Is Obama Doomed To Fail?

This one quote below - tucked away at the bottom of page 2 in this Politico item dealing with Democrats at odds - highlights my chief concern over an Obama Presidency. For all his inflated press, Obama has never really painted himself as a leader, so much as he has a mediator. That sounds great on paper. But it has the potential to be disastrous in the real world. It can raise a number of serious problems.

"You have campaign fault lines now incorporated into [Obama’s] Cabinet,” warned Tom Andrews, a former congressman from Maine and leader of the group Win Without War. “We have to watch the inside baseball of defense spending, missile defense program. That’s an important fault line. ... The Republicans are going to play that hard — that will be a fault line issue. They will target the red-state Democrats and the new Democrats.”

Both good and bad actors on the International front like predictability in America. They plot their own moves, good and bad, around that. But an administration lacking a clear ideological direction can send mix messages, invitng bad decisions by friends and enemies alike.

Will Obama seems dovish on one front and confrontative on another? Is he a free trader, or does he favor protectionism at heart? Or will consensus result in a watered-down nothingness that accomplishes little at all? This bring the best people together and I'll sort it out stuff sounds great. And, yes, Obama will be "the decider" come January 20th. But how and what is it he will decide?

Frankly, I doubt few if any can answer that definitively right now. And that isn't necessarily a good thing.

Obama will also have motivations for decision-making that go beyond just what's best. "Well, I said no to this group on that, maybe I should say yes on this?"

Being all things to all people often leaves one looking like nothing much of anything to anyone in the end.

As frustrating as a certain stubbornness can be, without a clear, well-defined direction it can be extremely difficult to lead. Obama has no experience leading anything substantial other than his own campaigns for the next highest office.

Now that he's won the Presidency, it almost seems foolish to conclude he actually knows what he wants to do with it given that he hasn't said much of anything consistently beyond the word change. Couple that with his willingness to incorporate such disparate points of view in his administration and there's no predicting the results in many key areas, or assuming he even knows what he wants himself.

Or does he simply want everyone to get along?

While it can be great fun to circle the desks in the classroom and talk about where everyone stands, at the end of the term all that's at risk is a grade.

The stakes for the American Presidency are just a bit more substantial than that.

Let's hope Obama is up to the task. If not, it'll be Jimmy Carter all over, again. And I doubt anyone wants to see that, ... except the Iranians, perhaps.

Comments

[Todd]

My bad jharp. I see you clarified what you were saying and were placing the full blame for torture on BushCo.

And, please don't give up on posting in this forum. It's frustrating for sure, but retreat is not an option.

[Todd]

Todd: " I'll go with the smart guy anytime."
Oh you will huh? William Buckley had an answer for folks who take it upon themselves to judge the mental capacities for political leadership of people they don't really know.
Here it is, Todd: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/williamfb400600.html

Posted by: Fred Beloit | Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 01:08"
------------------------
Fred, to quote a famous non-intellectual, "you betcha!" Having just experienced a disastrous 8 years of a guy with at best average intellligence, I will take the smart guy every time. Jeez, George W. Bush had a C average at Yale. For Chrissakes, who gets a C average at Yale?!??!?! Mostly only the people who had family influence in getting them into the school, and a few goofball slackers. George W. Bush aptly fits both descriptions. And then with his C average at Yale, he somehow got accepted into Harvard Business School. He sure exhibited a lot of skills he learned at Harvard during this economic crisis ! I guess they taught how to hide out in the White House real well at Harvard.

"Bush attended Sam Houston Elementary School and San Jacinto Junior High School in Midland, Texas. He later moved to The Kinkaid School in Piney Point Village, Texas for two years. Afterward, like his father, Bush attended Phillips Academy (September 1961–June 1964[2][3][4] and later Yale University (September 1964–May 1968). At Yale, he joined Delta Kappa Epsilon, of which he was president from October 1965 until graduation, and the Skull and Bones secret society; Bush's father George H. W. Bush (1948) and grandfather Prescott S. Bush (1917) were also members of Skull and Bones. Bush was also in the Yale First XV rugby union team in 1968.[5] He was a C student, scoring 77% (with no As and one D, in astronomy) with a grade point average of 2.35 out of a possible 4.00. Bush has joked that he was known more for his social life than for his grades.[6] He received a Bachelor of Arts degree in history in 1968....In 1970 Bush applied to the University of Texas School of Law and was rejected.[7] After serving in the Texas Air National Guard, Bush entered Harvard Business School in 1973. He received a Masters of Business Administration (MBA) degree in 1975, and is the first U.S. president to hold an MBA."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_of_George_W._Bush

[Todd]

"How about you lose the weak ass generalities and actually make a meaningfull post for a change?

As far as your 2 trillion for the Iraq war just where the hell do you get that figure from? Only a Daily Koz regular could come up with a figure that out of wack.

The current wall street bail out is costing us more in a couple of months than 7 years of war has.
Posted by: SacTownMan | Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 03:35 AM "
--------------------------
Vanity Fair has an article that it's a $3 trillion war when you factor in the long term and ancillary costs. And are you suggesting then that the Iraq War was a bargain because it cost less than the boondoggle bailouts, SacTownMan? And for the life of me I can't understand why we need any bailouts because we've had "8 years of solid economic growth on the domestic front", according to econo-guru EyeDoc.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/stiglitz200804

[ET]

harpo and todd...todd and harpo...same old shit.

you were, and are, wrong about the Iraq war. Even barry knows we must stay for the next several years to assure our success, despite his posturing to get your vote. Now he will keep bush's secdef Gates and stay the proper course.

Don't you feel used? Where's cindy sheehan when you need a shoulder to cry on?

"Bushco" will be hailed as geniuses by future generations for stabilizing the region during its most turbulent period. You grandchildren will be on school holiday on George W. Bush day. And you will both still be fools and dupes.

[Todd]

Here is your victory in Iraq and against al Qaeda who wasn't previously in Iraq. $2 trillion taxpayer dollars, 4,200 killed, 50,000 wounded. And OUR economy is on the verge of collapse.

I honestly believe you guys are nuts. For what goddam reason did we invade again?

To empower Iran. Heck. Of. A. Job.
-------------------------
Ya know, I can't really remember. There were so many different rationale that kept changing with the dynamic of the failing occupation. Off the top of my head I can remember 1) to rid Iraq of (non-existant) WMD.....2) to establish democracy in Iraq.....3) Al Qaeda in Iraq, and we had to fight them over there or they'd follow us home...4) we had to stay to train the Iraqi Army to fight terrorism...5) to prevent genocide in Iraq if we left....6)if we left, oil prices would go up .....what have I left out?

[Todd]

"Bushco" will be hailed as geniuses by future generations for stabilizing the region during its most turbulent period. You grandchildren will be on school holiday on George W. Bush day.

Posted by: ET | Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 02:50 PM
-------------------------
I have another bridge in Brooklyn to sell you too, ET. And, I promise it's really not the same bridge I'm selling to EyeDoc.

[Todd]

you were, and are, wrong about the Iraq war. Even barry knows we must stay for the next several years to assure our success, despite his posturing to get your vote. Now he will keep bush's secdef Gates and stay the proper course.

Don't you feel used?
-------------------
Nope, not at all. Obama campaigned since 2007 that he would assess conditions on the ground, and act accordingly ensuring an orderly withdrawal. He's a pragmatist. No surprises here. Any liberals who are disappointed weren't listening to him on the campaign trail.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxXxgpuNNPM

[ET]

--Nope, not at all. Obama campaigned since 2007 that he would assess conditions on the ground, and act accordingly ensuring an orderly withdrawal.

sounds exactly like what mr. bush has been saying since 2003.

I see now...barry was against the war before he was for the war. Of course he still won't acknowledge that the surge worked despite the efforts of his democrat cohorts to sabotage it.

I assume that you support the war now that we've won and a democrat is in charge. Much more difficult to stand firm when the going is tough. thank God Bush was in office.

typical liberal hypocrite.

[Todd]

Ya know, ET. Make your posts but keep it factual by posting some links to your misinformation, and stop with the name calling.

Obama has always been against the war but once we're in it, we're in it and he has voted to support the troops. That doesn't mean he supports the war.

I don't support the war. It was an unnecessary war of choice. Doesn't matter who is in charge, it was the wrong war. It doesn't mean I support pulling out rashly, and I support Obama who will do it the right way.

And, Obama has said that the surge succeeded. Are you misinformed, lying or just too much in denial to admit that he said it? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5wKsGzxkiE

and thank god bush will soon be out of office....good riddance !

[WBestPresidentEver]

All you bush bashers and blamers can stick it where the son don't shine.

You know the truth but want or can't come to admit it. GET A LIFE ! The Bush & Cheney bashing is getting old, very old.

Go get another jug of Kool Aide and celebrate the destruction of AMERICA as we once knew it with your new bud.

[AdrianS]

"Second, if Obama dares to take the Presidential “Oath or Affirmation” of office, knowing that he is not “a natural born Citizen,” he will commit the crime of perjury or false swearing (see Article II, Section 1, Clause 7). For, being ineligible for “the Office of President, he cannot “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States,” or even execute it at all, to any degree. Thus, his very act of taking the “Oath or Affirmation” will be a violation thereof! So, even if the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court himself looks the other way and administers the “Oath or Affirmation,” Obama will derive no authority whatsoever from it."

OBAMA MUST STAND UP NOW OR STEP DOWN
By Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr., Ph.D., J.D.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

SIGN THE PETITION TO FORCE BARACK OBAMA TO PROVE HIS NATURAL BORN CITIZENSHIP
AS REQUIRED BY THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=81550