Is Barack Obama's personality crippling his presidency?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Obama has gotten more done then any President since LBJ......so I would say no his personality isn't crippling his presidency.

Yeah, lots of watered down pieces of legislation. The impression I am getting in Double Down is that Obama hates the Presidency, and hates elections, but continues onward due to ego. His White House staff was in chaos in 2011, with power struggles against Valerie Jarrett in particular causing a lot of tension.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

His approval ratings have never dipped below 40% and he was President while the unemployment rate was over 10%. The answer to your question: no. If anything, it's his personality that has made his presidency memorable.

His public persona is great. Charismatic, cool, lacking drama. The ultimate pragmatic progressive. But what is he like on the inside? How does he deal with the staff, the Senators, the donors, etc. That’s what counts.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Obama has gotten more done then any President since LBJ......so I would say no his personality isn't crippling his presidency.

Yeah, lots of watered down pieces of legislation. The impression I am getting in Double Down is that Obama hates the Presidency, and hates elections, but continues onward due to ego. His White House staff was in chaos in 2011, with power struggles against Valerie Jarrett in particular causing a lot of tension.

You should finish the book. A passage I just read during Obama's debate prep that seems to pertain to this thread: "Axelrod and Plouffe thought something more radical was in order. For the past six years, they had watched Obama struggle with his disdain for the theatricality of politics-not just the debates, but even the soaring speeches for which he was renowned. Obama's distrust of emotional string-pulling and resistance to the practical necessities of the sound-bite culture: these were elements of his personality that they had accepted, respected, and admired."

Like I said, he hates fighting and politics. He doesn’t want to beat my party so he caves.

Obama has gotten more done then any President since LBJ......so I would say no his personality isn't crippling his presidency.

Yeah, lots of watered down pieces of legislation. The impression I am getting in Double Down is that Obama hates the Presidency, and hates elections, but continues onward due to ego. His White House staff was in chaos in 2011, with power struggles against Valerie Jarrett in particular causing a lot of tension.

He got healthcare passed(which no D since Truman has failed to do), got the largest stimulus in US history passed, Wall-Street reform, the auto bailout. There are very few Presidents whom's record are going to be as accomplished as his.

The whole notion that his personality makes him ineffective is nonsense when you actually look at his record.

All of his legislative achievements are paper tigers, spare Iraq and Osama. He compromises on everything. He could have had single payer. He could have had a bigger stimulus. He caves, and my side bashes him anyway. We win every time for a reason. Hillary Clinton wouldn't be taking this.

Obama is not the LBJ of the 21st century. He is the George H.W. Bush with a second term.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

How the f could Obama get single payer? Every special interest group would be running ads 24/7 calling him an invasive communist *insert black pejorative term here* and the bill would be as unpopular as AIDS within two months. Obama could propose any minor healthcare reform and it would polarize the country by the late summer of 2009.

He had both Houses of Congress. He was going to be hit hard in the midterms anyway. Why not go all the way and come back in 2012?

I support single payer over this mandate bs, and the fact that we can't repeal it completely at this point shows how strong single payer could have come.

Admit it: You may like Obama, but he could certainly be better. I think that about Rand Paul all the time.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Obama has gotten more done then any President since LBJ......so I would say no his personality isn't crippling his presidency.

Yeah, lots of watered down pieces of legislation. The impression I am getting in Double Down is that Obama hates the Presidency, and hates elections, but continues onward due to ego. His White House staff was in chaos in 2011, with power struggles against Valerie Jarrett in particular causing a lot of tension.

You should finish the book. A passage I just read during Obama's debate prep that seems to pertain to this thread: "Axelrod and Plouffe thought something more radical was in order. For the past six years, they had watched Obama struggle with his disdain for the theatricality of politics-not just the debates, but even the soaring speeches for which he was renowned. Obama's distrust of emotional string-pulling and resistance to the practical necessities of the sound-bite culture: these were elements of his personality that they had accepted, respected, and admired."

Like I said, he hates fighting and politics. He doesn’t want to beat my party so he caves.

Obama has gotten more done then any President since LBJ......so I would say no his personality isn't crippling his presidency.

Yeah, lots of watered down pieces of legislation. The impression I am getting in Double Down is that Obama hates the Presidency, and hates elections, but continues onward due to ego. His White House staff was in chaos in 2011, with power struggles against Valerie Jarrett in particular causing a lot of tension.

He got healthcare passed(which no D since Truman has failed to do), got the largest stimulus in US history passed, Wall-Street reform, the auto bailout. There are very few Presidents whom's record are going to be as accomplished as his.

The whole notion that his personality makes him ineffective is nonsense when you actually look at his record.

All of his legislative achievements are paper tigers, spare Iraq and Osama. He compromises on everything. He could have had single payer. He could have had a bigger stimulus. He caves, and my side bashes him anyway. We win every time for a reason. Hillary Clinton wouldn't be taking this.

Obama is not the LBJ of the 21st century. He is the George H.W. Bush with a second term.

That is a ridiculous criticism.

You can make that same stupid argument for any president. You can bitch about LBJ's Civil Rights Act not going far enough, same for Medicare. The point is Obama was able to get major transformative legislation passed. Who gives a damn if he wasn't able to get what he originally wanted, in politics you rarely do.

Johnson got exactly what he wanted. It's not about how far your willing to go, its what exactly do you want. Your missing the point.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

How the f could Obama get single payer? Every special interest group would be running ads 24/7 calling him an invasive communist *insert black pejorative term here* and the bill would be as unpopular as AIDS within two months. Obama could propose any minor healthcare reform and it would polarize the country by the late summer of 2009.

He had both Houses of Congress. He was going to be hit hard in the midterms anyway. Why not go all the way and come back in 2012?

I support single payer over this mandate BS, and the fact that we can't repeal it completely at this point shows how strong single payer could have come.

Admit it: You may like Obama, but he could certainly be better. I think that about Rand Paul all the time.

The Democrats never had the votes for a single-payer system.(the blue-dogs would never have gone for it). So Obama did what any good politician would have done, he compromised and got something passed that will help the problem, but also can be built in the future.

Lmao, single-payer! Just look how difficult it was to pass ACA, which is more conservative then Nixon's healthcare plan.

Pelosi was one of the strongest Speakers in history. She would have gotten the votes. The ACA is the result of Obama caving, and smelling blood, my party's sharks stormed ahead and tried to stop him completely.

....excuses, excuses....

He could have had single payer

W.T.F.

What a reasoned argument. Care to post a tumbler meme while your at it?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

He could have had single payer

W.T.F.

What a reasoned argument. Care to post a tumbler meme while your at it?

I'm absolutely incredulous that you think Obama could have ever passed single payer.  Do you just not follow politics at all?  He wouldn't have gotten 40 Senate votes for it, much less 60.  Take the Obamacare backlash and square it, and Congressional support would have fallen even further.  There is simply no way he could have done it, and I can't believe someone would actually say he could have.

Again, you are literally proving my point. It might have been passed if tried to push it through. 2010 would be a big shock, but the Tea Party speaks for itself. Sometimes you need to kamikaze things if you truly want to get them done. Plenty of politicians have done that. Look how Charlie Crist ruined his career-he wanted to be in the Senate, and did what ever he could to get there.

What has Obama been able to do since 2010? Would it really matter if he lost more seats in 2010 then he did already? Its not like things would be easier.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Sanchez, with all due respect, have you completely forgotten the backlash Obama received from members of his own party?  The Blue Dogs bear a lot of blame for the fact that single-payer wasn't passed.  Obama could've literally hit them with a cane and he wouldn't have gotten single-payer.  Now sure, he could have spoke about it more in his speeches, but how far would that have gotten him?  Chances are Obama underestimated the difficulties of getting what you want in this office when he ran.  Okay.  But then you're elected, reality hits, and it's the end of the honeymoon.  How differently do you think Hillary Clinton would have handled this?  More arm-crossing?  A more stern tone of voice?  You can only do so much.

As I am arguing in two seperate threads, if he had the willpower, he would have told the Southern Dems to f[inks] off and try to ram it through. If it fails, then try to compromise with the ACA. But he never even attempted it. The party was going to take a huge beating in 2010 no matter what, so he might as well should have tried to get something out of it.

But that would have been too confrontational for Obama's liking. Look at Ted Cruz, he has more or less destroyed any shot at him being elected President, but he at least made a last ditch (and stupid, IMO) effort to get rid of Obamacare.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Sanchez, with all due respect, have you completely forgotten the backlash Obama received from members of his own party?  The Blue Dogs bear a lot of blame for the fact that single-payer wasn't passed.  Obama could've literally hit them with a cane and he wouldn't have gotten single-payer.  Now sure, he could have spoke about it more in his speeches, but how far would that have gotten him?  Chances are Obama underestimated the difficulties of getting what you want in this office when he ran.  Okay.  But then you're elected, reality hits, and it's the end of the honeymoon.  How differently do you think Hillary Clinton would have handled this?  More arm-crossing?  A more stern tone of voice?  You can only do so much.

As I am arguing in two seperate threads, if he had the willpower, he would have told the Southern Dems to f[inks] off and try to ram it through. If it fails, then try to compromise with the ACA. But he never even attempted it. The party was going to take a huge beating in 2010 no matter what, so he might as well should have tried to get something out of it.

But that would have been too confrontational for Obama's liking. Look at Ted Cruz, he has more or less destroyed any shot at him being elected President, but he at least made a last ditch (and stupid, IMO) effort to get rid of Obamacare.

1. He never had the votes to "ram through" anything without the support of the Blue Dogs. If you take the Democratic Caucus circa 2009 and remove the Blue Dogs and any other members in R+x districts, there isn't a majority. It would have been foolish to even go down that path.

2. Political capital is not infinite. If Obama had gone off on a futile pursuit of single-payer and it inevitably failed, he wouldn't be taken seriously in Congress. The Blue Dogs may not have come around to an ACA-type solution because they would feel the need to distance themselves from a president who pursued something perceived as radical. The Republicans would not have supported it either, but the sense would be, "He tried for what he wanted and failed, he's trying for a compromise now, all we have to do is scuttle that and we can force him to do something we want." And the likely result would have been some toothless Republican healthcare law that basically consisted of more tort reform and a tax deduction for health savings accounts. In other words, it would do absolutely no good at all.

1. You cut the Southern Democrats loose then. If you can't get their votes, then have the DCCC ignore them in 2010. Most of them lost their seats anyway.

2. We both agree that political capital is not infinite. But why go down the Healthcare reform road half assed only to lose seats in 2010, fight hard in 2012, and then have the bill dismembered in 2013? What good did that do? A push for single payer might have the same results, but at least he could have said he tried.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

How the f could Obama get single payer? Every special interest group would be running ads 24/7 calling him an invasive communist *insert black pejorative term here* and the bill would be as unpopular as AIDS within two months. Obama could propose any minor healthcare reform and it would polarize the country by the late summer of 2009.

He had both Houses of Congress. He was going to be hit hard in the midterms anyway. Why not go all the way and come back in 2012?

I support single payer over this mandate BS, and the fact that we can't repeal it completely at this point shows how strong single payer could have come.

Admit it: You may like Obama, but he could certainly be better. I think that about Rand Paul all the time.

The Democrats never had the votes for a single-payer system.(the blue-dogs would never have gone for it). So Obama did what any good politician would have done, he compromised and got something passed that will help the problem, but also can be built in the future.

Lmao, single-payer! Just look how difficult it was to pass ACA, which is more conservative then Nixon's healthcare plan.

Pelosi was one of the strongest Speakers in history. She would have gotten the votes. The ACA is the result of Obama caving, and smelling blood, my party's sharks stormed ahead and tried to stop him completely.

....excuses, excuses....

He could have had single payer

W.T.F.

What a reasoned argument. Care to post a tumbler meme while your at it?

Bullsh**t.

There is no way Pelosi would have been able to deliver any blue-dog democrats, single payer was DOA on arrival.

Read my first paragraph in my last post.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

How the f could Obama get single payer? Every special interest group would be running ads 24/7 calling him an invasive communist *insert black pejorative term here* and the bill would be as unpopular as AIDS within two months. Obama could propose any minor healthcare reform and it would polarize the country by the late summer of 2009.

He had both Houses of Congress. He was going to be hit hard in the midterms anyway. Why not go all the way and come back in 2012?

I support single payer over this mandate BS, and the fact that we can't repeal it completely at this point shows how strong single payer could have come.

Admit it: You may like Obama, but he could certainly be better. I think that about Rand Paul all the time.

The Democrats never had the votes for a single-payer system.(the blue-dogs would never have gone for it). So Obama did what any good politician would have done, he compromised and got something passed that will help the problem, but also can be built in the future.

Lmao, single-payer! Just look how difficult it was to pass ACA, which is more conservative then Nixon's healthcare plan.

Pelosi was one of the strongest Speakers in history. She would have gotten the votes. The ACA is the result of Obama caving, and smelling blood, my party's sharks stormed ahead and tried to stop him completely.

....excuses, excuses....

He could have had single payer

W.T.F.

What a reasoned argument. Care to post a tumbler meme while your at it?

Bullsh**t.

There is no way Pelosi would have been able to deliver any blue-dog democrats, single payer was DOA on arrival.

Read my first paragraph in my last post.

They wouldn't have had a enough votes for it to pass the house without them and this doesn't even get into the subject of the Senate.

There was no chance of single-payer ever been a realistic option.

If Obama threatened to pull the plug on the wavering Democrats, he could have brought a few more in. If he failed, well, then he failed. As it stands now, he passed a watered down healthcare bill that is being whittled away more and more overtime. Do you call that a success?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Give it up, Sanchez.  There is absolutely no way in Hell single-payer was ever remotely plausible under Obama, period.  If he'd tried that, there would have been no "compromise on Obamacare."  The backlash would have caused us to get nothing.

You guys got nothing in the end anyway, so what does it matter?

On an unrelated note, can I assume the new I-MS avatar is because of the decision by the administration today?

How the f could Obama get single payer? Every special interest group would be running ads 24/7 calling him an invasive communist *insert black pejorative term here* and the bill would be as unpopular as AIDS within two months. Obama could propose any minor healthcare reform and it would polarize the country by the late summer of 2009.

He had both Houses of Congress. He was going to be hit hard in the midterms anyway. Why not go all the way and come back in 2012?

I support single payer over this mandate BS, and the fact that we can't repeal it completely at this point shows how strong single payer could have come.

Admit it: You may like Obama, but he could certainly be better. I think that about Rand Paul all the time.

The Democrats never had the votes for a single-payer system.(the blue-dogs would never have gone for it). So Obama did what any good politician would have done, he compromised and got something passed that will help the problem, but also can be built in the future.

Lmao, single-payer! Just look how difficult it was to pass ACA, which is more conservative then Nixon's healthcare plan.

Pelosi was one of the strongest Speakers in history. She would have gotten the votes. The ACA is the result of Obama caving, and smelling blood, my party's sharks stormed ahead and tried to stop him completely.

....excuses, excuses....

He could have had single payer

W.T.F.

What a reasoned argument. Care to post a tumbler meme while your at it?

Bullsh**t.

There is no way Pelosi would have been able to deliver any blue-dog democrats, single payer was DOA on arrival.

Read my first paragraph in my last post.

They wouldn't have had a enough votes for it to pass the house without them and this doesn't even get into the subject of the Senate.

There was no chance of single-payer ever been a realistic option.

If Obama threatened to pull the plug on the wavering Democrats, he could have brought a few more in. If he failed, well, then he failed. As it stands now, he passed a watered down healthcare bill that is being whittled away more and more overtime. Do you call that a success?

What exactly would Obama be able to threaten the Blue-dogs with? And by going after single-payer and failing would have been the end of his presidency and he would have no political capital to pass anything else.

And yes, passing ACA is massive success. It is the biggest overhaul of the healthcare system since medicare/medicaid and no Democratic president has been able to do so.

Cutting off pork and DCCC funding? Most of them were dead in the water come 2010 anyway. If you call empty legislation a success, well, more power to you. As I said earlier, it seems to me that Obama is now just Bush Sr. 2.0 with a second term?

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

My GOD Sanchez!

So much wrong, so many better things to do than refute every-single-one-of-them...

However, I will say that the suggestion that Obama could 'drive-through' single-payer just by sheer will a la Johnson, is beyond ludicrous. When you have 'just' enough of your own party to get a watered-down version through the house and even then just cross the filibuster threshold in the Senate... do you really, REALLY think that Obama could have 'shocked' the Congress into passing single-payer?

If you do? Then your grasp on modern politics needs to be seriously re-assessed. The GOP of 2010-13 makes the Dixiecrats look like Rockefeller Republicans.


Obama clearly hates 'politics' but likes policy, which is basically a polar-reversal to what people expected. The glad-handing, emotional manipulation and 'begging' that comes with it clearly makes him deeply uncomfortable, but he KNOWS he needs to do it, to get the policy done. Funnily, Hillary Clinton is the same and I think Romney too. There are VERY few, who have the pathology required to be a Clinton or a Reagan. In fact the the 'grin and bear it' nature of presidential politics, is by FAR the more common personality presented.

Again, you seem to have missed the entire point I was making.

I am aware that the votes didn't exist. You make them exist. And if you can't get the renovations, you might as well burn the damn house down.

Obama clearly hates 'politics' but likes policy, which is basically a polar-reversal to what people expected. The glad-handing, emotional manipulation and 'begging' that comes with it clearly makes him deeply uncomfortable, but he KNOWS he needs to do it, to get the policy done. Funnily, Hillary Clinton is the same and I think Romney too. There are VERY few, who have the pathology required to be a Clinton or a Reagan. In fact the the 'grin and bear it' nature of presidential politics, is by FAR the more common personality presented.

For somebody who is calling out what I am saying as wrong, you more or less just reposted it. If Obama wants to deal with the Republicans he is dealing with, he needs the LBJ style, not the "grin and bear it" style. And if the LBJ style wouldn't be enough to win, then it is better to lose then pass something empty that will later implode.

Why is it so hard for people to read what I have been posting; you all scream "wrong! wrong! wrong!" and post it again.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I am aware that the votes didn't exist. You make them exist. And if you can't get the renovations, you might as well burn the damn house down.

OK, I'm pretty sure you're just trolling us all now.  Obama should've used his dictatorial powers or else ESP to force dozens of Senators and Representatives into voting for single-payer, despite them having never given any indication that they would, and even though it took SO much wrangling just to get Obamacare.

Again, I am wondering if you all read my last post? Did you just bold a random sentence and not read it? If LBJ rose from the grave and was elected in 2008, he would have got this done. Obama can bully these people, using the leadership and DCCC. He can cut them off. He can tell them that they won't get any support against the inevitable Tea Party wave in 2010. He needs to do a political suicide bombing-what does 20 seats matter when you have lost the House in a landslide? If they do vote against him, and he losses, well, too hell with them. He would have fought and lost.

The ACA is imploding. It has been disaster after disaster. Most Teabaggers think the ACA IS single payer. There is not much of a difference here. He has achieved nothing, and is still hated as if he did achieve something. Is that really any different than trying (and failing) to pass single payer?

I am aware that the votes didn't exist. You make them exist. And if you can't get the renovations, you might as well burn the damn house down.

OK, I'm pretty sure you're just trolling us all now.  Obama should've used his dictatorial powers or else ESP to force dozens of Senators and Representatives into voting for single-payer, despite them having never given any indication that they would, and even though it took SO much wrangling just to get Obamacare.

Horse heads etc should have been used.

Or a dead fish in the mail.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

LBJ lost his domestic power when the conservative coalition returned in '66, same with FDR in '38.

And Obama would have lost his in 2010 regardless if he pushed single payer or not.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I am aware that the votes didn't exist. You make them exist. And if you can't get the renovations, you might as well burn the damn house down.

That's not how real life works.

You believe in eugenics. You shouldn't be lecturing me on "real life" at all.

He has achieved nothing, and is still hated as if he did achieve something.

No, that was 1994.

It can be argued that 2010 was a repeat of 1994 in many more ways than just the GOP retaking the House.

I am aware that the votes didn't exist. You make them exist. And if you can't get the renovations, you might as well burn the damn house down.

That's not how real life works.

It's certainly not how American politics works. For all of its many flaws, America is still a democracy, and the president can't "make" votes exist in congress.

It’s not official on paper, but arm wrangling is as concrete in politics as voting is. That is how it works.

A more detailed response to Harry and Polnut is in the pipeline, but I have some other things to get out of the way first.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

You believe in eugenics. You shouldn't be lecturing me on "real life" at all.

For the millionth time: Allowing parents to voluntarily choose to make their child better and brighter via the use of genetic enhancement is not comparable to to Nazi or early American "eugenics". It it imperative that this be made available to everyone as soon as it becomes an issue or face a Gattaca society.

Also you dodged the fact that your statement was utterly absurd and demonstrated a lack of understanding of how parliamentary process works in real life.

Every parliament and legislative body has a leadership system within. People can be punished by the leadership on key issues. You haven’t explained what I apparently don’t know. None of you have. Regardless if the votes didn’t exist or did exist, arm wrangling is still a central aspect to politics. Only the fringes are able to hold on with relative impunity (see Ron Paul) and the party had tried to primary him/cut him loose numerous times!

I am aware that the votes didn't exist. You make them exist. And if you can't get the renovations, you might as well burn the damn house down.

That's not how real life works.

That's not even how the analogy works

"Since they cut back my hours at work it looks like we won't have the money to remodel the kitchen this year BURN IT ALL TO THE GROUND"

Down to the gwound!