Expectations for President Obama

Walp, considering that Saint Barack hasn't actually *done* anything yet, by way of administration, then perhaps you might want to wait a while. It's only two more weeks, y'know...

Benedict said:

On the thread subject, I have to say I'm a bit disappointed at his evasiveness on the middle east situation.

Click to expand...

Try this one.

"After January 20 I'm going to have plenty to say about the issue, and I am not backing away at all from what I said during the campaign, that starting at the beginning of our administration, we are going to be engaged effectively and consistently in trying to resolve the conflict in the Middle East," he said. "That's something I am committed to."

Click to expand...

Better?

dteowner said:

It's a stretch to pin any of that circus on the lefties, though. It would be an embarassing streeeeeeetch on my part to attempt to soil Barack's halo over it. That's simply one guy biting the hand that didn't feed him. The lefties are badly bumbling around attempting to deal with it, but there just isn't enough tinder there to stoke the fascist fire.

Click to expand...

Give them time. They'll embarrass us with something soon, I'm sure. They're politicians.

magerette said:

Try this one.

Better?

Click to expand...

Still feels like he's not saying anything.

Generally I'd be fine with his keeping quiet until he's in a position to do something, I suppose I'm just worried that he isn't actually inclined or likely to stand up to israel when the time comes. Fingers crossed he made the noises he needed to make to get elected and will take the right path when the time comes.

I don't even see it as a matter of standing up to Israel. It's more a matter of standing up to the Likud and the settler movement. It's not like there aren't people, or political movements, in Israel who would like nothing better than get this mess sorted out. It's just that the outgoing administration is more pro-Likud than pro-Israel; about the only time they said "No" to Israel was when they asked if it would be OK if they talked to the Syrians.

Benedict wrote:

Still feels like he's not saying anything.

Generally I'd be fine with his keeping quiet until he's in a position to do something, I suppose I'm just worried that he isn't actually inclined or likely to stand up to israel when the time comes. Fingers crossed he made the noises he needed to make to get elected and will take the right path when the time comes.

Click to expand...

He's very good at not saying anything. And he's got an enormously large and powerful pro-Israel lobby to deal with, one who suspects him of not being 100% behind them, so I don't think either of us will see the hardcore anti-war rhetoric we'd like coming out of his lips.
I do expect serious efforts towards understanding and working with the realities in the region, though and I expect Hillary, who's pro-Israel lobby bona fides are all in place, to be doing the hands-on, with policy statements only coming from O. that are deviously bland but pragmatic.
But I understand and to some extent share your trepidation. This president in waiting period sucks.

It's because Barack's a muslim, doncha know.

*ninja vanish*

I'm not sure how I feel about Obama being anxious to engage in the Middle East. When's the last time a president with virtually no foreign-policy experience was anxious to get involved in foreign policy? Wasn't it George W. Bush?

Of course, Obama's smart while Bush is dumb as toast. But as some of the posts in these forums illustrate, that doesn't actually make much difference when it comes to understanding what's going on over there.

There's only so much sensible people can do to encourage others to improve their "stinkin thinkin."

Y'know, Squeek, I preferred it when you were ignoring me. These oblique jabs about "some of the posts" and "certain intellectuals" are pretty pathetic; if you had the balls to come straight out and attack me, we could at least have a decent scrap -- but I guess your idea of getting back at someone you don't like is sneaking in their backyard at night and taking a piss in their swimming pool, and then sneaking right back before anyone catches you.

Come to think of it, there's an easy solution -- I can use the ignore list too. Ta-ta...

Let's get rid of the personalities people!! Thank You.

Squeek said:

Of course, Obama's smart while Bush is dumb as toast. But as some of the posts in these forums illustrate, that doesn't actually make much difference when it comes to understanding what's going on over there.

Click to expand...

It does when someone is smart enough to surround themselves with people who do have experience and do understand what's going on over there and to listen to advice. Nobody knows everything but Obama's at least (seemingly) ready and eager to listen to advice.

Plus, just by being who he is and looking and sounding like he does he's got a massive head start on Bush for getting people to listen to him on the international stage.

What an outstanding and inspiring inauguration speech by President Obama! IMO, he established himself not only as the leader of this country but also as the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, something he needed to make absolutely clear.

Unless someone in Congress goes on an ego trip, he should have their complete cooperation, meaning he will be able to implement his goals, at least for a while.

Good luck to him!

The oath was sorta funny though, mainly thanks to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=274_VdeckAU

He's taken a first step on Guantanamo already, a symbolic first act.

Isn't he a servant of his Party before being a servant of the People? After all, who put him forward as a candidate? Who contributed to his campaign? What promuises were made to secure that support? I hate to sound cynical, but those markers will be called in soon enough. He will do what is poitically expedient for his backers (both his party and corporations that backed him/democrats) - he may have a smal grace period now, but politics is pretty far removed from morality of any sort and in the 'home of capitalism' I think his hands will be tied by vested interests. Clinton also supposedly came in with great ideas for reform on multiple fronts, and hit a brick wall when the financial realties hit home. And ended up get a lot of flak for breaking promises etc. This is from a casual non-US observer - I do not follow US politics very closely, but I doubt politicians there are any less self-serving or (for the dedicated ones) less constrained by their circumstances than those here.

As for Guantanamo - purely symbolic (and a campaign promise, so agreed to by his party, and probably quietly conceded as an embarrassment by many Republicans). I'm waiting to see what *real* changes he tries to implement.

Not bad so far - pay freeze for everyone in washington on $100k or more a year, new direction for foreign policy including negotiations with Iran without preconditions, calls to all the key players in the israel / palestine conflict, new rules on dealing with lobbyists, meetings with his economic teams, discussions on iraq and afghanistan with petreus flown in specially.

He's not hanging around.

I agree with most of those items except for the pay freeze and lobbyist rules (which smell a bit of populism).

booboo: The US parties are nowhere near as homogenous and coherent in their ideology as parties in other democracies, but rather work as umbrellas or tents for many smaller groups. While US politicians certainly can be tied to vested interests it doesnt make much sense to consider them servants of their parties...

Zaleukos said:

I agree with most of those items except for the pay freeze and lobbyist rules (which smell a bit of populism).

booboo: The US parties are nowhere near as homogenous and coherent in their ideology as parties in other democracies, but rather work as umbrellas or tents for many smaller groups. While US politicians certainly can be tied to vested interests it doesnt make much sense to consider them servants of their parties...

Click to expand...

The pay freeze is a clear populist gesture but still a good sign of putting national interests before endless public sector sprawl.

The lobbyist rules I'd have thought were fantastic though, I think US politics has been far too distorted by powerful lobby groups with good washington connections, and I wouldn't hold out any hope of major change unless those lobbyists are left out in the cold along with anyone in the political sphere who is unduly under their influence.

Noone likes lobbyists, but I dont think rules will make them go away, and I am not sure that complete regulation is desirable either as the boundary between lobbyism and simply "talking to your representative" in a way that is essential to democracy. I'd rather err on the side of freedom of speech there. The best one realistically can hope for wrt lobbyists is to enforce transparency in the bookkeeping of politicians...

I don't think rules will make them go away, but I think that rules which in theory are strict but are only occasionally enforced are a good basis for him to be able to react strongly to anyone he perceives as abusing the lobbying method.