Love me some POTUS

and allowing us to peek through them for a moment. Everything seems so negative lately, and impossible to overcome--not just the Republican craziness but all the horrific violence at home and abroad. Now, if we can have a breakthrough, even a small one, with Iran ... maybe we can move on to some of those domestic issues, like gun control, immigration reform, and Head Start expansion. I need to have that kind of hope, because hanging around this joint feels so negative most of the time.

with enthusiasm.

The opposite with Obama.

on civil rights and voting rights were southern Democrats or "Dixiecrats."

Since then, those folks have pretty much all become Republicans, while many moderate Republicans of the LBJ era would now be considered too far left to make it in this latest version of the GOP.

... EVERY SINGLE FRICKING THING OBAMA PLANNED TO DO, INCLUDING SAYING "HAVE A NICE DAY" and they did this at a private meeting the day he was inaugurated for the first time.

Once upon a time the US Congress actually FUNCTIONED because even the most benighted rube understood that in order to GOVERN the country they had to COMPROMISE on some things.

The GOP has flat-out refused to do any such thing with our lawfully-elected President. They are not interested in governing. The Tea Partiers in particular seem to be pig-ignorant of the most basic understanding of how the US government works, and seem hell-bent on destroying it.



Oh, if I somehow misunderstood your intent -- that is, if you really didn't mean to imply that this state of affairs is all Obama's fault, then I apologize for my rant.

He's a cautious guy, but when the time comes he has no nerves at all. The real problem is figuring out what the fuck he really wants, and THAT is the sign of a master negotiator and tactician (if we still still need one?)

For example, I don't think he'll manage to pass FDR.

He'll be in the top 10 probably. But it's hard to compete with folks like Lincoln and Washington, not to mention FDR. Much like Clinton has seen subsequent candidate campaign AGAINST some of their "accomplishment" like NAFTA, DADT, DOMA, and welfare "reform", the usual outcome of a presidency is ultimate folks wanting to replace much of what you've done. Clinton is also "on the ropes" about the repeal of Glass-Steagal.

I used to point out to the GOPers that within 5 years of Reagan, practically all of his "accomplishments" had been undone to some extent. Star Wars was all but dead. They were already mothballing much of his naval expansion. Eastern Europe was decending into chaos. The middle east was worse off, not better. He had maybe 2 accomplishments that survived, income tax rates for the highest incomes (which Bush got in trouble for modifying) and "the end of the cold war" which Bush also attempted to take credit.

Like I say, probably the top 10, mostly because of his historic election in the first place. There will also be some recognition of him having to deal with potentially the most obstructionist congress in history. I suspect in 10 years ACA will be seen as mostly a "stop gap" measure as the rate of inflation of health CARE will have generated new "crisis" in peoples ability to actually pay for it, especially the middle class. The middle east will still be a mess, and there will be complaints about the lasting effects of drone strikes. I suspect Gitmo will still be floating around. And I suspect that the "too big to fail" problem will still be haunting us, and there will be lingering complaints about his inability to hold anyones feet to the fire, leaving the problem for future presidents to solve.

soundly in the top five. The man has been the most effective President in my lifetime and, given the barriers that he faces from a modern communication environment, as effective as FDR.

Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, FDR, LBJ, probably the top 5. The times defined those guys more than anything. Obama's a bit more like Clinton, Truman, Wilson, Teddy... It'll be interesting to see if the build a monument to Obama, like they did 4 of the top 5.

O may make it into the top ten. To do so he'll have to replace Ike, who most historians (not me) put close to no. 10. I would not put LBJ in the top 5, maybe the top 10. I do like the comparison with O and Truman and Wilson. His national security positions remind me of Wilson, and his fights with the GOP, of Truman. His domestic policies are Clintonian, but if Obamacare succeeds O will jump ahead of Clinton in domestic policy.

O should rate in the top 5-6. Imagine how badly the economy would have continued to implode under Romney. He was able to pull our collective asses out of the fire, get health care reform going, and steer his agenda through one of the most hostile, partisan houses in history.

He did not get all that he wanted, but he has out maneuvered his detractors at every turn.

Lincoln Unmasked: What You're Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe
by Thomas DiLorenzo

It's a fascinating book that posits Lincoln as the original front man for
northern railroad interests and manufacturers, protecting them with tariffs
and lawyering his way to the top with gifts and hefty fees from Railroad barons.
Lincoln sugar-coated hardball capitalism, which no one recognized at the time,
with platitudes of equality and opportunity.

You had to have feathered a lot of corporate nests to have a memorial on the mall.

Lincoln was the GOP's first presidential candidate because the GOP was founded by
business interests at about the same time. So much is made of their abolitionist roots,
but is that a cover story?

Best Peacetime Resident.

Both Lincoln and Roosevelt had major wars that involved huge armies. I am guessing he will land at the Teddy Roosevelt level.

It's not luck.

even where immediate appearances suggest otherwise (letting the repugs crow a bit, for instance, even while their own agenda is leading them to nothing), he seems to get the things done in a highly adverse environment.

One issue is a good example - taking a good long time to pit together this year's solid and steady stream of fines and convictions in the banking and investment sector, which are (somewhat quietly) changing the way they are doing things there, for the better. A whole lot of bluster might have been more satisfying to many, but less productive.

There's a tiny difference between LBJ and Obama. On a few occasions, LBJ really did play 11th dimensional chess and plan out successful strategies well in advance of events. His advice to Kenny O'Donnell in 1963 regarding the Civil Rights Act is an excellent example of this. More often, Johnson waited until the situation favored him to act. He famously passed a minimum wage law by waiting until he had a quorum of supporters, then passing the bill while the opponents were out of the chamber. These are just a couple of examples.

I wouldn't quite put the Syria situation into those categories and I definitely would not put Boner's problems into those categories. Syria is a case of rescuing a bad policy via a godsend of an offer from Assad. Don't misunderstand me, that is not the criticism of the president you might think. Not many people can completely change course and focus on the essential when an opportunity arises. It's very much to the president's credit that he took an issue that was damaging both to US and his own credibility and managed to turn it to his advantage. I just don't think it's quite the same as LBJ. LBJ rarely showed the ability to fix his own problems because he mostly stayed away from creating them (note the mostly).

As for Boner, I just don't agree with giving the president credit for something that's been happening for almost 3 years. Boner's been a weak speaker since the tea party rolled into town because, while he's an obnoxious asshole, he's not batshit crazy like them. Boner's a pretty smart, right-wing politican; he is not a rabid self-destructive loon whose greatest desire is to fiddle while Rome burns. His problem is not that Obama seems to be wising up when it comes to dealing with the GOP, but that he and his buddies have fed the fever swamps for years and are now learning exactly what they did. Maybe I'm not being fair. While I don't think Obama has created Boner's problems, perhaps he can mirror LBJ in an interesting historical parallel. LBJ didn't lead the fight against McCarthy, but he did pick the committee that finished the job against him. Perhaps the president can be the guy who finishes the job of breaking Boner.

Love the President!!!

If you really believe that Obama's chief objective in attacking Syria was to stop the use of chemical weapons I guess you could at least claim that by accepting Putin's offer he stepped out of the awkward position of having congress vote against his plan to attack Syria.
So if by the term "shrewd" Corn means, "wily and artful dealing" I guess accepting Putin's offer could be called shrewd.

On the other hand if you believe there were ulterior motives for the administration's desire to attack Syria, like taking advantage of a destabilized situation to affect the balance of power in the Middle East then maybe it's Putin who's the shrewd politician. The missing question here is, how smart was it to tell the American people you're going to plow even more money into another war when 76% of them are living living paycheck to paycheck in an economy that no longer supports them?

If the decision to not bend over so the conservatives can shred what's left of Obama's health care bill is shrewd, was it equally shrewd when they negotiated down from, single payer to public option to what has become known as Obama Care? I wish he would've had the "discipline and shrewdness" to decline negotiating with conservatives way back then.

And since we're celebrating shrewd, would negotiating another trade bill that hands even more power to corporations, then fast tracking it through congress before the public has any idea how they'll be affected be considered shrewd as well? And how about cuts to Social Security and Medicare? My guess is if a President with a (D) after his name can get away with selling out what was once considered Dem. Party core values to a gullible public he could truly be considered, "the shrewdest political tactician since LBJ".

Personally I'm sick of shrewd presidents! Shrewd rhymes with screwed and it's the middle-class and poor who end up on the receiving end of shrewd. Maybe it's time we stop worshiping "shrewd" and revisit honest and wise.

I'm, SOOOO glad he cut my social security AND medicare I could shit!!!!!!

He did neither.

Nor can he. Congress is the only set of assholes who can do that.

And I'll not address that other drivel,

I have a Bloody Mary that needs more attention.

Shrewd also rhymes with stooge, but you missed that one, professor.

Maybe you've had one too many of those Bloody Marys.

But I know what stooge means.

So you don't believe that the Preident offering up cuts to Social Secirity will have any impact?

That's exactly fucking right.

Thanks for getting it.

Maybe a nice dictionary would be good for you.....

Maybe we should go back to remedial rhyming.

Stooge rhymes with spooge!

(Note to jury: not a serious reply but rather a very clever faux threat that will cause poster to laugh so hard he will forget to return to thread in anger)

Proceed, Sir.

He loves to pee in shoes.

but he is not the best of Democrats, or of presidents.

and in fact, what will major media look like in several generations?

I also wonder about the educational system. Will it be largely privatized? In which case, pedagogies will probably lean towards right wing/pro-profit forces. Or will democratic and intellectual values rise to the fore?

Extreme opinion camps on either left or right will certainly be unkind. (and let me add a tangential thought, if I may---extreme opinions on the right are framed by conservative ideologies, which tend to be based in disinformation manufactured by corporate/aristocracy forces. Extreme opinions on the left tend to frame opinions based on ideas about how best to help people and various oppressed/underserved/mal-served social groups. That is just my observation and opinion. I'm not an expert.)

greatest (fill in the blank) ever!
worst (fill in the blank) ever!
etc.

I'll call Obama shrewd if Democrats gain seats in 2014 and a Democrat
is elected in 2016. Preserving what's left of America is not going to happen
unless we get more Democrats in office.

Obama to me is an eclectic student of the presidency who picks and chooses
themes and tactics from predecessors, particularly those from Illinois. He's
continued the development of the nation-state along the lines of the British,
who after all do understand a thing or two about power, war, legitimacy,
secrecy; all things that were well underway in GW Bush's reign. Obama can
echo FDR or JFK or LBJ, he seeks practical long-term solutions to large problems,
he clearly studies all aspects of a problem before action, and his results
are politically middle-of-the-road with some left-leaning policies or details.

I don't know how he'll be remembered, though the worst of the right wing
criticisms will be seen as the insanity for which they are. Obama won't ever be
popular unless health care takes hold and prospers, which is possible as cost
reductions and efficiency trickle through the health care system. Solid, practical,
a problem solver, far more middle of the road than he has ever been given credit for.

I'm not sure undermining Boehner is the greatest objective. The 2014 elections, as well
as the GOP dominance of state legislatures, should be the targets.

And I might add, it is appalling to me how racism against Obama is still a core problem.
Several Republicans I've talked to won't concede that point, but they have never listened
to a thing the man says, they never get past his skin color.

Democrats, especially Hispanics and young voters just don't turn out, if they did AZ would be Blue and TX Purple. I don't see how you can hold the President to a standard that requires a massive change in turn out trends especially in a post CUnited era where billionaires are spending hundreds of millions in off elections.

If on the other hand he pulls of the miracle of an off election increase it would put him in a league of his own.