Quote:
Originally Posted by seattleflamer
Killing OBL is an example of leadership which you questioned.
So if I understand you, "for good or ill", he should pidgeon hole himself as a liberal--hell or highwater. He shouldn't be pragmatic and work with a center right polity but should instead be a liberal because he will stand for something.
He should have closed Guantanmo b/c that was an election promise to his liberal base when the facts on the ground were neither feasible nor practical after consulting with his generals and lawyers.
|
He shouldn't pigeonhole himself as a "liberal" but he should have some defining "views" - be it foreign policy, health care, immigration, economy, etc. Mind you, I am not an American; just an outside observer, who had a reasonably positive view of Obama in 2008. I still haven't figured out what he stands for, or if he stands for anything at all. He seems to be "reacting" instead of "leading". Certainly, he has been dealt a very tough hand - 2 wars and an economic meltdown. However, he had an opportunity to take control of events and drive policy. He is one of the more eloquent politicians I have seen, a master campaigner, tremendous fundraiser, had control of both houses to start with - he had the tools had he been willing to use them. He could have listened to his own economic commission, but chose to ignore it to make a shameful budget deal with the Republicans. He has allowed them to seize the pulpit, as it were. Clinton, whatever you think of him, broke Gingrich under similar circumstances.
As to the health care package, you think it's a tremendous advance. I think it's a mess, and much less than it could have been.
With respect to Guantanamo, if you think it's a moral wrong, you close it - notwithstanding what lawyers and generals say.
I think Obama had a chance to do "something". Instead, I fear his legacy will be that he was black. I say this as a "right-winger". He coulda been a contendah.
