[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I love it Romney shows he knows nothing and the CJ Society sees it as a Romney win . [/quote]
Neither of these two are particularly strong at foreign policy. Obama has done the minimum in this regard imo. The problem is Obama has had four years of experience and he sounded no better than Romney. His record isn’t great either.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Look, in my opinion it’s too late for the idea that Obama actually has an agenda/plan to disseminate. However, for those so informed, this is going look like nothing but a slickster trying to squeeze out a plan after the threat of it being argued in public has passed by.
[/quote]
A CNN reporter covering the Obama campaign has snarked that there is nothing new in the Obama plan, it’s the same stuff he has been saying but it’s now just compiled in a nice booklet now". Ouch.[/quote]
Ha ha…and that’s CNN.
I’m lovin that.
Stacey Dash votes for Romney, The Left responds with “Die Bitch” and “I hope you get shot Uncle Tom…”
Libs, your tolerance is showing.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Look, in my opinion it’s too late for the idea that Obama actually has an agenda/plan to disseminate. However, for those so informed, this is going look like nothing but a slickster trying to squeeze out a plan after the threat of it being argued in public has passed by.
[/quote]
A CNN reporter covering the Obama campaign has snarked that there is nothing new in the Obama plan, it’s the same stuff he has been saying but it’s now just compiled in a nice booklet now". Ouch.[/quote]
Sloppy. So sloppy. If Obama loses this thing, which is looking like a real possibility at the moment, how will he be viewed by his own party? I mean, in their heart of hearts. There’s got to be some frustration and anger brewing over the execution of his campaign. From the heights of being a transformative figure, to now, where he’s starting to look like a one term bump in the road with respect to Presidential history. If he loses, the respect for the man–on the surface–will last within the Democrat party. But there will be a lurking animosity deep down.
The book detailing the insider story of the Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign is going to fly off the shelves.
Is this the october suprise?
Pitts commentary and the same old tired talking points that people are leaving to vote for romney in spite of?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Look, in my opinion it’s too late for the idea that Obama actually has an agenda/plan to disseminate. However, for those so informed, this is going look like nothing but a slickster trying to squeeze out a plan after the threat of it being argued in public has passed by.
[/quote]
A CNN reporter covering the Obama campaign has snarked that there is nothing new in the Obama plan, it’s the same stuff he has been saying but it’s now just compiled in a nice booklet now". Ouch.[/quote]
Sloppy. So sloppy. If Obama loses this thing, which is looking like a real possibility at the moment, how will he be viewed by his own party? I mean, in their heart of hearts. There’s got to be some frustration and anger brewing over the execution of his campaign. From the heights of being a transformative figure, to now, where he’s starting to look like a one term bump in the road with respect to Presidential history. If he loses, the respect for the man–on the surface–will last within the Democrat party. But there will be a lurking animosity deep down.
The book detailing the insider story of the Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign is going to fly off the shelves. [/quote]
The Left is not (or has not) seen the whole picture.
In 2008, the anti-Bush/anti-GOP movement was in full stride. Whomever represented the Dems was a sure thing to win.
Everyone was fuming over Iraq, WMD, and the crash looming.
Obama comes in, has his way, had a super-majority and pissed off everyone and their mama ramming through his healthcare law, then gets hammered in the 2010 elections.
The Left is assuming that Obama is the same as 2008, maybe/maybe not, but Romney is no McCain. Johnny-Mac was a crotchety old man, while Romney comes off more composed and assured.
The Left portrayed Romney as Darth fucking Vader, and he came off nothing like that in the first debate. Now that that has failed, they are grabbing at binders and horse-bayonet comments, but oh let’s not look at 4 Americans killed.
The Twitter sissies are not going to decide this, the youth vote will be home, the Romney momentum will continue.
The Democratic incumbent running on the number of bombs he’s dropped and the gallons of enemy blood he’s spilled, being attacked by his Republican challenger from the left with lines like “we can’t kill our way out of this” and pleas for a focus on exerting soft power and building civil society in the world’s most volatile regions?
What?
Anyway: In narrow terms–that is, if this were simply a formal debate between two people not running for President–President Obama won hands down. I actually believe that on the issues this was by far the worst showing for Mitt Romney. Part of this is natural: this is an election about the economy and Romney is an economy candidate if there ever was one. Compounding that is the fact that the incumbent has a natural advantage in this particular arena and this particular incumbent enjoys much more approval and praise on foreign policy than on jobs or the deficit.
But even accounting for those handicaps, I was surprised. Libya was the first question and Romney backed down completely on the one issue that has even staunch supporters of the President feeling uneasy. Then came about a full hour during which the incumbent laid down his positions and his accomplishments and the challenger nodded along in agreement and even accepted without protest criticisms that he had been “all over the map” on the issues. Any differences highlighted were matters of nuance and degree, not broad disagreement. Multiple times, Obama was able to look into the camera and begin his sentence with “I’m glad Governor Romney agrees…” That, in case it isn’t obvious, doesn’t bode well for the guy trying to run him out of office.
But, and this is probably far more important, NO ONE watching that debate went away feeling uneasy about Mitt Romney having access to the nuclear codes. Nobody lost any sleep on the suspicion that this election represents a choice between war and peace or levelheadedness and recklessness.
This is what most thoughtful people came away with: “Obama knows far more than Mitt Romney about foreign policy. He scored more points tonight, easily, and he is probably a modestly better choice on this front alone. But the thought of President Romney as commander-in-chief doesn’t scare me. I could give him the suitcase with the handcuffs without worrying that we were headed for nuclear winter. Man, this economy is really not shining…”
On a personal note, two things:
Even the wording of the phrase “apology tour” sounds like it was invented by a cretin or a child who hasn’t yet learned long division. That particular criticism is as weak and as superficial as they can possibly come. Liberals and moderates aren’t the only ones who think it petty and unsubstantiated: thoughtful conservatives (Douthat comes to mind, and he’s probably one of the smartest opinion guys around these days, on either side of the isle) cringe at its every mention. The idea that a President has to pretend that this country can never and has never done a single thing that can be characterized as anything other than pure scintillating virtuosity is insultingly simplistic and empty-headed. The sooner this election ends and this stupid soundbite dies, the better.
And, more importantly, kudos to Romney for talking about peace. I mean, it may be a platitudinous hippie pipe dream and it may have been a purely political play last night, but shouldn’t our leaders at least mention that they’d really like not to send our kids to die or our planes to kill other people’s kids? I’m not sure that Obama said the word “peace” all night, and this is entirely consistent with his (politically effective) strategy of sending robots to bomb our enemies regardless of who may or may not be breastfeeding an infant in the next room over. Even if this kind of warfare is sometimes warranted–and it surely is–I want a leader who’s willing to call it a necessary evil rather than one who touts it as a shining beacon of success in his record. Bravo to Mitt Romney on that front.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If Obama loses this thing, which is looking like a real possibility at the moment, how will he be viewed by his own party? I mean, in their heart of hearts. There’s got to be some frustration and anger brewing over the execution of his campaign. From the heights of being a transformative figure, to now, where he’s starting to look like a one term bump in the road with respect to Presidential history. If he loses, the respect for the man–on the surface–will last within the Democrat party. But there will be a lurking animosity deep down.
The book detailing the insider story of the Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign is going to fly off the shelves. [/quote]
History will look back and see the first black President, and it will be a shinning moment for all American’s to be proud of. The record will be forgotten, the slip ups and the progressiveness will all be forgotten and he will be seen as a hero, a pioneer and a signal of how great a nation America really is, because he is(was) living proof that the American Dream is alive and well.
He will prove, in the end, that all his talk of “no fairness” and “leveling the playing field” is all just a bunch of malarky, and his election to the highest office of the land proved that to be the case, in the face of his own narative. He himself proves any American can achieve anything in this great land we call home, and we do not need government constructed “fairness” to achieve it.
History will be kind to him, and remember him for all he should be remembered for, while omiting all the parts that should be left unsaid, but not forgotten.
At least, that is my opinion on the matter, even though I know that isn’t really what you were asking.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
That, in case it isn’t obvious, doesn’t bode well for the guy trying to run him out of office.[/quote]
I don’t disagree, but there isn’t much Romney (or any candidate) can do about that - presidents and presidential candidates won’t have much of a gulf between them on foreign policy themes. And, in practice, this plays out - see Obama’s continuation of Bush’s anti-terror protocols.
But that is also why foreign policy debates don’t figure much into the equation - the only real contest is about competence, i.e., can one man be made to look completely incompetent on the issue? And that didn’t happen (and likely wouldn’t). And I think voters only care about competence because they understand that the requisite “experience” in foreign affairs is a function of being in the office, and so the incumbent’s advantage here always gets (down)graded on a curve for that.
Agreed. Romney, the “peace and prosperity” candidate, showed a nice turn of image there, and I think it was smart. I think most Americans - whatever their stance on Iraw and Afghanistan - are war-weary, and Romney was wise to assure them that he was committed to a “peace project”.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
That, in case it isn’t obvious, doesn’t bode well for the guy trying to run him out of office.[/quote]
I don’t disagree, but there isn’t much Romney (or any candidate) can do about that - presidents and presidential candidates won’t have much of a gulf between them on foreign policy themes. And, in practice, this plays out - see Obama’s continuation of Bush’s anti-terror protocols.
But that is also why foreign policy debates don’t figure much into the equation - the only real contest is about competence, i.e., can one man be made to look completely incompetent on the issue? And that didn’t happen (and likely wouldn’t). And I think voters only care about competence because they understand that the requisite “experience” in foreign affairs is a function of being in the office, and so the incumbent’s advantage here always gets (down)graded on a curve for that.
Agreed. Romney, the “peace and prosperity” candidate, showed a nice turn of image there, and I think it was smart. I think most Americans - whatever their stance on Iraw and Afghanistan - are war-weary, and Romney was wise to assure them that he was committed to a “peace project”.[/quote]
I agree. On most of these issues, Obama has taken a pretty reasonable stance. It’s not like Romney had the luxury that Obama had in '08, where he could attack the Republican Party for launching an entire (unjustified, in many minds) war. And what can he say on an issue like the raid that got OBL, other than “good job.” (though I agree with the conservatives who are saying that killing one man is an event, not a foreign policy).
But, again, unavoidable or not, this helps the President more than anybody else.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If Obama loses this thing, which is looking like a real possibility at the moment, how will he be viewed by his own party? I mean, in their heart of hearts. There’s got to be some frustration and anger brewing over the execution of his campaign. From the heights of being a transformative figure, to now, where he’s starting to look like a one term bump in the road with respect to Presidential history. If he loses, the respect for the man–on the surface–will last within the Democrat party. But there will be a lurking animosity deep down.
The book detailing the insider story of the Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign is going to fly off the shelves. [/quote]
History will look back and see the first black President, and it will be a shinning moment for all American’s to be proud of. The record will be forgotten, the slip ups and the progressiveness will all be forgotten and he will be seen as a hero, a pioneer and a signal of how great a nation America really is, because he is(was) living proof that the American Dream is alive and well.
He will prove, in the end, that all his talk of “no fairness” and “leveling the playing field” is all just a bunch of malarky, and his election to the highest office of the land proved that to be the case, in the face of his own narative. He himself proves any American can achieve anything in this great land we call home, and we do not need government constructed “fairness” to achieve it.
History will be kind to him, and remember him for all he should be remembered for, while omiting all the parts that should be left unsaid, but not forgotten.
At least, that is my opinion on the matter, even though I know that isn’t really what you were asking.[/quote]
Without a doubt, history will be kind to Obama, look at how they treated the first Black president…Bill Clinton…
Mr. “I did not have sexual relations with that woman…” who deregulated banks, and dropped a shit ton of bombs over Kosovo, even bombed an aspirin factory ironically on the same day as the Columbine shootings.
The media portrays him as the guy who calms the seas, clears traffic, and even butters your bread.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If Obama loses this thing, which is looking like a real possibility at the moment, how will he be viewed by his own party? I mean, in their heart of hearts. There’s got to be some frustration and anger brewing over the execution of his campaign. From the heights of being a transformative figure, to now, where he’s starting to look like a one term bump in the road with respect to Presidential history. If he loses, the respect for the man–on the surface–will last within the Democrat party. But there will be a lurking animosity deep down.
The book detailing the insider story of the Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign is going to fly off the shelves. [/quote]
History will look back and see the first black President, and it will be a shinning moment for all American’s to be proud of. The record will be forgotten, the slip ups and the progressiveness will all be forgotten and he will be seen as a hero, a pioneer and a signal of how great a nation America really is, because he is(was) living proof that the American Dream is alive and well.
He will prove, in the end, that all his talk of “no fairness” and “leveling the playing field” is all just a bunch of malarky, and his election to the highest office of the land proved that to be the case, in the face of his own narative. He himself proves any American can achieve anything in this great land we call home, and we do not need government constructed “fairness” to achieve it.
History will be kind to him, and remember him for all he should be remembered for, while omiting all the parts that should be left unsaid, but not forgotten.
At least, that is my opinion on the matter, even though I know that isn’t really what you were asking.[/quote]
No doubt he’s destined for “first black” status. But I’m wondering about how his campaign will be remembered. If he loses there’s gotta be some bitterness over “lost opportunities” and missteps as far as campaign strategy goes. I think more than a few of us are surprised about how great of a candidate Romney turned out to be, and by how intelligently his campaign has been carried out. The last statement has zilch to do with policy or ideology. Hey, just look at polling on likeability and leadership. But equally surprising, perhaps more so, is just how terrible Obama’s campaign for a second term has been. Democrats will always love Obama. But there will be some deep down anger over his campaign if he does end up losing this thing.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
The Democratic incumbent running on the number of bombs he’s dropped and the gallons of enemy blood he’s spilled, being attacked by his Republican challenger from the left with lines like “we can’t kill our way out of this” and pleas for a focus on exerting soft power and building civil society in the world’s most volatile regions?
What?
Anyway: In narrow terms–that is, if this were simply a formal debate between two people not running for President–President Obama won hands down. I actually believe that on the issues this was by far the worst showing for Mitt Romney. Part of this is natural: this is an election about the economy and Romney is an economy candidate if there ever was one. Compounding that is the fact that the incumbent has a natural advantage in this particular arena and this particular incumbent enjoys much more approval and praise on foreign policy than on jobs or the deficit.
But even accounting for those handicaps, I was surprised. Libya was the first question and Romney backed down completely on the one issue that has even staunch supporters of the President feeling uneasy. Then came about a full hour during which the incumbent laid down his positions and his accomplishments and the challenger nodded along in agreement and even accepted without protest criticisms that he had been “all over the map” on the issues. Any differences highlighted were matters of nuance and degree, not broad disagreement. Multiple times, Obama was able to look into the camera and begin his sentence with “I’m glad Governor Romney agrees…” That, in case it isn’t obvious, doesn’t bode well for the guy trying to run him out of office.
But, and this is probably far more important, NO ONE watching that debate went away feeling uneasy about Mitt Romney having access to the nuclear codes. Nobody lost any sleep on the suspicion that this election represents a choice between war and peace or levelheadedness and recklessness.
This is what most thoughtful people came away with: “Obama knows far more than Mitt Romney about foreign policy. He scored more points tonight, easily, and he is probably a modestly better choice on this front alone. But the thought of President Romney as commander-in-chief doesn’t scare me. I could give him the suitcase with the handcuffs without worrying that we were headed for nuclear winter. Man, this economy is really not shining…”
On a personal note, two things:
Even the wording of the phrase “apology tour” sounds like it was invented by a cretin or a child who hasn’t yet learned long division. That particular criticism is as weak and as superficial as they can possibly come. Liberals and moderates aren’t the only ones who think it petty and unsubstantiated: thoughtful conservatives (Douthat comes to mind, and he’s probably one of the smartest opinion guys around these days, on either side of the isle) cringe at its every mention. The idea that a President has to pretend that this country can never and has never done a single thing that can be characterized as anything other than pure scintillating virtuosity is insultingly simplistic and empty-headed. The sooner this election ends and this stupid soundbite dies, the better.
And, more importantly, kudos to Romney for talking about peace. I mean, it may be a platitudinous hippie pipe dream and it may have been a purely political play last night, but shouldn’t our leaders at least mention that they’d really like not to send our kids to die or our planes to kill other people’s kids? I’m not sure that Obama said the word “peace” all night, and this is entirely consistent with his (politically effective) strategy of sending robots to bomb our enemies regardless of who may or may not be breastfeeding an infant in the next room over. Even if this kind of warfare is sometimes warranted–and it surely is–I want a leader who’s willing to call it a necessary evil rather than one who touts it as a shining beacon of success in his record. Bravo to Mitt Romney on that front.[/quote]
Obama wanted two things from his blood and bombs talk.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Obama wanted two things from his blood and bombs talk.
It is basically a political truth that Democrats have to over-compensate in debates and speeches to appear more hawkish and tough (sinceroughly 1968) - that is especially true for urban Democratic candidates, and that is doubly true for Obama, nobody’s idea of a masculine archetype and someone who is doing very poorly with the male vote.
Now, Obama’s overemphasis on “blood and bombs” ordinarily might be a detriment to getting his base out to vote, but of course, Obama has benefitted from the antiwar, civil libertarian Left (conveniently) deciding to retire and take a self-imposed vow of silence immediately upon Obama’s inauguration.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If Obama loses this thing, which is looking like a real possibility at the moment, how will he be viewed by his own party? I mean, in their heart of hearts. There’s got to be some frustration and anger brewing over the execution of his campaign. From the heights of being a transformative figure, to now, where he’s starting to look like a one term bump in the road with respect to Presidential history. If he loses, the respect for the man–on the surface–will last within the Democrat party. But there will be a lurking animosity deep down.
The book detailing the insider story of the Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign is going to fly off the shelves. [/quote]
History will look back and see the first black President, and it will be a shinning moment for all American’s to be proud of. The record will be forgotten, the slip ups and the progressiveness will all be forgotten and he will be seen as a hero, a pioneer and a signal of how great a nation America really is, because he is(was) living proof that the American Dream is alive and well.
He will prove, in the end, that all his talk of “no fairness” and “leveling the playing field” is all just a bunch of malarky, and his election to the highest office of the land proved that to be the case, in the face of his own narative. He himself proves any American can achieve anything in this great land we call home, and we do not need government constructed “fairness” to achieve it.
History will be kind to him, and remember him for all he should be remembered for, while omiting all the parts that should be left unsaid, but not forgotten.
At least, that is my opinion on the matter, even though I know that isn’t really what you were asking.[/quote]
CB:
I really hope you are serious about this; because after studying a few President’s for some time; it is true that with time, a President is viewed differently, despite what partisans may think when they were President.
The net result is that I agree with you. (If this was a serious post).
The narrative on President Barack Obama will ultimately be a positive one, whether ones agrees or not. And that positive narrative will continue ESPECIALLY if (when) he loses this election.
(I think that I post more thoughts after the Inaguration and things have “settled” somewhat).
Mufasa
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
The narrative on President Barack Obama will ultimately be a positive one, whether ones agrees or not. And that positive narrative will continue ESPECIALLY if (when) he loses this election.[/quote]
In terms of the symbolic aspect to his Presidency? Sure. But I don’t see historians lionizing the substance of his presidency, assuming he loses next month. If he wins, he has a chance to pull his legacy out of the ditch.
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If Obama loses this thing, which is looking like a real possibility at the moment, how will he be viewed by his own party? I mean, in their heart of hearts. There’s got to be some frustration and anger brewing over the execution of his campaign. From the heights of being a transformative figure, to now, where he’s starting to look like a one term bump in the road with respect to Presidential history. If he loses, the respect for the man–on the surface–will last within the Democrat party. But there will be a lurking animosity deep down.
The book detailing the insider story of the Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign is going to fly off the shelves. [/quote]
History will look back and see the first black President, and it will be a shinning moment for all American’s to be proud of. The record will be forgotten, the slip ups and the progressiveness will all be forgotten and he will be seen as a hero, a pioneer and a signal of how great a nation America really is, because he is(was) living proof that the American Dream is alive and well.
He will prove, in the end, that all his talk of “no fairness” and “leveling the playing field” is all just a bunch of malarky, and his election to the highest office of the land proved that to be the case, in the face of his own narative. He himself proves any American can achieve anything in this great land we call home, and we do not need government constructed “fairness” to achieve it.
History will be kind to him, and remember him for all he should be remembered for, while omiting all the parts that should be left unsaid, but not forgotten.
At least, that is my opinion on the matter, even though I know that isn’t really what you were asking.[/quote]
CB:
I really hope you are serious about this; because after studying a few President’s for some time; it is true that with time, a President is viewed differently, despite what partisans may think when they were President.
The net result is that I agree with you. (If this was a serious post).
The narrative on President Barack Obama will ultimately be a positive one, whether ones agrees or not. And that positive narrative will continue ESPECIALLY if (when) he loses this election.
(I think that I post more thoughts after the Inaguration and things have “settled” somewhat).
Mufasa[/quote]
100% serious post.
The night Obama was elected, I knew that now, and forever I am not lying when I look my bi-racial son in the eyes and tell him he can be anything he wants to be in this world.
I knew for sure at that moment the American Dream is alive and well, and that people can and will look past silly things like skin color if they believe in a person, in who that person is.
I’ll be glad to omit his record over the last four years from the narative, and remember “hope and change”. If only for how good it felt that night, for those couple moments before the hope faded, and the change never came.
I’ll omit the failure, and even pretend the progressive wasn’t there, if only to believe in the Dream.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Mufasa wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If Obama loses this thing, which is looking like a real possibility at the moment, how will he be viewed by his own party? I mean, in their heart of hearts. There’s got to be some frustration and anger brewing over the execution of his campaign. From the heights of being a transformative figure, to now, where he’s starting to look like a one term bump in the road with respect to Presidential history. If he loses, the respect for the man–on the surface–will last within the Democrat party. But there will be a lurking animosity deep down.
The book detailing the insider story of the Obama’s 2012 presidential campaign is going to fly off the shelves. [/quote]
History will look back and see the first black President, and it will be a shinning moment for all American’s to be proud of. The record will be forgotten, the slip ups and the progressiveness will all be forgotten and he will be seen as a hero, a pioneer and a signal of how great a nation America really is, because he is(was) living proof that the American Dream is alive and well.
He will prove, in the end, that all his talk of “no fairness” and “leveling the playing field” is all just a bunch of malarky, and his election to the highest office of the land proved that to be the case, in the face of his own narative. He himself proves any American can achieve anything in this great land we call home, and we do not need government constructed “fairness” to achieve it.
History will be kind to him, and remember him for all he should be remembered for, while omiting all the parts that should be left unsaid, but not forgotten.
At least, that is my opinion on the matter, even though I know that isn’t really what you were asking.[/quote]
CB:
I really hope you are serious about this; because after studying a few President’s for some time; it is true that with time, a President is viewed differently, despite what partisans may think when they were President.
The net result is that I agree with you. (If this was a serious post).
The narrative on President Barack Obama will ultimately be a positive one, whether ones agrees or not. And that positive narrative will continue ESPECIALLY if (when) he loses this election.
(I think that I post more thoughts after the Inaguration and things have “settled” somewhat).
Mufasa[/quote]
100% serious post.
The night Obama was elected, I knew that now, and forever I am not lying when I look my bi-racial son in the eyes and tell him he can be anything he wants to be in this world.
I knew for sure at that moment the American Dream is alive and well, and that people can and will look past silly things like skin color if they believe in a person, in who that person is.
I’ll be glad to omit his record over the last four years from the narative, and remember “hope and change”. If only for how good it felt that night, for those couple moments before the hope faded, and the change never came.
I’ll omit the failure, and even pretend the progressive wasn’t there, if only to believe in the Dream.[/quote]
No doubt, and well said. Completely understandable sentiment. However, I’m hoping the next step will be in understanding that even a black president can be called out on his record. You’ll know when racism and race baiting isn’t an issue anymore. Not because we can elect a black president. There’s no doubt on that anymore. But because we can criticize him, and see race baiting jackasses like Matthews fired for his crazy-man reactions to such criticisms.
Sorry, CB!
I love “PWI”…but damn if you can’t get cynical about a lot of the stuff that gets posted!
TB:
Agree…but what tends to happen with historical figures (sorry, guys…Obama will be one)is that there is usually written 1) “nuts-and-bolts” kinds of essays and books (that would cover his numerous missteps with Congress, as an example) and 2) the overall narrative, (which often may INCLUDE #1)…but is not the primary focus.
The narrative TENDS to become the prevailing overall “portrait” of a President.
Mufasa