Obama speaks the truth at last!

I watched the entire speech. I will take a lot of flak for this, but I do have some respect for President Obama. I disagree with him on many of his policy positions and politics, but I do not doubt that he truly believes he is governing in the best interest of America.

He was quite subdued, and spoke of being sad. It took him to the end of his speech to finally admit that he personally had taken a "shellacking" in the election cycle of last night. I heard him talk a lot about how the economy, his party's "processes" in responding to that emergency and other issues led to last night's republican victory; but buried in all of those excuses were nuggets where he talked about "overreaching", his apologies to democrats who lost their seats and in the last minute or so when he talked about him personally getting a "shellacking".

I sincerely hope that President Obama does the same thing Bill Clinton did and moves towards the center. The Bill Clinton post-1994 was almost palatable (almost!) in comparison to the Bill Clinton pre-1994. I am hopeful the same thing will happen here, but I don't think that will occur.

I honestly do not think Pres Obama "gets it". I think for all of his humbleness in his speech today, he still thinks his path is right and damn the consequences. So, I think the republicans will dig in their heals and continue to be the party of no (it worked for them so why not continue doing the same). I think you will see another shutdown of the federal government, and this time I think the republicans will have learned the lessons from Gingrich's congress and will do a better job of spinning said shutdown as the president's fault.

I do not think Obama is as good of a communicator and politician as Bill Clinton used to be (Clinton has gotten a little screwy since leaving office and no longer appears to have the same level of polish - perhaps due to health issues?). Because of that, I think the stage is set for Pres Obama to be a one term president with even more senate and house seats being lost by the democrats during the 2012 election.

Just my projection. But I am one of those rubes on the outside looking in, so what the hell do I know?

 

I beg to differ, I think we are exactly in the same spot in that we were in with Bill Clinton and the Republicans taking over the House.

I do not believe that Obama will be a one-term president. America has a very short memory, and I believe in two years, the Democrats will spin the "party of no" has stopped the president from being able to further correct the economy, "take us into more debt," and has also kept him from doing some of the legislation that he would like to do, "Crap and Tax," Amnesty, ect.

I believe Obama will win the public's support in the next two years and will win re-election, just as Bill Clinton did. Remember, Bill Clinton had less public support after two years into his first term than Obama does. I believe that is right. I read that somewhere. I'll try and see if I can find the numbers in a minute. Edit: After some research, Obama's approval rating is at 47% and Clinton's approval at the same time in his presidency was 42%. So yes, Barack Obama has a higher approval rating that both Clinton, and from another article, it is higher than Reagan's. We indeed are in a lot of trouble here. It seems more Americans now are willing to go along with Obama's Marxist agenda. Its truly sad and very disturbing.

I think we will definitely see an Obama 2nd term.

Anyway, we are in the exact place during the first two years of the Clinton presidency. Plus, if the Fibbies decide to let another wackjob right-winger do another OKC bombing, or allow another jihadist to do another 9/11, he'll be in like flint into his next presidential term.

Just keep your eyes people for another domestic terror attack. Then maybe even more Patriot Act legislation.

You know what, its very strange that Obama seemed sad and subdued in his speech, because I saw an article that I didn't believe the other day. It was supposedly from a "White House insider" that said that Obama was being professionally treated for depression from being overly sad and subdued lately, and that his entire admin was in-fighting and losing hope in him. Interesting.

http://newsflavor.com/politics/world-po ... epression/

When I read it, I didn't believe it, but now that you say he seemed sad and subdued, maybe there is some truth to the story.. who knows.

The same author also predicted Rahm leaving a month before it was announced, so who knows... maybe a real Deep Throat inside the Obama Administration... maybe it is Rahm himself... who knows....

 

Obama's "subdued", "sad", new-found humility is just an ACT - and THAT's the truth.

Anyone who thinks he will moderate and move to the center now that the elections of 2010 have repudiated him, are among the same ones who mistakenly bought his centrist pablum he sold before he got elected.

It's funny how so many pundants bought that garbage then, but I knew 100% he would govern as much of a communist, marxist as he could. That won't change. Maybe some of the ways he goes about it will.

 

I don't believe anything will change on his part. After he returns from his 10-day excursion, he'll be just as determined to continue on his path of remaking America in his own image. The only difference is now he has a Republican led Congress to make the scapegoat of his failed policies, something he couldn't do before with Pelosi.

He'll continue with the expected rhetoric of 'reaching across the aisle', 'seeking common ground', yada yada yada, but his is a one way street only. The expectation is that the reaching across the aisle is to be done only by his enemies...er, uh...I mean opponents.

Can a leopard really change his spots?

That's the scary part! I also think he really believes that.

 

For Obama it is always about "me".

He is only as good a communicator as his teleprompter technician and speechwriter allow.

 

Translation: We were in such a hurry to get things done, we forgot to stop and educate you ignorant voters on all the good things we did.

Before the election, but still indicative of the attitude:

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... plishments

The public's pretty well aware. It didn't need much touting.

 

Quote of the day:
Reporter - So you reject the idea that your policies could be making things worse?
Obama - Yes.

 

AMEN TO THAT

 

Does anyone else find these words ominous?

 

I'm confident that Mao Zedong thought he was governing in the best interest of China right before he starved 50 million of his own people with the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution too.

Now, I'm not comparing the two. I hardly think Obama's policies are going to lead millions of Americans to untimely deaths. That's not my point here. My point is that believing you are governing in the best interests of the nation really doesn't mean squat. Not to me at least. This isn't gym class. There is no A for effort. This is the leadership of the free world, and I will not tolerate a leader who insults the principles set forth in the Constitution simply because he thinks he has America's interests in mind.

The direct and blatant violations of the Constitution as committed by this administration are acts of treason.

 

Still bothers me that among the words was still the reminder (declaration) that, " I am the President".

A leader doesn't find it necessary to offer reminders, he/she just leads.

 

Yes.

 

I respectfully disagree. Phil1979 got it right.

Yesterday was an act, all spin. He sounded humble, but in his answers to the questions he 1) never acknowledged that the election results were a repudiation of his agenda; and 2) only offered to work with Republicans on relatively inconsequential issues.

If news is leaking that he's "depressed", that's a sham. All part of the spin - designed to evoke an emotional response, empathy. He's tried the "child throwing a temper tantrum" act, that didn't work. Now it's "puppy dog eyes".

For those who think BHO is simply misguided, but truly believes he's acting in our best interest, read every word of this. http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0...ivate-enterprises-obama-business-problem.html Coincidence? Maybe. But the WH pitched an awful big fit when this story was released. Is that because it hit too close to the mark?

Don't go soft. Don't live in denial. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010...stening-commander-chief-president-psychiatry/

If the Republican House pursues the right policies, i.e. if they do what they were sent there to do, then let the Senate & BHO reject or veto. The the Democrats become the "party of no."

BHO is a good actor, using his skills to mask his hostility towards America. Maybe he can start landing Hollywood roles in 2013.

 

Well I knew that was the response I would get. While we are simply going to have to agree to disagree, unlike those of you who believe Obama is out to intentionally destroy America, I believe he is pursuing a course he considers in America's best interest. I also believe he thinks he is doing so with America's blessing, this last election notwithstanding. That is why I said he does not get it. And that is why I sincerely believe he will be a one term president. Now we all know that can change if he either moves to the center, or some national disaster hits resulting in the "rally around the president" effect, but as it stands now I think Obama is too out of touch and too arrogant in his belief that he holds some sort of mandate for him to change his path of governance.

 

I disagree.

Clinton approached problems as a pragmatist. If in his administration's analysis, the answer that came up was a socialist one, he would promote it as the best solution for the problem. But at least their goal was to find the best solution, and policies that were presented could be sold as "this is objectively the best solution for the problem." Some people may disagree, but the solutions were reasonable enough he could sell it.

Obama, on the other hand, approaches problems with the presumption that the socialist answer is the correct one. He is an idealist, not a pragmatist, and his idea of a socialist solution to every problem runs contrary even to many progressives/liberals. The problem with having this attitude is that Obama cannot sell his policies because they don't come off as being the best answer to moderates, just the socialist one. As a result, the Republican party can easily be the Party of No without being unpopular.

I guess for a lot of us on the left hoped that the pragmatism and brilliance in the Obama campaign strategy was going to translate into his style of governing. Sadly, that has not been the case.

If liberals like me are wavering on our support for him, I really doubt his viability to win a 2nd term.

 

Ookoshi, you indicate that you are wavering in your support of President Obama. Other than your support of single payer health care which we discussed at the annual event, what other item do you agree with President Obama on? While I consider myself open-minded and will discuss any idea, holding only to my core belief in individual sovereignty, I find very little with which I have agreed with President Obama. Simply put, I find him to be on the far left and willing to use his belief in the preeminence of government over the individual, leaving me with little room for agreement with the President's policies and agenda.

 

I see your point, Ookoshi. And I believe you are correct to a certain extent about the differences between Obama and Clinton. Clinton certainly moved more towards the center, especially in his second term, but I believe some of the things still hold true today.

One being that I think Obama wanted the Republicans to win the elections on Tuesday, because now he can run against them in 2012, just like Clinton did. He can blame them that he hasn't gotten any of his policies that are going to help the economy, and some of the other liberal policies he wishes he could pass. Don't forget that he is an amazing campaigner and he can lie and spin BS with the best of them. Although, I'm not sure he is a better liar than Clinton. I still think Clinton is the best at lying and making you believe it. Obama doesn't even fool me anymore. I don't know if its my difference in age or what. If I'm right about that, it would also help support your claim. I hope you're right.

Also, I'm still weary of the Fibbies "letting" something go down, that they had knowledge of, and Obama being able to pull the country together and win a 2nd term, much like Clinton and Bush. There is some shaky, I'll say, proof that Fibbies knew about OKC Bombing and allowed it to occur.

 

It very well could be, but he must be trying to get empathy from the far far left, because I know if I hear that one of my leader's is "depressed," I don't think... Ohh I feel sorry for him, I think... "Whoa, he is unfit to lead America, the leader of the free world." I know I thought he was unqualified to lead, but if he was depressed, he would just be unfit to lead as well.

I see how it could be a "wag the go situation," though.

Maybe I'm just being cold-hearted, but I don't see many people being alright with the fact that our leader is in a deep depression or feeling empathy.

 

I don't think the story about Obama's sadness over the loss was meant to indicate clinical depression. That being said, some of our greatest presidents (Lincoln as a prime example) battled what we now know was clinical depression during their tenure in office. As a person who has fought to overcome his diagnosed depression for more than twenty years at this point, I understand the nature of depression quite intimately, and also understand that with will, fortitude, and occasional medical help this disease can be lived with and can be kept from controlling your life. If the POTUS is truly fighting clinical depression, then my best to him. I fully understand how this disease of the mind can color your life; and not in a positive manner.