In Defense of Obama

[Mr. Smith]

@Antonio: Pretty sure I could pick out a random two years from Clinton that did just as much.

Next, any liberal glorification of Nixon comes from the fact that the spectrum overall has gone so far right that they are starved to find someone who doesn't bow the deregulation, "Government is Bad" BS that Reagan brought into the fold.

It's no different than an early Rockefeller Republican that voted for Wilson reluctantly and was disgusted by how leftist things were headed...only for FDR to force the GOP to the left to stay relevant. Both sides were pretty far left in the 40's and 50's that a Wilsonian could be disgusted.

I agreed with Krugman's skepticism then, and I'm being proven entirely correct. He could've done a lot better by simply going the whole-hog on something. But it's all half-assed. The Regressives (Obama and New Democrats are Conservative, Neocons are Conservative, the GOP is too far right for that title) will heckle him anyway no matter what he does, so he should've shoved up the Public Idea or done a huge-ass stimulus.

Then he could've had FDR,LBJ or Reagan status, partisan,but effective...or hell the principled statuses of Truman,Hoover, or Carter.

The only reason to continue the tolerance of him is the exact same reason the Regressives had to wait for Watergate to abandon the equally opportunistic Nixon,...because Congress is obstructing them (the 70's Dem controlled congress...which is exactly what is needed here and now)

[Mr. Smith]

Obama got rid of Bin Laden,that'll be enough for him to get up on the top in the long run,despite his digustingly Nixonian record of half-assing everything.

And also to the poster that assumes War and Imperialism = The Tops...they appear to be forgetting Dwight Eisenhower,Bill Clinton and George Washington.The last you could pout has the Founding Father nostalgic effect going on,but fact is there still were no wars when he was President.

And Eisenhower and Clinton both were like reactive,peacetime  moderates to the likes of the dominant New Dealism and Reaganomics. But both handled the economy nicely,both managed a decent hand at domestic policies (though not to the extent of Johnson or FDR). While there may have been minor skirmishes, there were no real wars under them [Eisenhower was all about ending the Korean War], yet they are on top.

Also LBJ and Nixon should totally be farther up the ladder for Vietnam, Wilson too for WWI, McKinley for the Spanish-American War and being the first serious imperialist [also he should have the assassinated effect like Lincoln and JFK]. And yet Nixon will always be tarnished only by Watergate, and wars destroyed LBJ and Wilson in hindsight.

So yeah I'm calling bullsh**t on that.

And if Obama had seriously gone all out, with the way things are polarized right now, he'd probably  be impeached for some kind of idiocy or "war crimes" by the crocodile tears of the chickenhawk "New Democrats" and Conservatives and Regressives, and the liberal base still left would do what they did to LBJ.

Besides he's already pretty much added nothing new to foreign policy and really just continued the Dubya doctrine...except smarter, more efficient, and not as explicitly arrogant.