What do historians really think of Obama

[MuadDib]

An historian believes that Obama hasn't connected with the public? Well I think there's some truth to that too. AFter all there are plenty of polls documenting that his popularity with the public as waxes and wanes over time

But historians aren't in the belief business.

They're in the discovery of what occurred business.

Basically what this article is discussing isn't history, so much as it is the opinion of a a few historians about Obama's popularity.

You are essentially correct, but the Obama is trying to write his history as it happens. Why else would he hold a meeting with a group of presidential historians?

And Doris Kearns Goodwin? Seriously? Jesus Christ! She'd give Lincoln and LBJ blowjobs if she could dig their dead cocks up!

 

[daveman]

So, are you accusing Klein of lying? That none of the invited historians talked?

I don't know if they talked or not, but I wouldn't trust Klein to report it accurately.

Not everyone worships your little tin god.

 

[The T]

An historian believes that Obama hasn't connected with the public? Well I think there's some truth to that too. AFter all there are plenty of polls documenting that his popularity with the public as waxes and wanes over time

But historians aren't in the belief business.

They're in the discovery of what occurred business.

Basically what this article is discussing isn't history, so much as it is the opinion of a a few historians about Obama's popularity.

You are essentially correct, but the Obama is trying to write his history as it happens. Why else would he hold a meeting with a group of presidential historians?

And Doris Kearns Goodwin? Seriously? Jesus Christ! She'd give Lincoln and LBJ blowjobs if she could dig their dead cocks up!

Leading from behind?

 

[blackhawk]

At this point it time I'm not overly concerned with what historians think about Obama history will judge what kind of President he was as it does with all of them.

 

[elvis]

Historians should not be thinking anything about bush or Obama, as American historians are only supposed to study up until 1982.

 

[asaratis]

This is spot on...
Read...
What do historians really think of Obama? | Fox News.

Liberals will not read this because it's found on the foxnews.com website. Or they will read it and instantly show a wide range of emotions. From dismissive to down right furious anger.
That does not make this man's views any less correct.

It is the last line in the article that rings true. Historians will view Barack Hussein Obama as having saved Jimma Cotta from the jaws of the infamous Worst-Prez-We-Evah-Had monster.

 

[asaratis]

Historians should not be thinking anything about bush or Obama, as American historians are only supposed to study up until 1982.

Bullfeathers! History is being written every day!

 

[thereisnospoon]

Once again, instead of debating the article itself, the libs on here insist on shooting the messenger. Why? Because they have no rebuttal.
Straight out of the lib play book.

 

[rightwinger]

Imagine a president who wants to have dinner with historians rather than GOP oil barrons. No wonder Fox News is so upset

What next? Scientists?

 

[tjvh]

No. Aspects of history may be further known down the road. But a president's worth is readily apparent.

Or lack of.

 

[tjvh]

At this point it time I'm not overly concerned with what historians think about Obama history will judge what kind of President he was as it does with all of them.

And it will become more "clear" as Partisan persuasions of the Historians fade away.

 

[blackhawk]

At this point it time I'm not overly concerned with what historians think about Obama history will judge what kind of President he was as it does with all of them.

And it will become more "clear" as Partisan persuasions of the Historians fade away.

It is funny when people try to say how history will judge Bush or Obama this soon. Some Presidents were judged very harshly shortly after they left office but over time they were looked at more fairly conversely other's were judged very favorably soon after leaving office and over time they were seen to be not as great as first thought.

 

[rightwinger]

At this point it time I'm not overly concerned with what historians think about Obama history will judge what kind of President he was as it does with all of them.

And it will become more "clear" as Partisan persuasions of the Historians fade away.

It is funny when people try to say how history will judge Bush or Obama this soon. Some Presidents were judged very harshly shortly after they left office but over time they were looked at more fairly conversely other's were judged very favorably soon after leaving office and over time they were seen to be not as great as first thought.

We do not know the whole story and how it will turn out so close to a presidency. That does not mean you can't judge based on what you do know. While the views of all presidents are refined as time goes by, that first view can still be very telling

 

[The T]

At this point it time I'm not overly concerned with what historians think about Obama history will judge what kind of President he was as it does with all of them.

And it will become more "clear" as Partisan persuasions of the Historians fade away.

It is funny when people try to say how history will judge Bush or Obama this soon. Some Presidents were judged very harshly shortly after they left office but over time they were looked at more fairly conversely other's were judged very favorably soon after leaving office and over time they were seen to be not as great as first thought.

Indeed...even Jimmah Catah has been relived of the title as 'worst President' by the current occupant.

 

[rdean]

This is spot on...
Read...
What do historians really think of Obama? | Fox News.

Liberals will not read this because it's found on the foxnews.com website. Or they will read it and instantly show a wide range of emotions. From dismissive to down right furious anger.
That does not make this man's views any less correct.

What the article fails to mention is the outright incredible hatred the White Wing has for Balack Obama. I suspect history will concentrate more on the party that was willing to bring down the United States rather than on "problems" Balack Obama has with the "White Wing". The president who saved the car industry. Who managed to get billions from the banking industry while saving the economy. Who made BP pay for their mess while Republicans wanted to move the cost to the middle class. The man who supported education and rebuilding the country when Republicans only want to squeeze every cent out of it they can get for their corporate masters. History won't be kind to this Republican party.

Go ahead, call all the names you want, but you can't call me wrong and be honest.

 

[rightwinger]

History will not be kind to today's Republican Party. Extremist, obstructive, uncompromising they will go down as a force that brought the country to it's knees and then fought like hell to keep it there

 

[blackhawk]

History will not be kind to today's Republican Party. Extremist, obstructive, uncompromising they will go down as a force that brought the country to it's knees and then fought like hell to keep it there

A prime example of why it's ridiculous to try and judge a President or a party of today now. You assume history will share your view of Republicans I could make the same kind of claim about how history will view the Democratic party and it would be no more true or accurate than your view. We have no idea how history will view any one person or party and us thinking we know does not make it so.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

History will not be kind to today's Republican Party. Extremist, obstructive, uncompromising they will go down as a force that brought the country to it's knees and then fought like hell to keep it there

A prime example of why it's ridiculous to try and judge a President or a party of today now. You assume history will share your view of Republicans I could make the same kind of claim about how history will view the Democratic party and it would be no more true or accurate than your view. We have no idea how history will view any one person or party and us thinking we know does not make it so.

History is fairly clear even in the present. Partisan hacks will always have their own warped versions whether time passes or not. Even now, the public indoctrination system is teaching how great FDR was for America.

 

[The T]

History will not be kind to today's Republican Party. Extremist, obstructive, uncompromising they will go down as a force that brought the country to it's knees and then fought like hell to keep it there

A prime example of why it's ridiculous to try and judge a President or a party of today now. You assume history will share your view of Republicans I could make the same kind of claim about how history will view the Democratic party and it would be no more true or accurate than your view. We have no idea how history will view any one person or party and us thinking we know does not make it so.

History judges by legacy of each.

 

[Sallow]

well, if fake news says it...

it must be true.

Debating the source rather than the content?

Is it untrue that Obama has been dining with historians through the vourse of his Presidency?

In deference to you..I popped to open to see what was in it..

It was, by any measure, a breathtaking display of grandiosity by a man whose entire political curriculum vitae consisted of seven undistinguished years in the Illinois senate and two mostly absent years in the United States Senate. That evening Mr. Obama revealed the characteristics—arrogance, conceit, egotism, vanity, hubris and, above all, rank amateurism—that would mark his presidency and doom it to frustration and failure.

Read more: What do historians really think of Obama? | Fox News

Nothing I didn't fully expect..all it was missing were "Kenyan, Marxist, Communist, Nazi".