The love him because he has no resposibilty. He can talk sweet and socialistic. Talk about taxing the rich, no Iraq, "talking" to Iran. Acting nicer as a country. Wait until he is President. he will learn that the USA needs to protect shipping lanes, enforce international treaties, check Russia, continue to consume huge natural resources. avoid all judical power outside the US., subsidize US farmers. Then Europe will not love Obama.
If you use the same calculations to calculate inflation and unemployment today that were used under Carter, the misery index is currently about 20.
Obama and Palin are *inexperienced*. That is entirely different to unqualified. Apart from that, they have nothing in common. Obama is intelligent and has an excellent educational and academic record. He writes his own (generally good) speeches, has an excellent grasp of policy, is a good listener and picks good quality advisors. He is clearly a competent, intelligent man who would be more than capable of acting on the world stage and being taken seriously. If he wasn't in politics he would be a credible CEO or social leader. Palin is, quite frankly, thick. Her academic record is atrocious. The idea of her in any substantive role in society, outside her home state, is laughable. She might be a nice person, and I prefer her policy instincts to Obama, but quite frankly she is way out of her depth even as VP *candidate*. The thought of an ignoramus amateur like her as president is quite frankly terrifying to any sane person. Palin is all style, no substance. She was picked as an image/soundbite candidate. If McCain was 10 years younger, it would have been a genius move. At his current age and mental/physical condition, it is enough to make even die-hard right-wingers cross their fingers for the Omabomba.
Whereas they would love McCain nuking Iran, invading N Korea, then passing out during world tours due to various health & mental problems, leaving as president someone who can't even locate Poland on a map? Yeah right.
I generally agree. Carter had poor leadership ability, but was intelligent and a nice guy, with reasonable policy abilities. He just wasn't cut out to be president. He could have been a great politician one or two ranks below that. Bush had more regular guy charisma and ability to get popularity. But he just lacked the intellectual firepower, knowledge, wisdom and experience to back it up. He's like the popular trader at the office who blows up when a Black Swan hits, taking all his friends with him. Obama has both charisma and intellectual ability. He is untested, yes, but then so is everyone before they become president, CEO, veteran trader etc. The one thing that sucks is his leftism. But if you look at what he is saying about policy, he is actually quite pragmatic, like Clinton. He realises that doing a Kucinich will not only get him voted out in 4 years, but will also fuck up the country. The US presidency is not an uber-powerful office, like say president of France, or prime minister in the UK. It's only really foreign/miitary policy where the president is ultra-powerful. Domestically, he is less powerful than Congress, and arguably not much more powerful than the judiciary. The US president does not get to make all policy, and take the country wherever he wants. IMO Obama's worst leftist excesses will be jettisoned by himself willingly, and much of the rest will be neutered by Congress. Whereas his personal skills, which even right-wingers cannot doubt, will be extremely useful if he wins. McCain would have no hope in hell of brokering some peace in the Middle East, or getting Pakistan or N Korea onside. He's more likely to start WWIII. Obama has the qualities to do that, and is more dynamic and less corrupt than Bill Clinton. He has more charisma than anyone since Reagan - and look what the Gipper did with the commies...sweet-talked them into surrender. If Obama could do something half as good in the Middle East, in China, Russia...he will be worth a vote. Now maybe all this is BS, and he flops badly. But I suspect he'll be like Clinton, minus the cigar & blowjob. I.e. partisan Reps will criticize him til kingdom come, but the majority of the US will think he does a fairly decent job.
Carter didn't shred the constitution, didn't preside over the worst attack on US soil since Pearl Harbour, didn't alienate the entire world, didn't lock up and torture hundreds of innocent people, didn't have the blood of tens of thousands of innocents on his hands, didn't preside over 2 epic financial crises, didn't grotesquely corrupt the executive branch by patronage and secrecy, didn't sell out his principles by imposing steel tarrifs, didn't flip from from being against nation-building to supporting it within a year or two, didn't prop up grotesque dictatorships, and actually did some good for the world once he left office. History will judge Bush as the worst president since Hoover.
Since US monetary policy is the preserve of the Fed, not the Presidency, what makes you hold Carter responsible for that?
Cutten The US presidency is not an uber-powerful office, like say president of France, or prime minister in the UK. It's only really foreign/miitary policy where the president is ultra-powerful. Domestically, he is less powerful than Congress, and arguably not much more powerful than the judiciary. The US president does not get to make all policy, and take the country wherever he wants. IMO Obama's worst leftist excesses will be jettisoned by himself willingly, and much of the rest will be neutered by Congress. Whereas his personal skills, which even right-wingers cannot doubt, will be extremely useful if he wins. McCain would have no hope in hell of brokering some peace in the Middle East, or getting Pakistan or N Korea onside. He's more likely to start WWIII. Obama has the qualities to do that, and is more dynamic and less corrupt than Bill Clinton. He has more charisma than anyone since Reagan - and look what the Gipper did with the commies...sweet-talked them into surrender. If Obama could do something half as good in the Middle East, in China, Russia...he will be worth a vote. Ok, well as I agree with most of your comment here, than why is Bush being blamed for the economy and company collapses on Wall St? Your quote says that the pres is less powerful than congress and cannot take the country where he wants.