Two views of how history will judge President Obama

[deltex1]

He has now spent eight years, counting from the start of his first presidential campaign, keeping his head while others were losing theirs, and avoiding rhetorical overreach at the risk of underreach.


It has been longer than 8 years. Lets look at the Obama assessment of the Bush administrations plans to invade Iraq in Oct 2002

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length

Not bad for a community organizer

And now he says the same about iran as they prepare to shove a nuke up his ass.

Iran has not bothered anyone outside their border for decades

An overreaction will escalate a nonvolatile situation into war. To the dismay of Conservatives, economic sanctions are working

How much did you pay for those blinders? They sure are working....for YOU.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Can we second guess his statement that AQ is on the run?

Actually, most of it is: the original cast and crew are pretty much dead. Only, there is no way to foretell is new cells are springing up, especially in lands that we somehow call our "alllies in the war on terror". What a bunch of bunk.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

He could have been a great president, had he used his power properly.

He will likely double the national debt in his two terms, an accomplishment that is little recognized...along with the numerous detrimental effects of adding 10 trillion in debt. However, he did enrich his cronies and expand the power of government.

Reforming healthcare was a great idea and much needed, but allowing the healthcare industry and big pharma to write Obamacare, is certainly one of his biggest failures.

Now pushing Russia to war with his sanctions and constant meddling in Ukraine, might just get us into WWIII...then maybe like FDR, many fools will consider him great.

And I also thank you for taking the time to actually give input. I don't agree with most of what you wrote, but I commend you for taking time to express it with some points, points worth considering.

Christopher Caldwell, in his scathing write-up about the President, said something that we could pretty much apply to every president:

"We will not know for years whether Obama’s big deficits risked a future depression to avoid a present one, or whether the respite he offered from “humanitarian invasions” made the country safer."


Of course, this argument has a little of the "butterfly effect" in it, but we cannot ever see the future and always second guessing is probably not helpful, either.

Can we second guess his statement that AQ is on the run?

Actually, most of it is: the original cast and crew are pretty much dead. Only, there is no way to foretell is new cells are springing up, especially in lands that we somehow call our "alllies in the war on terror". What a bunch of bunk.

What war on terror? Last I heard there is no such war being waged by the Obama regime.

 

[Stephanie]

He has now spent eight years, counting from the start of his first presidential campaign, keeping his head while others were losing theirs, and avoiding rhetorical overreach at the risk of underreach.


It has been longer than 8 years. Lets look at the Obama assessment of the Bush administrations plans to invade Iraq in Oct 2002

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length

Not bad for a community organizer

And now he says the same about iran as they prepare to shove a nuke up his ass.

He scares the hell out of me. and I've never felt that from any President I've voted for in 45 years. Clinton was close but this man. I just don't feel good under him.

 

[deltex1]

Many previous enemies are dead all over the world...and they have been replaced by enemies of the same ilk...with the same intentions...and they now face a hesitant and leaderless America.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dumb as he was, Dubya who how many states were in the USA

That's the best you got?

Obama's a tool

 

[rightwinger]

He has now spent eight years, counting from the start of his first presidential campaign, keeping his head while others were losing theirs, and avoiding rhetorical overreach at the risk of underreach.


It has been longer than 8 years. Lets look at the Obama assessment of the Bush administrations plans to invade Iraq in Oct 2002

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length

Not bad for a community organizer

And now he says the same about iran as they prepare to shove a nuke up his ass.

Iran has not bothered anyone outside their border for decades

An overreaction will escalate a nonvolatile situation into war. To the dismay of Conservatives, economic sanctions are working

How much did you pay for those blinders? They sure are working....for YOU.

Conservatives have been trying to trump up reasons to attack Iran for 40 years

 

[deltex1]

He has now spent eight years, counting from the start of his first presidential campaign, keeping his head while others were losing theirs, and avoiding rhetorical overreach at the risk of underreach.


It has been longer than 8 years. Lets look at the Obama assessment of the Bush administrations plans to invade Iraq in Oct 2002

What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.
What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression. That's what I'm opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics. Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity. He's a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.
But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history. I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length

Not bad for a community organizer

And now he says the same about iran as they prepare to shove a nuke up his ass.

Iran has not bothered anyone outside their border for decades

An overreaction will escalate a nonvolatile situation into war. To the dismay of Conservatives, economic sanctions are working

How much did you pay for those blinders? They sure are working....for YOU.

Conservatives have been trying to trump up reasons to attack Iran for 40 years

LIBTARDS have been avoiding the reasons to attack Iran for years.

 

[hortysir]

The two articles are a perfect portrayal of the polar opposites on this site.
At least the OP, regardless of his leanings, can concede points from both sides.
Not so much with the hyperpartisans that post here.

Good read, OP.
Thank you

 

[Interpol]

The Standard's dissenting opinion is quite frankly stupid. "Obama's big deficits" is where they lose me. The President inherited a $1.5 trillion yearly deficit.

He has since cut it by more than two-thirds. The yearly deficit has gone down each and every single year of his presidency.

Obama's popularity has been steadily increasing over the last few months because the economy is beginning to really get going again. Clinton's kept going up until he left office with something like a 57% approval rating. Same thing is going to happen with Obama. He has made it so that an entire generation of people will be beholden to him for finally getting them access to affordable healthcare. His legacy is sound. He's been a very successful President on a number of fronts.

 

[Interpol]

The two articles are a perfect portrayal of the polar opposites on this site.
At least the OP, regardless of his leanings, can concede points from both sides.
Not so much with the hyperpartisans that post here.

Good read, OP.
Thank you

Sorry, but the Standard's piece is pretty weak. They're actually inventing things that aren't even there, like "Obama's huge deficits!". In reality, they've gone down every year for 5 years.

I'd concede something to that piece if it were grounded in facts or reality, but it's not and that doesn't make me a hyper-partisan for pointing it out.

 

[deltex1]

The Standard's dissenting opinion is quite frankly stupid. "Obama's big deficits" is where they lose me. The President inherited a $1.5 trillion yearly deficit.

He has since cut it by more than two-thirds. The yearly deficit has gone down each and every single year of his presidency.

Obama's popularity has been steadily increasing over the last few months because the economy is beginning to really get going again. Clinton's kept going up until he left office with something like a 57% approval rating. Same thing is going to happen with Obama. He has made it so that an entire generation of people will be beholden to him for finally getting them access to affordable healthcare. His legacy is sound. He's been a very successful President on a number of fronts.

An entire generation of a few pepole...hooooooray!

 

[hortysir]

The two articles are a perfect portrayal of the polar opposites on this site.
At least the OP, regardless of his leanings, can concede points from both sides.
Not so much with the hyperpartisans that post here.

Good read, OP.
Thank you

Sorry, but the Standard's piece is pretty weak. They're actually inventing things that aren't even there, like "Obama's huge deficits!". In reality, they've gone down every year for 5 years.

I'd concede something to that piece if it were grounded in facts or reality, but it's not and that doesn't make me a hyper-partisan for pointing it out.

And this site, as posted by its members, islittered with half-truths and fluff from both sides, also.
That was my only point: in that it mirrors what I read while here

 

[Wyatt earp]

Two very interesting write-ups, diametrically opposed to each other in terms of argumentation:

Why History Will Be Very Kind to Obama -- NYMag

View attachment 35824


Quote:

"Hillary Clinton cast him as an inspirational speechmaker like Martin Luther King Jr., as opposed to a viable contender for president, and John McCain’s campaign scathingly labeled him a “celebrity,” attractive but vacuous.

The lived reality of Obama’s presidency has unfolded as almost the precise opposite of this trope. He has amassed a record of policy accomplishment far deeper than even many of his supporters give him credit for. He has also survived a dismal, and frequently terrifying, 72 months when at every moment, to go by the day-to-day media, a crisis has threatened to rock his presidency to its core. The episodes have been all-consuming: the BP oil spill, swine flu, the Christmas underwear bomber, the IRS scandal, the healthcare.org launch, the border crisis, Benghazi. Depending on how you count, upwards of 19 events have been described as “Obama’s Katrina.”

Obama’s response to these crises—or, you could say, his method of leadership—has been surprisingly consistent. He has a legendarily, almost fanatically placid temperament. He has now spent eight years, counting from the start of his first presidential campaign, keeping his head while others were losing theirs, and avoiding rhetorical overreach at the risk of underreach. A few months ago, the crisis was the Ebola outbreak, and Obama faced a familiar criticism: He had botched the putatively crucial “performative” aspects of his job. “Six years in,” BusinessWeek reported, “it’s clear that Obama’s presidency is largely about adhering to intellectual rigor—regardless of the public’s emotional needs.”

By year’s end, the death count of those who contracted Ebola in the United States was zero, and the panic appears as unlikely to define Obama’s presidency as most of the other crises that have come and gone...

...The president’s infuriating serenity, his inclination to play Spock even when the country wants a Captain Kirk, makes him an unusual kind of leader. But it is obvious why Obama behaves this way: He is very confident in his idea of how history works and how, once the dust settles, he will be judged. For Obama, the long run has been a source of comfort from the outset. He has quoted King’s dictum about the arc of the moral universe eventually bending toward justice, and he has said that “at the end of the day, we’re part of a long-running story. We just try to get our paragraph right.” To his critics, Obama is unable to attend to the theatrical duties of his office because he lacks a bedrock emotional connection with America. It seems more likely that he is simply unwilling to: that he is conducting his presidency on the assumption that his place in historical memory will be defined by a tabulation of his successes minus his failures. And that tomorrow’s historians will be more rational and forgiving than today’s political commentators..."



This is indeed a very interesting write-up.
Much more at the article.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here is the other write-up:

Why History Will Eviscerate Obama -- NYMag

View attachment 35825


Quote:

"Obama may wind up the most consequential of the three baby-boom presidents. He expanded certain Bush policies—Detroit bailouts, internet surveillance, drone strikes—and cleaned up after others. We will not know for years whether Obama’s big deficits risked a future depression to avoid a present one, or whether the respite he offered from “humanitarian invasions” made the country safer. Right now, both look like significant achievements. Yet there is a reason the president’s approval ratings have fallen, in much of the country, to Nixonian lows. Even his best-functioning policies have come at a steep price in damaged institutions, leaving the country less united, less democratic, and less free.

Health-care reform and gay marriage are often spoken of as the core of Obama’s legacy. That is a mistake. Policies are not always legacies, even if they endure, and there is reason to believe these will not. The more people learn about Obamacare, the less they like it—its popularity is still falling, to a record low of 37 percent in November. Thirty states have voted to ban gay marriage, and almost everywhere it survives by judicial diktat.

These are, however, typical Obama achievements. They are triumphs of tactics, not consensus-building. Obamacare involved quid pro quos (the “Cornhusker Kickback,” the “Louisiana Purchase,” etc.) that passed into Capitol Hill lore, accounting and parliamentary tricks to render the bill unfilibusterable, and a pure party-line vote in the Senate. You can call it normal politics, but Medicare did not pass that way. Gay marriage has meant Cultural Revolution–style bullying of dissenters (notoriously, Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty and the Mozilla founder Brendan Eich). You can call this normal politics, too, but the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not pass that way.

Obama’s legacy is one of means, not ends..."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much more at that article as well.

Both articles were published in the New Yorker at the same time. Two opposing viewpoints. Interesting to read.

I will remind that both of these write-ups are opinions, one from a very strong Obama supporter and one from an equally strong Obama detractor. And yet, I can find things in BOTH of these write-ups that I like and do not like.

I also personally think it's a little to early to be speculating about legacy right now. President Obama is going to be in office for another 2 years and some odd days, as of today. There are things that need to be done NOW, regardless of what history may say in, say, 50 years.

But if we do discuss, let's discuss it like adults.

Why not find some stuff in both articles and come up with some reasons for WHY you like or dislike it? Remember, there is more at each link than what I quoted. Perhaps something will really stick out and grab your attention, who knows....

Thanks for posting both sides a breath of fresh air around here

 

[Statistikhengst]

Two very interesting write-ups, diametrically opposed to each other in terms of argumentation:

Why History Will Be Very Kind to Obama -- NYMag

View attachment 35824


Quote:

"Hillary Clinton cast him as an inspirational speechmaker like Martin Luther King Jr., as opposed to a viable contender for president, and John McCain’s campaign scathingly labeled him a “celebrity,” attractive but vacuous.

The lived reality of Obama’s presidency has unfolded as almost the precise opposite of this trope. He has amassed a record of policy accomplishment far deeper than even many of his supporters give him credit for. He has also survived a dismal, and frequently terrifying, 72 months when at every moment, to go by the day-to-day media, a crisis has threatened to rock his presidency to its core. The episodes have been all-consuming: the BP oil spill, swine flu, the Christmas underwear bomber, the IRS scandal, the healthcare.org launch, the border crisis, Benghazi. Depending on how you count, upwards of 19 events have been described as “Obama’s Katrina.”

Obama’s response to these crises—or, you could say, his method of leadership—has been surprisingly consistent. He has a legendarily, almost fanatically placid temperament. He has now spent eight years, counting from the start of his first presidential campaign, keeping his head while others were losing theirs, and avoiding rhetorical overreach at the risk of underreach. A few months ago, the crisis was the Ebola outbreak, and Obama faced a familiar criticism: He had botched the putatively crucial “performative” aspects of his job. “Six years in,” BusinessWeek reported, “it’s clear that Obama’s presidency is largely about adhering to intellectual rigor—regardless of the public’s emotional needs.”

By year’s end, the death count of those who contracted Ebola in the United States was zero, and the panic appears as unlikely to define Obama’s presidency as most of the other crises that have come and gone...

...The president’s infuriating serenity, his inclination to play Spock even when the country wants a Captain Kirk, makes him an unusual kind of leader. But it is obvious why Obama behaves this way: He is very confident in his idea of how history works and how, once the dust settles, he will be judged. For Obama, the long run has been a source of comfort from the outset. He has quoted King’s dictum about the arc of the moral universe eventually bending toward justice, and he has said that “at the end of the day, we’re part of a long-running story. We just try to get our paragraph right.” To his critics, Obama is unable to attend to the theatrical duties of his office because he lacks a bedrock emotional connection with America. It seems more likely that he is simply unwilling to: that he is conducting his presidency on the assumption that his place in historical memory will be defined by a tabulation of his successes minus his failures. And that tomorrow’s historians will be more rational and forgiving than today’s political commentators..."



This is indeed a very interesting write-up.
Much more at the article.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here is the other write-up:

Why History Will Eviscerate Obama -- NYMag

View attachment 35825


Quote:

"Obama may wind up the most consequential of the three baby-boom presidents. He expanded certain Bush policies—Detroit bailouts, internet surveillance, drone strikes—and cleaned up after others. We will not know for years whether Obama’s big deficits risked a future depression to avoid a present one, or whether the respite he offered from “humanitarian invasions” made the country safer. Right now, both look like significant achievements. Yet there is a reason the president’s approval ratings have fallen, in much of the country, to Nixonian lows. Even his best-functioning policies have come at a steep price in damaged institutions, leaving the country less united, less democratic, and less free.

Health-care reform and gay marriage are often spoken of as the core of Obama’s legacy. That is a mistake. Policies are not always legacies, even if they endure, and there is reason to believe these will not. The more people learn about Obamacare, the less they like it—its popularity is still falling, to a record low of 37 percent in November. Thirty states have voted to ban gay marriage, and almost everywhere it survives by judicial diktat.

These are, however, typical Obama achievements. They are triumphs of tactics, not consensus-building. Obamacare involved quid pro quos (the “Cornhusker Kickback,” the “Louisiana Purchase,” etc.) that passed into Capitol Hill lore, accounting and parliamentary tricks to render the bill unfilibusterable, and a pure party-line vote in the Senate. You can call it normal politics, but Medicare did not pass that way. Gay marriage has meant Cultural Revolution–style bullying of dissenters (notoriously, Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty and the Mozilla founder Brendan Eich). You can call this normal politics, too, but the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not pass that way.

Obama’s legacy is one of means, not ends..."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much more at that article as well.

Both articles were published in the New Yorker at the same time. Two opposing viewpoints. Interesting to read.

I will remind that both of these write-ups are opinions, one from a very strong Obama supporter and one from an equally strong Obama detractor. And yet, I can find things in BOTH of these write-ups that I like and do not like.

I also personally think it's a little to early to be speculating about legacy right now. President Obama is going to be in office for another 2 years and some odd days, as of today. There are things that need to be done NOW, regardless of what history may say in, say, 50 years.

But if we do discuss, let's discuss it like adults.

Why not find some stuff in both articles and come up with some reasons for WHY you like or dislike it? Remember, there is more at each link than what I quoted. Perhaps something will really stick out and grab your attention, who knows....

Thanks for posting both sides a breath of fresh air around here

As I said, there are things in both articles that I can accept and also things I cannot except.
Very likely, the "truth" is somewhere in the middle.

 

[mudwhistle]

Two very interesting write-ups, diametrically opposed to each other in terms of argumentation:

Why History Will Be Very Kind to Obama -- NYMag

View attachment 35824


Quote:

"Hillary Clinton cast him as an inspirational speechmaker like Martin Luther King Jr., as opposed to a viable contender for president, and John McCain’s campaign scathingly labeled him a “celebrity,” attractive but vacuous.

The lived reality of Obama’s presidency has unfolded as almost the precise opposite of this trope. He has amassed a record of policy accomplishment far deeper than even many of his supporters give him credit for. He has also survived a dismal, and frequently terrifying, 72 months when at every moment, to go by the day-to-day media, a crisis has threatened to rock his presidency to its core. The episodes have been all-consuming: the BP oil spill, swine flu, the Christmas underwear bomber, the IRS scandal, the healthcare.org launch, the border crisis, Benghazi. Depending on how you count, upwards of 19 events have been described as “Obama’s Katrina.”

Obama’s response to these crises—or, you could say, his method of leadership—has been surprisingly consistent. He has a legendarily, almost fanatically placid temperament. He has now spent eight years, counting from the start of his first presidential campaign, keeping his head while others were losing theirs, and avoiding rhetorical overreach at the risk of underreach. A few months ago, the crisis was the Ebola outbreak, and Obama faced a familiar criticism: He had botched the putatively crucial “performative” aspects of his job. “Six years in,” BusinessWeek reported, “it’s clear that Obama’s presidency is largely about adhering to intellectual rigor—regardless of the public’s emotional needs.”

By year’s end, the death count of those who contracted Ebola in the United States was zero, and the panic appears as unlikely to define Obama’s presidency as most of the other crises that have come and gone...

...The president’s infuriating serenity, his inclination to play Spock even when the country wants a Captain Kirk, makes him an unusual kind of leader. But it is obvious why Obama behaves this way: He is very confident in his idea of how history works and how, once the dust settles, he will be judged. For Obama, the long run has been a source of comfort from the outset. He has quoted King’s dictum about the arc of the moral universe eventually bending toward justice, and he has said that “at the end of the day, we’re part of a long-running story. We just try to get our paragraph right.” To his critics, Obama is unable to attend to the theatrical duties of his office because he lacks a bedrock emotional connection with America. It seems more likely that he is simply unwilling to: that he is conducting his presidency on the assumption that his place in historical memory will be defined by a tabulation of his successes minus his failures. And that tomorrow’s historians will be more rational and forgiving than today’s political commentators..."



This is indeed a very interesting write-up.
Much more at the article.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here is the other write-up:

Why History Will Eviscerate Obama -- NYMag

View attachment 35825


Quote:

"Obama may wind up the most consequential of the three baby-boom presidents. He expanded certain Bush policies—Detroit bailouts, internet surveillance, drone strikes—and cleaned up after others. We will not know for years whether Obama’s big deficits risked a future depression to avoid a present one, or whether the respite he offered from “humanitarian invasions” made the country safer. Right now, both look like significant achievements. Yet there is a reason the president’s approval ratings have fallen, in much of the country, to Nixonian lows. Even his best-functioning policies have come at a steep price in damaged institutions, leaving the country less united, less democratic, and less free.

Health-care reform and gay marriage are often spoken of as the core of Obama’s legacy. That is a mistake. Policies are not always legacies, even if they endure, and there is reason to believe these will not. The more people learn about Obamacare, the less they like it—its popularity is still falling, to a record low of 37 percent in November. Thirty states have voted to ban gay marriage, and almost everywhere it survives by judicial diktat.

These are, however, typical Obama achievements. They are triumphs of tactics, not consensus-building. Obamacare involved quid pro quos (the “Cornhusker Kickback,” the “Louisiana Purchase,” etc.) that passed into Capitol Hill lore, accounting and parliamentary tricks to render the bill unfilibusterable, and a pure party-line vote in the Senate. You can call it normal politics, but Medicare did not pass that way. Gay marriage has meant Cultural Revolution–style bullying of dissenters (notoriously, Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty and the Mozilla founder Brendan Eich). You can call this normal politics, too, but the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not pass that way.

Obama’s legacy is one of means, not ends..."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much more at that article as well.

Both articles were published in the New Yorker at the same time. Two opposing viewpoints. Interesting to read.

I will remind that both of these write-ups are opinions, one from a very strong Obama supporter and one from an equally strong Obama detractor. And yet, I can find things in BOTH of these write-ups that I like and do not like.

I also personally think it's a little to early to be speculating about legacy right now. President Obama is going to be in office for another 2 years and some odd days, as of today. There are things that need to be done NOW, regardless of what history may say in, say, 50 years.

But if we do discuss, let's discuss it like adults.

Why not find some stuff in both articles and come up with some reasons for WHY you like or dislike it? Remember, there is more at each link than what I quoted. Perhaps something will really stick out and grab your attention, who knows....

Obama's legacy is:

1. You didn't build that
2. If you like your doctor... you can keep your doctor
3. I just heard about all of this on the news
4. I don't watch television
5. I'm really mad about this and this must stop
6. These are all fake scandals
7. Deficit spending isn't just wreckless, it's unpatriotic
8. I got Bin Laden
9. After the election I can be more flexible
10. I refused to enforce laws I don't like
11. I don't have the authority to grant amnesty
12. I do have the authority to grant work permits
13. Same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue
14. If I had a son he would look like Trayvon
15. I can't breathe
16. Stop don't shoot
17. Muslim terrorism has nothing to do with Islam
18. I saved or created millions of Shovel-ready jobs
19. Unemployment creates jobs
20. I increased my handicap by 20 strokes

 

[hortysir]

Two very interesting write-ups, diametrically opposed to each other in terms of argumentation:

Why History Will Be Very Kind to Obama -- NYMag

View attachment 35824


Quote:

"Hillary Clinton cast him as an inspirational speechmaker like Martin Luther King Jr., as opposed to a viable contender for president, and John McCain’s campaign scathingly labeled him a “celebrity,” attractive but vacuous.

The lived reality of Obama’s presidency has unfolded as almost the precise opposite of this trope. He has amassed a record of policy accomplishment far deeper than even many of his supporters give him credit for. He has also survived a dismal, and frequently terrifying, 72 months when at every moment, to go by the day-to-day media, a crisis has threatened to rock his presidency to its core. The episodes have been all-consuming: the BP oil spill, swine flu, the Christmas underwear bomber, the IRS scandal, the healthcare.org launch, the border crisis, Benghazi. Depending on how you count, upwards of 19 events have been described as “Obama’s Katrina.”

Obama’s response to these crises—or, you could say, his method of leadership—has been surprisingly consistent. He has a legendarily, almost fanatically placid temperament. He has now spent eight years, counting from the start of his first presidential campaign, keeping his head while others were losing theirs, and avoiding rhetorical overreach at the risk of underreach. A few months ago, the crisis was the Ebola outbreak, and Obama faced a familiar criticism: He had botched the putatively crucial “performative” aspects of his job. “Six years in,” BusinessWeek reported, “it’s clear that Obama’s presidency is largely about adhering to intellectual rigor—regardless of the public’s emotional needs.”

By year’s end, the death count of those who contracted Ebola in the United States was zero, and the panic appears as unlikely to define Obama’s presidency as most of the other crises that have come and gone...

...The president’s infuriating serenity, his inclination to play Spock even when the country wants a Captain Kirk, makes him an unusual kind of leader. But it is obvious why Obama behaves this way: He is very confident in his idea of how history works and how, once the dust settles, he will be judged. For Obama, the long run has been a source of comfort from the outset. He has quoted King’s dictum about the arc of the moral universe eventually bending toward justice, and he has said that “at the end of the day, we’re part of a long-running story. We just try to get our paragraph right.” To his critics, Obama is unable to attend to the theatrical duties of his office because he lacks a bedrock emotional connection with America. It seems more likely that he is simply unwilling to: that he is conducting his presidency on the assumption that his place in historical memory will be defined by a tabulation of his successes minus his failures. And that tomorrow’s historians will be more rational and forgiving than today’s political commentators..."



This is indeed a very interesting write-up.
Much more at the article.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Here is the other write-up:

Why History Will Eviscerate Obama -- NYMag

View attachment 35825


Quote:

"Obama may wind up the most consequential of the three baby-boom presidents. He expanded certain Bush policies—Detroit bailouts, internet surveillance, drone strikes—and cleaned up after others. We will not know for years whether Obama’s big deficits risked a future depression to avoid a present one, or whether the respite he offered from “humanitarian invasions” made the country safer. Right now, both look like significant achievements. Yet there is a reason the president’s approval ratings have fallen, in much of the country, to Nixonian lows. Even his best-functioning policies have come at a steep price in damaged institutions, leaving the country less united, less democratic, and less free.

Health-care reform and gay marriage are often spoken of as the core of Obama’s legacy. That is a mistake. Policies are not always legacies, even if they endure, and there is reason to believe these will not. The more people learn about Obamacare, the less they like it—its popularity is still falling, to a record low of 37 percent in November. Thirty states have voted to ban gay marriage, and almost everywhere it survives by judicial diktat.

These are, however, typical Obama achievements. They are triumphs of tactics, not consensus-building. Obamacare involved quid pro quos (the “Cornhusker Kickback,” the “Louisiana Purchase,” etc.) that passed into Capitol Hill lore, accounting and parliamentary tricks to render the bill unfilibusterable, and a pure party-line vote in the Senate. You can call it normal politics, but Medicare did not pass that way. Gay marriage has meant Cultural Revolution–style bullying of dissenters (notoriously, Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty and the Mozilla founder Brendan Eich). You can call this normal politics, too, but the 1964 Civil Rights Act did not pass that way.

Obama’s legacy is one of means, not ends..."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Much more at that article as well.

Both articles were published in the New Yorker at the same time. Two opposing viewpoints. Interesting to read.

I will remind that both of these write-ups are opinions, one from a very strong Obama supporter and one from an equally strong Obama detractor. And yet, I can find things in BOTH of these write-ups that I like and do not like.

I also personally think it's a little to early to be speculating about legacy right now. President Obama is going to be in office for another 2 years and some odd days, as of today. There are things that need to be done NOW, regardless of what history may say in, say, 50 years.

But if we do discuss, let's discuss it like adults.

Why not find some stuff in both articles and come up with some reasons for WHY you like or dislike it? Remember, there is more at each link than what I quoted. Perhaps something will really stick out and grab your attention, who knows....

Obama's legacy is:

1. You didn't build that
2. If you like your doctor... you can keep your doctor
3. I just heard about all of this on the news
4. I don't watch television
5. I'm really mad about this and this must stop
6. These are all fake scandals
7. Deficit spending isn't just wreckless, it's unpatriotic
8. I got Bin Laden
9. After the election I can be more flexible
10. I refused to enforce laws I don't like
11. I don't have the authority to grant amnesty
12. I do have the authority to grant work permits
13. Same-sex marriage is a civil rights issue
14. If I had a son he would look like Trayvon
15. I can't breathe
16. Stop don't shoot
17. Muslim terrorism has nothing to do with Islam
18. I saved or created millions of Shovel-ready jobs
19. Unemployment creates jobs
20. I increased my handicap by 20 strokes

Only #20 is rooted in fact

 

[Statistikhengst]

Hmmmmmmmmmm......

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives spend too much time worrying about stuff that's totally unimportant. Obama will be viewed as great simply because the vast majority of historian doing the voting are Useful Idiots and their idea of "Greatness" has nothing in common with what most of us believe.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Obama legacy is the left is the first ones in history who picked a person out of a phone book... For president no less