Two views of how history will judge President Obama

[Wyatt earp]

I know Lincoln was a one term senator born in Kentucky and from Illinois he pretty much had the same qualifications as Obama , but the difference Lincoln was not a divider but a person who fought to keep us together. Obama loves to divide

 

[BluesLegend]

He will be remembered as a liar.

 

[blackhawk]

I find claims about how Presidents will be viewed by history when they are still in office silly.

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Exactly which progressives would that be, Frank?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[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

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

Thank goodness we have a level headed adult in the White House

 

[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.

Exactly which progressives would that be, Frank?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

any and all who share the community brain

 

[PredFan]

Winston Churchill said: "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."

Obama could say the same thing, but for different reasons. The left controls the schools, Hollywood, and most of the media. They will write history. They will ignore the truth and paint Obama is the best light.

 

[Jarhead]

to those that read on their own and think on their own, Obamas legacy will be 'an inexperienced ideologue who demonstrated his lack of understanding and single handedly tried to fundamentally change America and the free market.....but he was the first African American President.'

 

[rightwinger]

Winston Churchill said: "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."

Obama could say the same thing, but for different reasons. The left controls the schools, Hollywood, and most of the media. They will write history. They will ignore the truth and paint Obama is the best light.

But the right has Rush Limbaugh and Fox News writing history

Doesn't that even things out?

 

[Statistikhengst]

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.

Exactly which progressives would that be, Frank?

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

any and all who share the community brain

Hmmmm, not very specific, what?

Weak sauce, weak sauce!!!

 

[Statistikhengst]

I find claims about how Presidents will be viewed by history when they are still in office silly.

I agree. That's why I wrote at the bottom of the OP that it is too early. But nonetheless, both write-ups bring up some points that should make the "other side" think. That's the object here.

 

[blackhawk]

I find claims about how Presidents will be viewed by history when they are still in office silly.

I agree. That's why I wrote at the bottom of the OP that it is too early. But nonetheless, both write-ups bring up some points that should make the "other side" think. That's the object here.

This is just my personal opinion so take it for what it's worth which is nothing I think Obama will go down as an average President not one of the worst ever nor one of the greats. I really doubt we will see anything that resembles a great President again in the remainder of my life.

 

[Kosh]

I find claims about how Presidents will be viewed by history when they are still in office silly.

I agree. That's why I wrote at the bottom of the OP that it is too early. But nonetheless, both write-ups bring up some points that should make the "other side" think. That's the object here.

This is just my personal opinion so take it for what it's worth which is nothing I think Obama will go down as an average President not one of the worst ever nor one of the greats. I really doubt we will see anything that resembles a great President again in the remainder of my life.

Yes the far left press has done a good job of not reporting the Obama screw ups/scandals..

Had this been a president with an (R) behind the name, all those would have been on the standard 30 day rotation with the far left press.

But as usual the far left OP only gives two choices, just like the far left choices on voting. Vote far left or not at all.

Once the far left can admit they are wrong then we can progress forward. Until they have proven that they would much rather watch the world burn than admit they were wrong.

 

[Statistikhengst]

I find claims about how Presidents will be viewed by history when they are still in office silly.

I agree. That's why I wrote at the bottom of the OP that it is too early. But nonetheless, both write-ups bring up some points that should make the "other side" think. That's the object here.

This is just my personal opinion so take it for what it's worth which is nothing I think Obama will go down as an average President not one of the worst ever nor one of the greats. I really doubt we will see anything that resembles a great President again in the remainder of my life.

Yes the far left press has done a good job of not reporting the Obama screw ups/scandals..

Had this been a president with an (R) behind the name, all those would have been on the standard 30 day rotation with the far left press.

But as usual the far left OP only gives two choices, just like the far left choices on voting. Vote far left or not at all.

Once the far left can admit they are wrong then we can progress forward. Until they have proven that they would much rather watch the world burn than admit they were wrong.

Hmmmmmm? Did you even read the 2nd link? It absolutely excoriates Obama. Need glasses?



Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

 

[Kosh]

I find claims about how Presidents will be viewed by history when they are still in office silly.

I agree. That's why I wrote at the bottom of the OP that it is too early. But nonetheless, both write-ups bring up some points that should make the "other side" think. That's the object here.

This is just my personal opinion so take it for what it's worth which is nothing I think Obama will go down as an average President not one of the worst ever nor one of the greats. I really doubt we will see anything that resembles a great President again in the remainder of my life.

Yes the far left press has done a good job of not reporting the Obama screw ups/scandals..

Had this been a president with an (R) behind the name, all those would have been on the standard 30 day rotation with the far left press.

But as usual the far left OP only gives two choices, just like the far left choices on voting. Vote far left or not at all.

Once the far left can admit they are wrong then we can progress forward. Until they have proven that they would much rather watch the world burn than admit they were wrong.

Hmmmmmm? Did you even read the 2nd link? It absolutely excoriates Obama. Need glasses?



Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk

Once again showing the far left can not provide real choices as does not fit into their programming.

 

[SwimExpert]

History will view Obama exactly as he is:

-A bold President who was willing to aggressively pursue important social justice issues as he saw them.
-A transformational President who, much like his predecessor George W. Bush was willing to advance the role of the Presidency as he saw necessary, even in spite of long held traditions. He also challenged many traditional notions of what the image of the Presidency should reflect; he humanized the Presidency in the image of the modern 21st century American to a degree that had not been seen in nearly a century.
-An overall ineffective President. Despite unprecedented political polarization in the general public and even more profoundly in the federal government, he was unable to negotiate successfully between Congressional Republicans and Democrats. While it may be difficult to surmise if there was anyone who Democrats and Republicans may have ever been willing to allow to bring them together, the fact still remains that Obama was not effective in this regard.
-A conflicted President who often found himself at odds with his own goals when confronted with difficult challenges, as evidenced by his unwillingness to pursue the closure of Guantanamo Bay and his re-involvement in Iraq.
-A mysteriously centrist President who very obviously held liberal views and goals for the country, but also broke away from them at times, as evidenced by his support for Bush's tax cuts and several attempts to propose compromises between Republicans and Democrats.
-An embattled President who bore a burden as the first black President, but where racial tensions were more a product of the pre-existing polarization than the other way around.
-A President who reflected a lack of experience in politics, which probably was a primary reason for his ineffectiveness. While the Democratic party did not portray substantial fracturing during his Presidency, Obama was never able to garner widespread support from the Democrats in tough times when compromise was necessary. While this may be partially attributable to the polarized nature of American politics at the time, Obama's inexperience undoubtedly played a large part as well. Obama never truly was able to rally his own party, and the Democrats instead were firmly in the hands of the likes of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid who were intent on doing everything in their power to press a strictly liberal agenda.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Thank goodness we have a level headed adult in the White House

Visitors don't count dumbass

 

[rightwinger]

Overall, President Obama will go down in history for having played the hand he was dealt

By any observation he was not dealt a good hand. An economy on the brim of collapse, failing auto and financial sectors, raging unemployment, two wars, an active terrorism threat and a Republican Party intent on not participating in government while he was President.

History will decide how he did. But he will have a lasting legacy with Obamacare. He will get credit for stopping an economic collapse and leaving a much stronger economy than he was given, gay rights and a shift in foreign policy in which the US has oversight but does not actively engage.

As a leader, he could have done a better job. Like LBJ, he could have twisted arms to get what he wanted. Like Reagan, he could have appealed directly to the American people. As it is, he was too easy on the Republicans in letting them define the political message and not making them pay a political price for their behavior

 

[rightwinger]

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

The Fox is strong in this one

 

[PredFan]

Winston Churchill said: "History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it."

Obama could say the same thing, but for different reasons. The left controls the schools, Hollywood, and most of the media. They will write history. They will ignore the truth and paint Obama is the best light.

But the right has Rush Limbaugh and Fox News writing history

Doesn't that even things out?

Not really worth a response.