The idolized Obama

[Tank_Guy#3]

Americans must be the most gullible nation on the planet...

Not really, you beat us in adopting socialism.

 

[Phlegmak]

ya know, for a group of people who made a patron saint out of Reagan, they have no place to be throwing stones because a handful of people are very enthusiastic about Obama

It's amazing, isn't it. I can never get over it.

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

Normally I'm pretty skeptical towards politicians. They've not gotten to where they are because of their high ethics or morals, but can't say I see anything wrong with Obama. I'm not sure I'd agree with all his views, but he seems genuinely trustworthy and much more so than any other politician I've come across.

Not in my case. I have notice many incongruences with Obama since last December up until now. His entire rhetoric has changed and he's gone back against previous statments. The one McCain likes to exploit the most is the fact that Obama promised to accept and negotiate with him for Public Campaign Financing. Also that Obama says his tax increases will be at the $250,000 mark, but now Joe Biden is said it's $200,000. Then it was said it's at $150,000. And Obama even voted to increase taxes on incomes of $45,000. That's what McCain likes to point out. That's just McCain. I have noticed other things. (Just watch the difference in his message when he talks to a SanFrancisco crowd to when he talks to an Iowa/North Carolin/Indianna crowd. "Clinging to Guns & Religion", speaking about plan/position on Coal saying "they can make it, they'll just go bankrupt doing it." All the while while in other parts of the country making indirect notions that would suggest he was for those such things.) But one thing about him being a typical politician that bugs me is that every time he faces an oponnent and had a challenging debate with an opponent (like Edwards and Hillary Clinton) he steals their stump message and uses it for himself. This is also the same for him using his friend Mr. Patrick's speech, as well as his entire campaign message being a copy of John Kerry's 2004 DNC acceptance speech.

Obama is your run of the mill grade A BS politician that knows how to tell a good lie and make it sound good to the masses of sheep. Judging from his factual record, and the changes in his campaign positions from then to now, I'm very skepticle of his promises. Besides, no matter who gets elected president, they aren't going to have ANY money to spend anyhow, and he'll use that as an excuse to lower the exact number he wants to raise taxes on. The crises that we face is going to ruin who ever gets to be president and history probably won't look to kindly on him (next president) because he doesn't have much going for him in current events. As history shows, it's usually the events that make the presidency. Just like it was 9/11 and the direct chain reaction of cause & effect events (wars effects and the economical effects) that defined W's.

I recall GWBush defeating John McCain and Al Gore by promising not to get involved into nation building and that he was "a uniter not a divider" and he was the man that charmed American and the one who voters would more likely enjoy having a beer with. He was the new guy and the "change we need" away from the Clinton administration. And guess what? American voters bought it and now after 8 years he's not kept his campaign promises and has 1 of the lowest approval ratings in history. So do you really think Obama being a politician that offers just as much blind rhetoric is any different? If it's what the masses of impressionable voters will clap to hear, then they're going to lie their keisters off.

So hopefully that answers your OP question.

 

[Neomega]

Obama is idolized because of his competitors.

QFT......................

 

[RulerOfDaPeople]

QFT......................

And that's really the only reason which doesn't mean he'd be good president... he could be just as bad or worse.

 

[Agent327]

GO VOTE!

 

[Richard Cribb]

What I'm wondering is - What's your view of him - Is he anything special?

No. USA is basically a one party state. By any reasonable standards the Republican and the Democratic party are pretty much the same, both representing first and formeost the corporate elite. Obama, as the representative of the "left" of these two parties will occasionally use rhetorics to cater for the underprivileged, but at the end of the day one shouldn't have to worry too much about his "socialist" tendencies as they will magically disappear.

If he gets elected - Will he be able to live up to the idolized view many people have of him?

As far as people have an idolized view of him, the answer is consequently no.

Edit: To those who says he's just like any other politician - What could a person on verge of becoming president do and be to get you excited at the notion?

Be a real radical, who will change things to the better by really spreading the wealth and consequently the power and take steps to disband the empire.

What did Obama do to lose your confidence?

I never had any. I know my Pappenheimers.

Is it general cynicism about politics that keep your spirits down?

No. It is my knowledge about how capitalist societies function.

Didn't he just? Two unwinnable wars, a hundred times more terrorists than there ever were
before, thousands of innocent lives lost, America hated more than at any time in history, and
to top it off, a world-wide economic slump. He really changed the world alright. Hats off to GWB!

He made a good job for those whose interests he first and foremost represented.
And while he is certainly a despeakable character, he is also treattened a bit unfair. The difference between him and his predecessor was more one in form and quantity than in quality.

You know I find McCain is worthy of a great deal of respect. He's brave, tough, respectful, and I'd say he doesn't intend to decive anyone.

That must be some other McCain than the makebelieve-maverick I have heard about.

So even though I'd love to see McCain get a cookie and a pat on the back, Obama would be much better at the actual job.

I am afraid that is true.
By the way concerning your sig. If you see no problem with billionaires then you, just like Obama, belongs to the political right.

 

[RedRalph]

He'll be the same as the rest... rhetoric means nothing, he's already threatening other countries and will caqrry on the same as Bush, just a hell of a lot more eloquently. One unfortunate thing about him is that many useful idiots will be blind to his actions because hes relatively handsome, a great public speaker and hes black, so atypical for a US president. this wasnt a problem with Bush.... ah, Bush. I'm going to miss you, you did more to open peoples eyes to America than anyone.

 

[Bast]

The usual cynical, paranoid, anti-American BS.

An Obama Presidency will reveal to Americans finally that some people don't like you not just because of Bush but they're jealous and of the ideals America stands for.

It's time to unite, friends. Time to unite. Shake off the trash, shake off the trash.

 

[RedRalph]

The usual cynical, paranoid, anti-American BS.

An Obama Presidency will reveal to Americans finally that some people don't like you not just because of Bush but they're jealous and of the ideals America stands for.

It's time to unite, friends. Time to unite. Shake off the trash, shake off the trash.

so do you think Bush and Obama share the same ideals? If not, your post makes no sense.... or are you just going to not reply to this as is your usual tactic when your posts are exposed as being nonsensical?

 

[Bast]

so do you think Bush and Obama share the same ideals? If not, your post makes no sense.... or are you just going to not reply to this as is your usual tactic when your posts are exposed as being nonsensical?

No they don't share the same ideals. The point is that they're different but people who hate America will still hate it. Are you looking for a confrontation?

 

[RedRalph]

No they don't share the same ideals. The point is that they're different but people who hate America will still hate it. Are you looking for a confrontation?

Bast, what exactly are these ideals that America stands for and why do you accuse me of being jealous of America? What do you think I'm jealous of them for? Is it possible I dont like Obama for some reason other than hating 'American ideals'?

 

[Arwon]

Obama's foreign policy is very similar to Bush's, but that's only because mainstream, electable American views on foreign policy are drawn from a very very narrow spectrum. Essentially, within electable discourse, American military hegemony around the world is not questioned. The ability of America to break the "rules" through bribing or bombing people is perfectly accepted. Both McCain and Obama and any other concievable winning candidate all believe that the rest of the world should be somehow grateful for all this.

On the one hand you've got a "screw the world we can do whatever we want because we're the kings of freedom and democracy goddammit" cowboy approach. This is a simplistic, black and white, head-up-the-ass approach coming from people who have been raised for 60 years on good-vs-evil tales in which the USA can literally do no wrong because it's FIGHTING BAD GUYS. On the other hand you've got Obama's sort of soft-power, new interventionist, liberal/progressive, Clintonian, multilateral sort of fuzziness. Which amounts to the same thing, but with a Master's in International Relations.

It's distinct because there's less thirst for blood and bombing of noble savages because it believes in "surgical" or "pinprick strikes" against KNOWN BADDIES and only as a LAST RESORT done regrettably... instead of being a gung-ho port-of-first call. But that's still only a meaningful distinction at a certain scale. The question of not dropping bombs because dropping bombs on people is wrong? Not really entertained.

It's just a difference in style and salesmanship - don't get me wrong, style, charisma and salesmanship are VITAL and that's what Bush fundamentally trashed in the last 7 years. But let's not kid ourselves here, Obama isn't about to fundamentally dismantle the present world order, he'll just be a more acceptable imperial administrator. I'm ok with that, all things considered.

 

[Brighteye]

The usual cynical, paranoid, anti-American BS.

An Obama Presidency will reveal to Americans finally that some people don't like you not just because of Bush but they're jealous and of the ideals America stands for.

It's time to unite, friends. Time to unite. Shake off the trash, shake off the trash.

Is that suggesting that they do not like some American ideals, or are jealous of them?
I can freely admit to both. However, if I wish for my country some few things that America has already I do not necessarily love America and all it stands for. Americans seem to have a lot of trouble accepting legitimate criticism without also perceiving it as a symptom of overall dislike.

 

[knowltok2]

Obama's foreign policy is very similar to Bush's, but that's only because mainstream, electable American views on foreign policy are drawn from a very very narrow spectrum. Essentially, within electable discourse, American military hegemony around the world is not questioned. The ability of America to break the "rules" through bribing or bombing people is perfectly accepted. Both McCain and Obama and any other concievable winning candidate all believe that the rest of the world should be somehow grateful for all this.

On the one hand you've got a "screw the world we can do whatever we want because we're the kings of freedom and democracy goddammit" cowboy approach. This is a simplistic, black and white, head-up-the-ass approach coming from people who have been raised for 60 years on good-vs-evil tales in which the USA can literally do no wrong because it's FIGHTING BAD GUYS. On the other hand you've got Obama's sort of soft-power, new interventionist, liberal/progressive, Clintonian, multilateral sort of fuzziness. Which amounts to the same thing, but with a Master's in International Relations.

It's distinct because there's less thirst for blood and bombing of noble savages because it believes in "surgical" or "pinprick strikes" against KNOWN BADDIES and only as a LAST RESORT done regrettably... instead of being a gung-ho port-of-first call. But that's still only a meaningful distinction at a certain scale. The question of not dropping bombs because dropping bombs on people is wrong? Not really entertained.

It's just a difference in style and salesmanship - don't get me wrong, style, charisma and salesmanship are VITAL and that's what Bush fundamentally trashed in the last 7 years. But let's not kid ourselves here, Obama isn't about to fundamentally dismantle the present world order, he'll just be a more acceptable imperial administrator. I'm ok with that, all things considered.

Good post.

I personally wonder if it is possible not to have some nation or group of nations in the position of, "we'll bomb if we want to because we can" camp. We should want that, and work toward it, but I'm not convinced it is really achievable.

 

[Rashiminos]

Bush... yadda yadda yadda...
to top it off, a world-wide economic slump. He really changed the world alright. Hats off to GWB!

It's not really accurate to blame Bush for failed Federal Reserve policies (Greenspan's handiwork) and the creation of a derivatives market which still threatens to implode and bring about global misery. Furthermore, impending economic hardships are going to do more to change Americans than Obama's non-war-related policies.

Obama is still pro-war and pro-brinkmanship, so look for more incursions into Pakistan and Syria, new wars with other members of the "Axis of Evil," and more antagonization of Eastern Europe and Russia.

 

[@N1k1T0$]

Obama's foreign policy is very similar to Bush's, but that's only because mainstream, electable American views on foreign policy are drawn from a very very narrow spectrum. Essentially, within electable discourse, American military hegemony around the world is not questioned. The ability of America to break the "rules" through bribing or bombing people is perfectly accepted. Both McCain and Obama and any other concievable winning candidate all believe that the rest of the world should be somehow grateful for all this.

On the one hand you've got a "screw the world we can do whatever we want because we're the kings of freedom and democracy goddammit" cowboy approach. This is a simplistic, black and white, head-up-the-ass approach coming from people who have been raised for 60 years on good-vs-evil tales in which the USA can literally do no wrong because it's FIGHTING BAD GUYS. On the other hand you've got Obama's sort of soft-power, new interventionist, liberal/progressive, Clintonian, multilateral sort of fuzziness. Which amounts to the same thing, but with a Master's in International Relations.

It's distinct because there's less thirst for blood and bombing of noble savages because it believes in "surgical" or "pinprick strikes" against KNOWN BADDIES and only as a LAST RESORT done regrettably... instead of being a gung-ho port-of-first call. But that's still only a meaningful distinction at a certain scale. The question of not dropping bombs because dropping bombs on people is wrong? Not really entertained.

It's just a difference in style and salesmanship - don't get me wrong, style, charisma and salesmanship are VITAL and that's what Bush fundamentally trashed in the last 7 years. But let's not kid ourselves here, Obama isn't about to fundamentally dismantle the present world order, he'll just be a more acceptable imperial administrator. I'm ok with that, all things considered.

He will certainly have a better image than the likes of Bush and attempt to portray himself as one who prefers to use "soft power" and diplomacy but i do doubt whether he would really just use soft power to achieve his goals. A big and soon for us to evaluate test would be the whole Iraq timetable thing ...

USA is very focused in the middle east but i always thought that Democrats do have a big agenda in the Balkans also. Though i see no war there.

Will he be supportive of Israel ? Yes. Will he change US diplomacy ? No. But he will certainly appear to take a different approach and a better image helps him succeed as his goals with more precision also.

Personally i would rather that he did fundamentally change US policy on several matters. What i envision as the best is a country which interferes in Rwanda type of situations only while attempting to find diplomatic and peaceful solutions that benefit most sides instead of supporting war.

 

[RedRalph]

Pakistsan and Syria maybe, but I dont think he'll try and poke Russia, and EE and the US are practically best of friends, at least all except Ukraine and belarus

 

[azzaman333]

He'll be a different flavour of president, but not so different that you won't know what he tastes like.

 

[luiz]

I just have to say that my respect for CFC has increased by looking at the result of this poll. It seems that some basic degree of critical thinking is still going on here.

The next years will be interesting.