There’s plenty of other talent that could shine, given the right circumstances. Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand, Jeff Merkley, Sherrod Brown, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren…
While Michelle has the goods to be a great prez, my distaste for dynastic politics is way stronger. So no thanks.
I dunno. I watched some of the speech, then muted the sound. He’s done fine sounding speeches before, but still TPPA, some brutal foreign policy, etc.
There’s a limit to what a US president can do within a stacked system. And even harder if he doesn’t have support of both Houses. In fact, I think the make up of Congress and the Senate is probably way more important than the presidency.
Don’t need to be a president to make fine speeches. Don’t need to make fine speeches to be a good president. .......
No he wasn’t. He was nothing more than a bloviator. Martin Luther King, who Obama so ineptly mimicked, was a great orator—not just because of his delivery, but because he actually had something to say.
….and clearly a very intelligent man….
Fair comment. Most leading politicians are very intelligent.
….and one who gave Americans great hope in 2008…
Really? Most astute American commentators—not their equivalents of Jim Mora and “Ad”—saw through the empty rhetoric as that emotion-fest in 2008 progressed. Even with that great groundswell of hyped-up enthusiasm, he still struggled to beat the bizarre and hopeless McCain-Palin double act.
Palin summed him up best after a year of his doing bugger-all….
Obama The War Criminal Butcherer of Women and Children
Paul Craig Roberts
There is no doubt that US President Barak Obama is a war criminal as are his military and intelligence officials and most of the House and Senate.
Obama is the first president to keep the US at war for the entirety of his eight-year regime. During 2016 alone the US dropped 26,171 bombs on wedding parties, funerals, kid’s soccer games, hospitals, schools, people in their homes and walking their streets, and farmers tilling their fields in seven countries: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan.http://blogs.cfr.org/zenko/2017/01/05/bombs-dropped-in-2016/
What does the administration have to show for eight years of illegal military interventions in seven countries, none of which comprised a danger to the US and against none of which the US has declared war? Terrorism was created by US invasions, no wars have been won, and the Middle East has been consumed in chaos and destruction. Worldwide hatred of the United States has risen to a record high. The US is now the most despised country on earth.
The only purposes of these crimes is to enrich the armaments industry and to advance the insane neoconservative ideology of US world hegemony. A tiny handful of despicable people have been able to destroy the reputation of the United States and murder millions of peoples, sending waves of war refugees to the US and Europe.
We call these “wars,” but they are not. They are invasions, largely from the air, but in Afghanistan and Iraq from troops on the ground. The invasions by air and land are entirely based on blatant, transparent lies. The “justifications” for the invasions have changed a dozen times.
The questions are: If Trump becomes president, will Washington’s massive crimes against humanity continue? If so, will the rest of the world continue to tolerate Washington’s extraordinary evil?
Checking out this site, Paul Craig Roberts seems to be somewhat hysterical and given to wild conjecture. Here’s what he says about proposals to “federalize” election processes (ie, use consistent software for voting and vote counting, designed to prevent hacking):
The federal government does not have the constitutional authority to administer elections, only to set the date. The Obama regime’s designation of elections as “critical infrastructure” seems to have no function other than to put in place a way to prevent voters from overthrowing an entrenched establishment, as the establishment fears the voters did when they elected Trump president.
The distrubing question is: Why do it now after Trump’s election? Could there be a plot to rescind Trump’s election on the basis of the ongoing lies that Trump was elected not by the voters but by Russian interference? Federalization can be used to remove the states from the picture and prevent the states from challenging an establishment coup against the voters.
US elections are decentralized in the hands of the states. There is no national network that would make hacking possible. The Department of Homeland Security can make suggestions to the states for improving the security of elections without declaring federal authority over the elections as “critical infrastructure.”
This is a disturbing development for which explanation and reason are lacking. Trump, if inaugurated, can overturn it or use it to ensure his reelection. Moreover, this last minute act of Obama is based on nothing but the false allegations of Russian interference. Despite the total absence of any evidence, the Obama regime continues to insist that the election was tainted by Russian interference, and the presstitutes repeat the lie as if it is true. For a media that ridicules “conspiracy theories,” it is certainly hypocritical for the presstitutes to be hyping the Russian hacking conspiracy.
What is the point of this lie to which the Obama regime and the presstitute media are committed? Is it merely to throw mud at Trump? Or is it to lay the foundation for a coup?”
As I made clear in my comment, I have scant respect for Fox News. My point was—and I know that you are not so obtuse that you did not understand me, Milt—that when evenFox News can legitimately make fun of you, you are in trouble.
Except with those who claim your vacuous speeches are “inspiring”, of course.
Actions speak louder than words. You approvingly linked to some obnoxious bullshit from two unsavoury conservative commentators on Fox News, as though the opinions of these fuckwits counted for something. It’s what you actually do that counts, not how you try and frame it.
Indeed. Which is something you should bear in mind next time you heap praise on the man Jim Mora calls “the greatest orator of our time.”
You approvingly linked to some obnoxious bullshit from two unsavoury conservative commentators on Fox News,
There are equally obnoxious commentators on the BBC and on the three big U.S. networks.
…. as though the opinions of these fuckwits counted for something.
It’s not simply their opinion that leads anyone who is honest to see that Obama is an insincere and cynical actor. Anyone who watched his dumbshow at Robben Island realizes just how nauseating his role-playing can be…..
It’s what you actually do that counts, not how you try and frame it.
Good advice. You Obama-cultists need to seriously ruminate on that message.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/election-cyber-security-georgia-227475. And it’s a proposal, not a command from on high.