Wow, you guys sure like to blow things out of proportion! There were only three legitimate candidates in '08. I ranked them in order of my opinion on them. I didn't say that I liked any of them in particular. IF you weren't so intent to criticism, you would've taken the statement in context and realized that it was a reflection on my opinion of Obama's competence and not and endorsement of either of the other two. IMO, Hillary does a better job than McCain, and he does a better job than Obama. If I'm allowed to include people who weren't in the race, then there are other preferable choices, but those were really the three choices at that time.
Me and Brass responded to your opinions respectfully,377OHMS was the only one who responded like an ass
I said she was better than Obama, not that she was good. As an example, given what a flop Hillary Care was, there is no way that she would've forced the issue as president. That alone makes her better than Obama.
Well, most of that will be forgotten by everyone except the history buffs. Also, most presidents are judged by their overall favorability, which isn't great for Obama unless it picks up. Like it or not, Bush had many accomplishments too, but with favorability numbers ending his second term like Truman, he is viewed with similar disdain. My opinion is that we give far too much credit to the president both in terms of perceived successes and failures.
Disagree What accomplishments did Bush have ? Turning a budget surplus into a trillion dollar deficit ?Doubling the national debt after inheriting a budget surplus ? starting a major war under false pretenses that caused over 35,000 American injuries and deaths and over 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths ?Allowing the biggest terrorist attack in this countrys history with the deaths of over 3,000 Americans after being warned that such an attack was coming ? Turning a decent economy to the worse since the great depression ? Taking away multiple liberties and massively growing the government etc etc etc Historians have already started ranking the 2 Bush 36 http://www.usnews.com/news/history/...ans-rank-george-w-bush-among-worst-presidents Historians Rank George W. Bush Among Worst Presidents President George W. Bush is near the bottom of the heap in the latest survey of historians on presidential leadership. Bush received an overall ranking of 36 out of 42 former presidentsâin the bottom 10. Ronald Reagan was rated 10th best, up from 11th in a similar survey taken in 2000; Bill Clinton was rated 15, up from 21 in 2000. George H.W. Bush went to 18 from 20. The five best presidents, according to the historians, were Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt, and Harry Truman, in that order. Rounding out the top 10 were John F. Kennedy at six, Thomas Jefferson, Dwight Eisenhower, Woodrow Wilson, and Reagan. Bush 39 http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20009531-503544.html This year, Mr. Bush was ranked 39th after receiving poor ratings in communication, foreign policy, intelligence, the economy and his ability to compromise. Mr. Bush's best ranking came in the category of "luck," for which he was rated the 18th best president. The four presidents who were ranked more poorly than Mr. Bush were Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, and Franklin Pierce. Obama http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20009531-503544.html Scholars Rank Obama the 15th Best President A group of presidential scholars has ranked President Obama as the 15th best U.S. president of all time, a new survey shows, while his predecessor, President George W. Bush, is relegated to the bottom five. Mr. Obama also has an advantage in the rankings over President Ronald Reagan, who came in 18th, but President Bill Clinton beats them both in 13th place. The Siena College Research Institute's Survey of U.S. Presidents, which has been conducted five times since 1982, asked 238 presidential scholars to rank the 43 U.S. presidents on a number of characteristics. The presidents were given rankings for six personal attributes (background, imagination, integrity, intelligence, luck and willingness to take risks), five forms of ability (compromising, executive, leadership, communication and overall), and eight areas of accomplishment (economic, other domestic affairs, working with Congress, party leadership, Supreme Court appointments, executive branch appointments, avoiding mistakes and foreign policy). President Franklin D. Roosevelt was ranked the best president ever, followed by Theodore Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. While he has only been in office a year and a half, Mr. Obama was rated highly in areas such as imagination, communication and intelligence. By comparison, Mr. Bush was ranked 23rd when the survey was conducted in 2002, after his first year in office. This year, Mr. Bush was ranked 39th after receiving poor ratings in communication, foreign policy, intelligence, the economy and his ability to compromise. Mr. Bush's best ranking came in the category of "luck," for which he was rated the 18th best president. The four presidents who were ranked more poorly than Mr. Bush were Andrew Johnson, James Buchanan, Warren G. Harding, and Franklin Pierce.
Oh I'm sure you admire Hillary Clinton AK. It isn't a surprise to find that one dumb cunt admires another dumb cunt. Not an attack on you Epic, just an expression of my dismay that such a non-experienced phony like Hillary Clinton would be anticipated to "do a good job". Your posts have been interesting and readable on the whole. I've had enough the non-experienced phony currently occupying the Whitehouse and the idiots who voted for him. Guess I've become frustrated that it has become necessary to abandon the country. The Founding Fathers would be appalled and would probably advocate another revolution if they could see what is happening.
There seems to be a pretty big contingent here on ET who think Hilary would have done better than Obama. Makes it tough on the haters overall, I guess. I do think she was better prepared overall, and would have done well. I doubt we'll ever know. I still hope, beyond hope of course, that we can get past the hating long enough to work together to help OUR country get better. Having to literally hate the other 'side' is just non-productive. edit: 377 speaks of non DC experience as a bad thing, but then most seem to think DC history causes more problems than it fixes. ?? c
Hey C, take your politically correct holier-than-thou Cumbaya attitude and shove it up your leftist ass. I'll think anything I please, thanks. 3
No offense taken. Wasn't trying to sound offended, Just asking for people to consider the context of the post. Anyway, during the '08 primaries I made the comment several times that I thought we were witnessing a fundamental shift in election politics on the Democrat side. This shift, I expect, will spread to the right also. Information and history is very accessible, and image recognition and branding has become key to winning. It is natural then for the electorate to favor candidates like Hillary and Obama over someone like McCain or Gingrich. A candidate benefits from a lack of history, especially a voting history. Voters want novelty and personality. They are only dissuaded by obvious policy conflicts from the past. During the '08 elections it was very difficult for rivals to prove a lack of ability for Obama. He had very little political history to draw on. So his opponents had to resort to accusing him of simply being too inexperienced. This is easily turned around by claiming to be a Washington outsider. Notice the number of people on the GOP side hoping for Chris Christie or Marco Rubio. They have very little history in national politics and strong personalities. Perfect combination for a campaign, but not necessarily in the best interests of the country. IMO, experience does mean something.
Good post Epic. I agree. This system certainly favors those with no experience or track records. It appeals to our idealistic dream of the perfect candidate. It's as if we really believe we can steer the President once they are in office to do the right thing. I think the political consultants are picking up on this and I'm seeing a harder and harder push to get people to run for office with no background.