Who is Obama

[AuburnNTexas 7,127]

Depending on who you listen to some on the Far Right say he is a foreign born radical that hates the US and on the Far left he is a Messianic figure who will lead us to the promised land.

Let's discuss what we do know about him he is a mixed race Male. His mother's side of the family was well off so he was not economically deprived. He received financial aide to help him go to a prestigious school Harvard. He was a community activist who gave a great speech at the Democratic Convention which propelled him into become a Senator from Illinois and shortly after that he ran and became President of the United States.

Obama basically had no business experience, during the his short time in the Senate he never proposed any legislation or sponsored any legislation, he had no prior executive experience prior to becoming President. He has shown himself to be a loner neither working with Republican or Democratic leaders. Both sides of the aisle lament his not trying being political enough to work with people.

Anybody who is accepted to Harvard Law school and graduates is a book smart intelligent human being. To be President it takes more than just being book smart. You must prepare to be ready to be President others have Obama did not. I will compare Obama to two different President's who whether you agree with their Political leanings it is hard to dispute that they were effective President's.

Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton one Republican one Democratic both had some success and some failures in their Presidency. Reagan came in when America seemed to be on a downward slide economy had gone down the tube Iran had kicked us out. Clinton also came in when times were not great had dreams of resolving America's health care issues. Both had periods of time when their party was in control of Congress and times where there was a split control of Congress. Both were intelligent men but nobody thought they were geniuses. Both had been around a while been involved in Politics and had developed the skill sets needed in politics both had been Governors and had developed their executive skill sets.

The biggest things going for Bill Clinton and Ronald Regan is they both knew how to work with people even those they didn't always agree with. They took bad times and rough political situations and made something out of them.

Despite Obama's speeches where he talks about compromise he never really does. He is not a political animal. When he believes in something he sticks to it and that is it. The problem is the US is and always has been a divided country and at it's best we have leaders on both sides that recognize that. They are able to make back room political deals and keep the country on an even keel. The US is about 1/3 very left and liberal, about 1/3 very right and conservative and about 1/3 kind of in the middle at times and on certain issues a little more liberal and at other times and on certain issues a little more conservative.

Obama's big failing is not seeing the middle and not really liking to play political games. During the past year I have seen articles from both the right leaning media and the left leaning media talking about how much Obama dislikes Politics and the smoozing and meeting and talking that a good politician must do to keep the lines of communication open.

Reagan and Clinton at times bumped head with Congress but because they never quit being politicians and they kept working at the trade of being President they were able to work with cantankerous Congressional leaders and get things done.

Congress has always been difficult to work with for every President. Obama is the first President in my long life time who avoided working with congress. Being President is a difficult job, the problem I see is I don't think Obama knew what he was getting into and he had not prepared properly for the job of the presidency.

We have had split congresses before remember Gringrich and Clinton. Clinton found a way to work with Gingrich he understood it was part of the job. Obama never trained to be a politician or an executive and never developed the skill sets to be successful.

I will concede up front I am a conservative so I don't agree with many of the things Obama does but the failure is not because he is liberal and the house is conservative but because he has never really gone out of his way to find any common ground and work together. He could have learned a lot from Studying Clinton and Reagan but he wasn't interested in politics so he didn't study them. He just studied the Law.

[homersapien 11,352]

Long on perspective, very short on supporting examples.

[autigeremt 6,569]

Long on perspective, very short on supporting examples.

Maybe, maybe not. It's not like you can google President Obama and get the information. For some reason his life story is a bit "choppy" at best.

[homersapien 11,352]

Long on perspective, very short on supporting examples.

Maybe, maybe not. It's not like you can google President Obama and get the information. For some reason his life story is a bit "choppy" at best.

You misunderstand. I was referring to (subjective) perspective, not historical facts.

For example, if you state: "Despite Obama's speeches where he talks about compromise he never really does." you should throw out some examples.

Of course, that being a generalization asserting a negative, all one needs to refute it is a single contrary example. Technically speaking.

Well, hopefully you get my point.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Long on perspective, very short on supporting examples.

Maybe, maybe not. It's not like you can google President Obama and get the information. For some reason his life story is a bit "choppy" at best.

You misunderstand. I was referring to (subjective) perspective, not historical facts.

For example, if you state: "Despite Obama's speeches where he talks about compromise he never really does." you should throw out some examples.

Of course, that being a generalization asserting a negative, all one needs to refute it is a single contrary example. Technically speaking.

Well, hopefully you get my point.

Long on perspective, very short on supporting examples.

Maybe, maybe not. It's not like you can google President Obama and get the information. For some reason his life story is a bit "choppy" at best.

You misunderstand. I was referring to (subjective) perspective, not historical facts.

For example, if you state: "Despite Obama's speeches where he talks about compromise he never really does." you should throw out some examples.

Of course, that being a generalization asserting a negative, all one needs to refute it is a single contrary example. Technically speaking.

Well, hopefully you get my point.

OK, so how about presenting "a single contrary example?" Personally, I would love for someone to point out a single issue, on which, BHO has worked with Congress. Best I can tell, he seems much more invested in his pen and his phone.

[homersapien 11,352]

Long on perspective, very short on supporting examples.

Maybe, maybe not. It's not like you can google President Obama and get the information. For some reason his life story is a bit "choppy" at best.

You misunderstand. I was referring to (subjective) perspective, not historical facts.

For example, if you state: "Despite Obama's speeches where he talks about compromise he never really does." you should throw out some examples.

Of course, that being a generalization asserting a negative, all one needs to refute it is a single contrary example. Technically speaking.

Well, hopefully you get my point.

Long on perspective, very short on supporting examples.

Maybe, maybe not. It's not like you can google President Obama and get the information. For some reason his life story is a bit "choppy" at best.

You misunderstand. I was referring to (subjective) perspective, not historical facts.

For example, if you state: "Despite Obama's speeches where he talks about compromise he never really does." you should throw out some examples.

Of course, that being a generalization asserting a negative, all one needs to refute it is a single contrary example. Technically speaking.

Well, hopefully you get my point.

OK, so how about presenting "a single contrary example?" Personally, I would love for someone to point out a single issue, on which, BHO has worked with Congress. Best I can tell, he seems much more invested in his pen and his phone.

http://mic.com/artic...and-is-rejected

http://www.theguardi...blican-senators

http://www.newrepubl...essions-revenue

http://www.bostonglo...LyKP/story.html

http://www.kaiserhea...n-rule-faq.aspx

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

http://en.wikipedia...._(United_States)

http://www.washingto...bd84_story.html

http://www.laprogres...ns-accountable/

Some of these are undoubtedly redundant, I simply copied links from the first couple pages of a search. But surely there is at least a single contrary example, which like I said, is enough to refute the statement made.

[AURaptor 1,121]

Obama telling students that he can't unilaterally open up the borders for immigration, and then doing exactly that, as if he's some sort of dictator.

I'd say that's a fine example of this man's hubris and disregard for the rule of law.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Long on perspective, very short on supporting examples.

Maybe, maybe not. It's not like you can google President Obama and get the information. For some reason his life story is a bit "choppy" at best.

You misunderstand. I was referring to (subjective) perspective, not historical facts.

For example, if you state: "Despite Obama's speeches where he talks about compromise he never really does." you should throw out some examples.

Of course, that being a generalization asserting a negative, all one needs to refute it is a single contrary example. Technically speaking.

Well, hopefully you get my point.

Long on perspective, very short on supporting examples.

Maybe, maybe not. It's not like you can google President Obama and get the information. For some reason his life story is a bit "choppy" at best.

You misunderstand. I was referring to (subjective) perspective, not historical facts.

For example, if you state: "Despite Obama's speeches where he talks about compromise he never really does." you should throw out some examples.

Of course, that being a generalization asserting a negative, all one needs to refute it is a single contrary example. Technically speaking.

Well, hopefully you get my point.

OK, so how about presenting "a single contrary example?" Personally, I would love for someone to point out a single issue, on which, BHO has worked with Congress. Best I can tell, he seems much more invested in his pen and his phone.

http://mic.com/artic...and-is-rejected

http://www.theguardi...blican-senators

http://www.newrepubl...essions-revenue

http://www.bostonglo...LyKP/story.html

http://www.kaiserhea...n-rule-faq.aspx

http://www.nytimes.c...wanted=all&_r=0

http://en.wikipedia...._(United_States)

http://www.washingto...bd84_story.html

http://www.laprogres...ns-accountable/

Some of these are undoubtedly redundant, I simply copied links from the first couple pages of a search. But surely there is at least a single contrary example, which like I said, is enough to refute the statement made.

Honestly, I looked at those links and, quite frankly, if you believe those actions refute the original statement you have a very low standard of what passes for 'working with Congress" In all those instances, he had no other choice.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

Who cares who Obama "is". He's a loser who wants everyone else to be a loser to make life equal.

It's time for America to move on and learn from its futility with the Progressive ideology.