<p>Face it Republicans! After the W.Bush/Cheney debacle any reasonable Democratic candidate would have beaten any Republican nominee. Your brand has been badly damaged by mismanagement and reliance on obsolete strategies.</p>
<p>President Obama ia a good guy who took advantage of opportunities. If he had not had a reasonably credible resume (Ivy league undergraduate, Harvard Law, U.S. Senator),he would not have been nominated. Once nominated, he just had to watch you shoot your self in the feet over the economy. Did the Republican party not learn anything from Bush vs. Clinton? It is still the economy stupid!!!</p>
<p>Senator McCain is a great American who would have fared better if he had ignored Karl Rove. Try to pull your party together and make a more credible showing next election.</p>
<p>Obama's educational pedigree aside, he's got one mammoth of a mess to clean up--and, reality check--he may not be able to set everything right. There are going to be failures that Obama's critics will descend on like a flock of vultures. </p>
<p>But no one else was deemed competent enough to even begin sorting through the debris of the Bush empire. And anyone else who took office would have faced the same situation.</p>
<p>As for nationalising the banks: what do you propose? Let them fail and take the entire system down with it? this isn't 'communism', it's desperate practicality. Plus, no one said that the banks would be completely nationalised.</p>
<p>What do you mean he did nothing to warrant his "ascension"? I guess Lincoln, that other policially "inexperienced" man, wasn't deserving of presidency either? And John McCain was deserving of the office because he crashed planes and fought in war? And Sarah Palin was deserving because.....uh,......she can see Russia from her house? LOL.</p>
<p>Go back on your right-wing blog and let's keep this board on topic. What does this have to do with Columbia?</p>
<p>I don't know what the rhetorical device is called, but claiming Obama is not good because he is not perfect is both a defective argument and another indication (I think) that the conservative right just doesn't get it. If some view Obama as being messianic or perfect, it is only because the profound ineptitude shown by our leadership during the last 8 years makes bad look good and good look perfect. The failures of this past administration are unprecedented, and it will take someone with his capacity to lead and inspire to overcome effects of those failures. </p>
<p>It will be refreshing when conservatism once again shows that it values a little high-minded debate and some level of intellectualism. Harvard Law Review a "school newspaper?" Joe the Plumber would be proud.</p>
<p>Apart from his so called semi-academic "achievments", Obama had no major contribution to American society or politics, before ascending the throne. even then, media made it look like he naturally belongs to the top. When we will look back to this period of history twenty years later, probably people will think what happened to us? First we elected a moron with devil in arms for 8 years, then bring up a dog and pony show to the white house to clean up ealrier mistake?</p>
<p>XPLEDCS isn't your rant a little premature? Just because Obama's political record is slim, doesn't mean he won't be an effective President. The past isn't an indicator of future performance. </p>
<p>He got the ball rolling the minute he was sworn in, that's pretty promising.</p>
<p>I posted this in another thread but I think it might answer your question.</p>
<p>I have always been an Obama supporter and have followed him and his campaign very closely from the begining of his campaign up to his early presidency now. Although, that is not to say that I have not been disappointed along the way, but I do very truthfully believe that he is a lot better than McCain or any Republican leader for the country (and the world) as it is NOW. However, even though he represents hope and arouses many passionate emotions in people across the globe and from all spans of life, it is still important to remember that he is a politicain after all, as I have now realized on his painful appointment for the pastor who strongly apposes gay rights to speak on his annaguration. So I think one should have a balanced perspective when analyzing Obama, because he is neither as great or as lowly as most perceive him to be.</p>
<p>I just think that he's promised a lot to the nation and the world at a time when the US has hit economic and credibility rock bottom and climbing out is going to be a hugely difficult task--of course there'll be disappointments. But frankly, anyone else given the job would be equally challenged and hard pressed to complete it, if not more. So before people berate petty things--like his longer-than-expected timeline for closing Gitmo, I think they need to look at the bigger picture--that he's closing Gitmo at all, and the end goal.</p>
<p>I agree with you on the appointmnt of the pastor, though, that was a strange choice. But the inauguration was one day (very symbolic, but will be a forgotten blimp on the radar in the next 4 years). At least he's not in a position to influence policy. Perhaps BO was just being consistent with his policy of giving voice to many points of view. Like you said, he's a politician.</p>
<p>ive seen a positive change in many of my peers; they seem more hopeful & motivated, something i highly D0UBT would be felt if McCain was in the White House. BO is not a Messiah of some sort, & when he efs up, people will utilize this fallback to stab him. the president now; suck it up or leave the United States if you hate the fact THAT much.</p>
<p>ive seen a positive change in many of my peers; they seem more hopeful & motivated, something i highly D0UBT would be felt if McCain was in the White House. BO is not a Messiah of some sort, & when he efs up, people will utilize this fallback to stab him. it seems as though everyone is waiting for him to mess up; its going to happen, after all no one is perfect. however, BO IS the president now; suck it up or leave the United States if you hate the fact THAT much.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Apart from his so called semi-academic "achievments", Obama had no major contribution to American society or politics, before ascending the throne. even then, media made it look like he naturally belongs to the top. When we will look back to this period of history twenty years later, probably people will think what happened to us? First we elected a moron with devil in arms for 8 years, then bring up a dog and pony show to the white house to clean up ealrier mistake?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So you think John McCain and Sarah Palin are the ones who should have been ascended to the throne to clean up the mess? LOL.</p>
<p>Why can't anyone answer this simple question?</p>
<p>Please explain, then, the following: Bill Richardson, Timothy F. Geithner, Nancy Killefer, and others who are more or less related to him, all mired in scandal. Remember: this has happened all within two weeks of his presidency. </p>
<p>"The last one ruined the most prosperous nation in modern history."</p>
<p>Reagan? The deficit started under him.</p>
<p>Not that McCain would have necessarily solved our problems, but Obama completely reminds me of Bush. Charismatic, popular in the beginning (Bush once had 90% approval rating). We'll see if he can fare a little better as time goes on.</p>
<p>But the real problem I have is the whole "lesser of two evils" epidemic. The best person should receive the vote.</p>