Opinion of Barack Obama

[bedstuy]

He's a good President being impeded by the economy and Republicans.  He can't just snap his fingers and get 4% unemployment and a rational Republican Party.  In the context of our current politics, we couldn't have done much better than Obama.

That said, I have three complaints.

He should have passed a bigger stimulus in 2009, with no tax cuts.

He should have gotten Harry Reid to axe the filibuster in 2009, asked the Congress to work overtime and slammed through legislation like crazy when Democrats controlled both Houses.  

He should have had more chutzpah and used the bully pulpit and the media to advance his agenda.  

[bedstuy]

He's a good President being impeded by the economy and Republicans.  He can't just snap his fingers and get 4% unemployment and a rational Republican Party.  In the context of our current politics, we couldn't have done much better than Obama.

That said, I have three complaints.

He should have passed a bigger stimulus in 2009, with no tax cuts.

He should have gotten Harry Reid to axe the filibuster in 2009, asked the Congress to work overtime and slammed through legislation like crazy when Democrats controlled both Houses.  

He should have had more chutzpah and used the bully pulpit and the media to advance his agenda.  

I obviously agree with these criticisms but hindsight is 20/20: the extent of the economic crisis in early 2009 was not fully understood and the stimulus he signed was the biggest one possible. It was also incredibly impactful: our unemployment rate would have been at 14-15% without it and our "green energy" sector would have collapsed.

I viewed the President similarly until I read this book, which was really illuminating about the extent of Republican intransigence:

I think that's a totally fair point and I agree.  Political reality constrains the theoretically good policy ideas we would like to see implemented.  And, on balance, Obama's legislative record is the best since LBJ, while politics is more dysfunctional than it has been in recent history. 

However, next chance we get to pass some good legislation, Democrats need to be completely ruthless.  If Democrats control Congress again, Day One they should amend the rules of both Houses to speed things up and pass their agenda.  The lesson to me from Obama's tenure is that we need to be more brutal, manipulative and bold.

[bedstuy]

Essentially a big city machine style politician, whose flaws and virtues are the same as most other machine politicians. Targeted voters get pork, while others are left out in the cold; though some commitments were kept, others were made with little intention of being kept; policy and politics were inseparably interwoven; use of the government apparatus to harass and punish opponents while protecting supporters; widespread outright cronyism and less severe graft; legislation was passed for what seemed like the sake of passing legislation, without foresight or even concern for whether or not it would work; the cult of personality was actively encouraged...the list goes on. Something that separates him from other machine politicians, however, is that most of them have to work their way through the machine, build coalitions, and make deals. Obama didn't have to do any of that, and that lack of experience guaranteed he would be in over his head.

Most of these things could have been said about Bush or most other executive level politicians. What's clear is that he was not the transformational politician his worshippers thought he would be. It was embarrassing watching them cry and fawn over him in 2008, it's even worse going back and reading/watching what was being said in hindsight.

How is that remotely true?  He's from Chicago (sort of), which is a big city so that's close enough.  But, he wasn't a part of establishment politics in Illinois or Chicago.  That's just a ridiculous statement.  But, I guess you can add the weasel-word "style" to your insulting characterization and it doesn't need to be true.   

[bedstuy]

LOL weasel-word? "Style" is central to the characterization, which in my opinion is not "insulting." As I wrote just a few words later, there are virtues to that "style" of governance. I also wrote "Something that separates him from other machine politicians, however, is that most of them have to work their way through the machine, build coalitions, and make deals. Obama didn't have to do any of that." So yeah, I made it clear that he didn't work his way up through the machine in Chicago, though his political formation occurred in Chicago. It also implies that I think a traditional machine politician would have been better. I also gave a long list of attributes of his administration that I believe are part and parcel of the machine "style."

Given the hostility of your response I can only assume you're still getting the chills up your leg when your dear leader speaks, so whatever...

OK, we agree that Obama is not a machine politician.  I guess we can agree to disagree on what honest discourse looks like. 

But, as a supporter of the "essentially" Stalinist, North Korean juche "style" Obama administration, at least I have my machine politics patronage job to look forward.  And at least we don't have "essentially" a homicidal, Satanist, fascist, rapist "style" politician like Mitt Romney as President.

So whatever...

[bedstuy]

LOL weasel-word? "Style" is central to the characterization, which in my opinion is not "insulting." As I wrote just a few words later, there are virtues to that "style" of governance. I also wrote "Something that separates him from other machine politicians, however, is that most of them have to work their way through the machine, build coalitions, and make deals. Obama didn't have to do any of that." So yeah, I made it clear that he didn't work his way up through the machine in Chicago, though his political formation occurred in Chicago. It also implies that I think a traditional machine politician would have been better. I also gave a long list of attributes of his administration that I believe are part and parcel of the machine "style."

Given the hostility of your response I can only assume you're still getting the chills up your leg when your dear leader speaks, so whatever...

OK, we agree that Obama is not a machine politician.  I guess we can agree to disagree on what honest discourse looks like. 

But, as a supporter of the "essentially" Stalinist, North Korean juche "style" Obama administration, at least I have my machine politics patronage job to look forward.  And at least we don't have "essentially" a homicidal, Satanist, fascist, rapist "style" politician like Mitt Romney as President.

So whatever...

Yes honest discourse, like comparing Richard Daley to Kim Jong Il? You're the one doing that. You again seem to think that the machine label is automatically an insult, which it's not. Bush gave patronage jobs to supporters, as does Obama. You don't have nearly enough money to give Obama for him to give you a patronage job or the government favors he likes to give out.

Anyway, I'd recommend you check this out, should help you with your problem:

The reason I referenced North Korea was your reference to Obama as "Dear Leader" which is what North Koreans called Kim Jong-Il.  More to the point, this isn't personal.  You don't need to talk about my failed bid to get the Ambassadorship to Fiji or my menstrual cramping induced pugnacity.   

As a matter of language, I think you're just saying Obama is corrupt.  I don't know what you're referring to exactly.  Obama has given political positions to Democrats and people he knows, but that's not corrupt at all.  Every President appoints people with similar policy views and long-time allies he can trust to remain loyal.  Regardless of your defintion, this administration has been a vast improvement over the Bush administration on ethics.