The President Obama Thread

[DACrowe]

Thought I'd add this.



Whatever you think of him, he seems to do very well with children. It is a nice photo.

[Holiday]

Yeah, he does well with kids. Unless they're living in Pakistan.

[terry78]

He earned the Person of the Year title with all the **** he dealt with.

[Kelly]

Well, as opposed to the others that were on the list for the award, he was more deserving than any of them....

[Matt]

I personally think it should've been split with Mitt Romney. Obama did not really have any major legislation or accomplishments during 2012 aside from his re-election (yes, I suppose you can point to Sandy but that really isn't an accomplishment and SCOTUS upholding Obamacare, but Obama really had nothing to do with that). Obama's impact on the year was the campaign and his re-election. But it took two to tango, so to speak. Obama AND Romney impacted the year through the presidential election. They should've split it.

[Thundercrack85]

Mitt Romney? Why? Most uninspiring man of the year?

Not even sure why Obama should get it. I guess it was a slow year.

Oh, humanity. Mediocrity is thy name.

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Thundercrack85

Mitt Romney? Why? Most uninspiring man of the year?

Not even sure why Obama should get it. I guess it was a slow year.

Oh, humanity. Mediocrity is thy name.

Time Person of the Year isn't the best person of the year. It is the person who had the biggest impact on the year as a whole. That is undoubtedly the two presidential candidates.

[Webfoot Hero]

Originally Posted by Matt

Time Person of the Year isn't the best person of the year. It is the person who had the biggest impact on the year as a whole. That is undoubtedly the two presidential candidates.

Time has named Hitler as their Person of the Year once so it's definitely not solely for only do-gooders.

[Thundercrack85]

Originally Posted by Matt

Time Person of the Year isn't the best person of the year. It is the person who had the biggest impact on the year as a whole. That is undoubtedly the two presidential candidates.

I know. What impact has Romney had? None. Except possibly some on his political party, but even that is uncertain.

[Schlosser85]

I don't see what Romney has done that had such a huge impact.

Even Obama is debatable, IMO.

[Matt]

I think if one is being rewarded for having impacted the year solely on the basis of the campaign, then the other part of that two headed monster should also be acknowledged.

[NJCaliboi]

Originally Posted by Matt

I think if one is being rewarded for having impacted the year solely on the basis of the campaign, then the other part of that two headed monster should also be acknowledged.

"Solely on the basis of the campaign"-? Says who?? I think your premise on why he was chosen is flawed thus leading you to conclude that the opposition should have equal recognition.

Here's what the editors give as their reason for choosing President Obama:

“For finding and forging a new majority, for turning weakness into opportunity and for seeking, amid great adversity, to create a more perfect union, Barack Obama is TIME’s 2012 Person of the Year,” the editors write.

Like others have said I'm not sure he's the best choice, but Romney??? Even as a mention or blurb- sorry, just can't see it.

[Sardaukar]

Person of the Year often goes to presidents who have been elected or re-elected. Part of the reason I think is because presidential campaigns are such dominating events that overshadow the news headlines over a long period of time. Unless there was someone absolutely extraordinary in the running, Obama deserved it because he was a primary focal point of the election. Also, you can make the argument that he represents the direction that the majority of America wants to go in, so he represents more than just himself, he symbolizes the aspirations of millions. The American people said that they don't want to go in Romney's direction. They rejected him. He is no longer coequal with Obama, if he ever was.

[Fading]

To be honest, while I get the point that it takes two to tango, I don't agree with Romney getting a mention either. He alienated half the country, badly, took the Republican party further down a bad road, and was a gaffe fest. Simply running against a president in a weakened position during election time doesn't mean Romney was influential. If he was that big of a deal we'd still be talking about him, and several republicans wouldn't have disowned him after the election. On the other hand, even if jokingly, ppl still talk about Al Gore, G W Bush, and John Kerry.

[Dr. Evil]

Obama to nominate John Kerry to replace Hilary Clinton:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/o...-politics.html

[terry78]

Do it. Kerry deserves some kind of consolation prize.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by NJCaliboi

"Solely on the basis of the campaign"-? Says who?? I think your premise on why he was chosen is flawed thus leading you to conclude that the opposition should have equal recognition.

Here's what the editors give as their reason for choosing President Obama:


Like others have said I'm not sure he's the best choice, but Romney??? Even as a mention or blurb- sorry, just can't see it.

I don't know that "flawed" is the correct word to use....I think there is a "lack of a mandate" with this election, but IMO it really had nothing to do with Romney's having a clear opposing plan to Obamas, because I think that was his problem, he really didn't have a clear opposing plan to Obama's plan so why change? Was something many that I know were saying....

IMO, we really won't know clearly the direction our country is going in until the mid-term elections, and definitely the 2016 election will answer many of the "direction" questions that are being asked...

Back to the original question....IMO, the campaign workers for Obama should be the "people of the year" because they were the ones that pushed Obama through to a win...

[Matt]

Originally Posted by Fading

To be honest, while I get the point that it takes two to tango, I don't agree with Romney getting a mention either. He alienated half the country, badly, took the Republican party further down a bad road, and was a gaffe fest. Simply running against a president in a weakened position during election time doesn't mean Romney was influential. If he was that big of a deal we'd still be talking about him, and several republicans wouldn't have disowned him after the election. On the other hand, even if jokingly, ppl still talk about Al Gore, G W Bush, and John Kerry.

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Romney is influential. I am saying he is legendarily bad. My logic is this: How much of this campaign, that should've been a mandate on Obama, became a mandate on Mitt Romney, how out of touch he is and his gaffes? Mitt Romney blew it in such an epic manner that an incumbent who was as weak as (if not weaker than) Jimmy Carter, won in a landslide. Obama did not "forge a new coalition," as Time suggests. He exploited the worst campaign in modern political history.Mitt Romney's defeat is more remarkable than H.W., Kerry, McCain, etc because he not only lost to a weak incumbent....he got slaughtered by him. That warrants equal recognition. If Obama's campaign is the reason he won Time's Person of the Year (by the editors' own admission), than Romney who was almost a surrogate of the Obama campaign deserves equal recognition for running such a historically bad campaign.

[Kelly]

Originally Posted by Dr. Evil

Obama to nominate John Kerry to replace Hilary Clinton:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/o...-politics.html

He should have done this in the first place....Rice should have never been considered. It's almost like he tries to do things that will piss the Republicans off the most....lol, I know some around here love that, but IMO, it just makes for more irritating news on TV.

[Paradoxium]

Damn too bad, I wanted Susan Rice. Worse candidate possible

[Human Torch]

Well,there's at least one thing I'm glad that Obama's done.(for purely selfish reasons) Nothing else short of a stick of dynamite would get Kerry's rump out of that Senate seat.Here in Mass,a Dem in the Senate is a lifetime appointment.

[SentinelMind]

Originally Posted by Matt

You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Romney is influential. I am saying he is legendarily bad. My logic is this: How much of this campaign, that should've been a mandate on Obama, became a mandate on Mitt Romney, how out of touch he is and his gaffes? Mitt Romney blew it in such an epic manner that an incumbent who was as weak as (if not weaker than) Jimmy Carter, won in a landslide. Obama did not "forge a new coalition," as Time suggests. He exploited the worst campaign in modern political history.Mitt Romney's defeat is more remarkable than H.W., Kerry, McCain, etc because he not only lost to a weak incumbent....he got slaughtered by him. That warrants equal recognition. If Obama's campaign is the reason he won Time's Person of the Year (by the editors' own admission), than Romney who was almost a surrogate of the Obama campaign deserves equal recognition for running such a historically bad campaign.

I may be alone on this among Obama critics but I think a lot of his critics underestimate the magnitude of the victory and coalition he brought together in 2012. Even if you think Obama won purely on charisma and flash, Obama is going to be a bigger power broker in the Democratic Party after he leaves the White House and he's going to make sure the progressive agenda
. He will be the first non-flawed standard bearer of the party (Clinton is too flawed due to his impeachment which is what he'll be remembered for as time progresses and he didn't really push a progressive agenda that much after Hillarycare failure). The tools Obama used in this election will be shared with other Democratic candidates. While GOP may keep the House and Governorships, I think White House and Senate will be very difficult given the identity politics reshaping of the electorate.


I actually agree Obama alone should be 2012 Person of the Year given the electoral victory. I can't really think of anyone else who made a big impact...Netenyahu maybe??

Large segment of the electorate were in such denial that Obama could be re-elected even on the day of the election...I think his victory was pretty impressive in face of a bad economy. Romney was a faceless challenger but stood for nothing and didn't move the goalpost in anyway shape or form. Obama's campaign changed the agenda in Washington DC (look at the weakness in Boehner and fear in middle road Republicans).

[Fading]

I could easily be wrong, but I see Obama going the way of Bush. Just fading into the background. He got beat up quite a bit during his first term, and I imagine the second will be the same. The job's also very stressful, and probably puts a strain on his family. Personally, I don't think he'll be as active as Clinton. The most I see him doing is the occasional pop in for support, especially supporting whoever gets the next nod from Democrats to run next election.

[tbetts14]

I disagree( unless there is an economic collapse or something major happens)
Obama will be remembered in the same league as FDR and Ronald Regan as in he will be a paradign shifting president. FDR broke the austrian economics free market Robber baron mentality of the 1920's and by the time republican president Eisenhower got re elected republicans had to accept,the new deal and SS as main stays in society.

Ronald Regan broke the big government keynsian mentality that dominated
through 60'and 70's,and put future Democrats like clinton on defense when it came to welfare and crime.

Obama has more electoral votes then JFK,and there are only six presidents
that have won with more then 50% of the votes both times and Obama is one them. Obama has shifted the paradign away from Regan,and now big government and taxing rich people is acceptable again.

Obama is going to force a moderate like Jeb Bush or Christie to moderate
on things like gay marriage,immigration and other issues,and put republicans on defense about defending rich people all the time. You see this happening with people like Newt Gingrich moderating on gay marriage and immigration.

Bill Clinton will be remembered because times were good in his second tern,because of the tech boom,but not his policies ,Obama will be known as transformational because of his policy positions

[terry78]

The first soul brother in the White House? He ain't fading away.