is, without question, the most laughable outrage of the entire collection.

[mtnsnake]

77. You have pretty much said that Obama is a war monger

which is way more laughable than me thinking of him as a peace candidate.

[Clio the Leo]

78. Well at least we agree that your thinking that he's a pacifist is laughable. nt

[mtnsnake]

79. Your words, not mine. nt

[craigmatic]

73. JFK didn't do anything. Niether did Clinton. Obama should be ranked higher than Clinton

because he's actually done what Clinton couldn't (repeal DADT and pass HCR).