4 ms·

Having read obamas book audacity of hope (highly recommended), I strongly disagree. I presume that what he describes in his book was what he was referring to as

by ricw 10y ago

Having read obamas book audacity of hope (highly recommended), I strongly disagree. I presume that what he describes in his book was what he was referring to as change: ending bi-partisanship in Washington and constructively making things better by bridging the gap between republicans and democrats. In the end, it seems he was more gridlocked then any of the prior presidents in recent memory and had to resort to more executive orders than previous president. Though potus 45 seems to be following his example in that regard..

aaron-lebo 10y ago
It's been said that Obama was a better campaigner than a politician (not to say he was a bad politician), and I think that holds up decently well. Keep in mind the book you cite is partially a campaign/marketing piece. I mean the Democrats had control of government prior to 2010 and the ACA was still a compromise with lots of infighting between Democrats. Obama of course didn't help the divide by making pointed insults (clinging to their guns and religion). I don't have an article on hand, but even Democrats criticized Obama for having trouble forming cross-party friendships in a way someone like Bill Clinton did not. He may have had the best intentions, but his difficulties were a little bit of obstructionism and a little bit of his own personality traits. edit: This is the kind of cross-party criticism that Obama got: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/a-brief-history-of-president-obama-not-having-any-friends/378761/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/a-brief... http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/opinion/takiff-obama-fatherhood/ http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/opinion/takiff-obama-fatherhoo... https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/aloof-obama-is-frustrating-his-own-party.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/aloof-obama-is-frustra...
- GuiA 10y ago
  The main reason Bill Clinton had no trouble forming these cross party relationships is because he was white.
  - aaron-lebo 10y ago
    Bill Clinton is incredibly personable; I don't think that has anything to do with race.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    The main reason Bill Clinton had no trouble forming those relationship is because he was a conservative Democrat, leader of the conservative Democratic Leadership Council, an organization that consistently reinforced Republican economic policy messaging while undercutting the Democratic left and the party's relafionship with its traditional base (particular the working class) by advancing neoliberal policies that were barely distinguishable from contemporary Republican policies. Being a white rural southerner probably helped, too.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  > Obama was a better campaigner than a politician He was an excellent campaigner. He even won "Marketer of the Year" award http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-marketer-year/131810/ http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-market... that usually goes to Apple, Coke, Nike and so on. I would say vis-a-vis the Hope and Change enthusiasm and excitement a lot of people (myself included) were left with a "meh..." kind of feeling. > This is the kind of cross-party criticism that Obama got... More interestingly is to think what has he done for the Black community? Are inner cities a lot safer, are more jobs and housing available, more opportunities? These are people that pretty much voted as a block for him. Then the whole Nobel Peace Prize thing, and just last year he dropped over 20k bombs on various countries around the world. Syria, ISIS happened on his watch and it seems he wasn't able to do much about it. The whole "crossing the red line...". He did kill Osama, but is that enough for a counter-balance the other stuff, not really...
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > I don't have an article on hand, but even Democrats criticized Obama for having trouble forming cross-party friendships in a way someone like Bill Clinton did not. Those Democrats are, in a word, idiots. Or, they are Clinton loyalists that assume their audience is composed of idiots. (1) Bill Clinton had already been long in politics and established those cross-party relationships before the hyperpartisanship on the right which blossomed during his Presidency made that impractical. (2) The ACA was a massive compromise because of the epic failure the last time Democrats tried to do healthcare reform—under Bill Clinton and led by Hillary Clinton—at a time when there was majority public support in public polling for national single payer, and the Clintons were not only unable to get their "cross party friendships" to pay off, but also unable to pass anything despite the Democratic majority they had. This left Democrats across the board scared and looking for compromises to get something on healthcare, which is why three Democrats (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) went into the 2008 primary with nearly identical health care plans that were all very close to Romneycarr, which itself was virtually identical to what a number of insurers and Republicans proposed as a national alternative after the failure of Clinton's healthcare reform. (3) Obama, with party control of Congress in his time in office following the same general pattern as Clinton's, achieved far more in terms of Democratic policy priorities than Clinton, and also didn't manage to get impeached by the House of Representatives. Clinton's cross-party friendships didn't pay any dividends. If Obama is a better campaigner that "politician" (at least as far as the latter concerns effectively leveraging the office and personal relationships for legislative success), than that criticism is even more applicable to Clinton, who kept rolling over for the Right and getting nothing (or less) in return.
  - rdtsc 10y ago
    > under Bill Clinton and led by Hillary Clinton—at a time when there was majority public support in public polling for national single payer Also a prime example of corruption and nepotism. Bill handled Hillary that task when he was in the White House. She was not qualified for it and botched it basically.
- gozur88 10y ago
  > I don't have an article on hand, but even Democrats criticized Obama for having trouble forming cross-party friendships in a way someone like Bill Clinton did not. When Obama came to office he made no attempt to form cross-party friendships. When a new president responds to criticisms with "I won", you know he's in for a rough ride. The extent to which Obama made enemies, both domestically and internationally, when he didn't need to was astounding. When he was on top he made sure you didn't forget it, and people tend to look for ways to return the favor when you do that.
- kevbin 10y ago
  Obama had trouble with intra-party relationships, as your third link points out: > “You and Mitch work it out,” Mr. Obama said coolly, cutting off any discussion. > Mr. Reid seethed quietly for the rest of the meeting, according to four separate accounts provided by people who spoke with him about it. … > But nearly six years into his term, with his popularity at the lowest of his presidency, Mr. Obama appears remarkably distant from his own party on Capitol Hill, with his long neglect of would-be allies catching up to him. Great campaigner. Willfully bad politician.
- Marazan 10y ago
  Due to legal wranglings over the 2008 senate results and Dem senator illness the Dems 'controlled' government for about 75 days. Outside that time the Republicans simply fillibustered everything and the Dems didn't have the 60 votes necessary in the senate for Cloture.
Aloha 10y ago
.. and by doing so POTUS 45 will likely end up restricting the power of the president to act via Executive Order - this will likely bring to a close the era of the Imperial Presidency that began with TR.
btilly 10y ago
...had to resort to more executive orders than previous president. Sorry, you've swallowed false propaganda there. Look at the numbers at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Consolidated_list_by_President https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_... and compare. The last President to issue fewer executive orders was George Bush Sr. To find a President with fewer executive orders per year, you have to go all of the way back to Grover Cleveland. That was in the 1800s. This said, Trump is indeed on pace to average more executive orders than has been seen in the last 60 years.
- fosco 10y ago
  Here is a website that also breaks down per-term for ease of viewing/understanding. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php
gozur88 10y ago
>In the end, it seems he was more gridlocked then any of the prior presidents in recent memory and had to resort to more executive orders than previous president. I doubt that's true - I don't remember Bush having any less trouble getting things done domestically. There's nothing nefarious about executive orders - the president is the chief executive, and he directs his subordinates in the same way a corporate CEO does with memos. EOs are just directions on policy implementation. And it's all written in sand, since the next president can arbitrarily cancel or modify EOs.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]

by ricw 10y ago

aaron-lebo 10y ago

It's been said that Obama was a better campaigner than a politician (not to say he was a bad politician), and I think that holds up decently well. Keep in mind the book you cite is partially a campaign/marketing piece. I mean the Democrats had control of government prior to 2010 and the ACA was still a compromise with lots of infighting between Democrats. Obama of course didn't help the divide by making pointed insults (clinging to their guns and religion). I don't have an article on hand, but even Democrats criticized Obama for having trouble forming cross-party friendships in a way someone like Bill Clinton did not. He may have had the best intentions, but his difficulties were a little bit of obstructionism and a little bit of his own personality traits. edit: This is the kind of cross-party criticism that Obama got: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/a-brief-history-of-president-obama-not-having-any-friends/378761/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/08/a-brief... http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/opinion/takiff-obama-fatherhood/ http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/04/opinion/takiff-obama-fatherhoo... https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/aloof-obama-is-frustrating-his-own-party.html https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/19/us/aloof-obama-is-frustra...

GuiA 10y ago
The main reason Bill Clinton had no trouble forming these cross party relationships is because he was white.
- aaron-lebo 10y ago
  Bill Clinton is incredibly personable; I don't think that has anything to do with race.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  The main reason Bill Clinton had no trouble forming those relationship is because he was a conservative Democrat, leader of the conservative Democratic Leadership Council, an organization that consistently reinforced Republican economic policy messaging while undercutting the Democratic left and the party's relafionship with its traditional base (particular the working class) by advancing neoliberal policies that were barely distinguishable from contemporary Republican policies. Being a white rural southerner probably helped, too.
rdtsc 10y ago
> Obama was a better campaigner than a politician He was an excellent campaigner. He even won "Marketer of the Year" award http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-marketer-year/131810/ http://adage.com/article/moy-2008/obama-wins-ad-age-s-market... that usually goes to Apple, Coke, Nike and so on. I would say vis-a-vis the Hope and Change enthusiasm and excitement a lot of people (myself included) were left with a "meh..." kind of feeling. > This is the kind of cross-party criticism that Obama got... More interestingly is to think what has he done for the Black community? Are inner cities a lot safer, are more jobs and housing available, more opportunities? These are people that pretty much voted as a block for him. Then the whole Nobel Peace Prize thing, and just last year he dropped over 20k bombs on various countries around the world. Syria, ISIS happened on his watch and it seems he wasn't able to do much about it. The whole "crossing the red line...". He did kill Osama, but is that enough for a counter-balance the other stuff, not really...
dragonwriter 10y ago
> I don't have an article on hand, but even Democrats criticized Obama for having trouble forming cross-party friendships in a way someone like Bill Clinton did not. Those Democrats are, in a word, idiots. Or, they are Clinton loyalists that assume their audience is composed of idiots. (1) Bill Clinton had already been long in politics and established those cross-party relationships before the hyperpartisanship on the right which blossomed during his Presidency made that impractical. (2) The ACA was a massive compromise because of the epic failure the last time Democrats tried to do healthcare reform—under Bill Clinton and led by Hillary Clinton—at a time when there was majority public support in public polling for national single payer, and the Clintons were not only unable to get their "cross party friendships" to pay off, but also unable to pass anything despite the Democratic majority they had. This left Democrats across the board scared and looking for compromises to get something on healthcare, which is why three Democrats (Clinton, Obama, and Edwards) went into the 2008 primary with nearly identical health care plans that were all very close to Romneycarr, which itself was virtually identical to what a number of insurers and Republicans proposed as a national alternative after the failure of Clinton's healthcare reform. (3) Obama, with party control of Congress in his time in office following the same general pattern as Clinton's, achieved far more in terms of Democratic policy priorities than Clinton, and also didn't manage to get impeached by the House of Representatives. Clinton's cross-party friendships didn't pay any dividends. If Obama is a better campaigner that "politician" (at least as far as the latter concerns effectively leveraging the office and personal relationships for legislative success), than that criticism is even more applicable to Clinton, who kept rolling over for the Right and getting nothing (or less) in return.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  > under Bill Clinton and led by Hillary Clinton—at a time when there was majority public support in public polling for national single payer Also a prime example of corruption and nepotism. Bill handled Hillary that task when he was in the White House. She was not qualified for it and botched it basically.
gozur88 10y ago
> I don't have an article on hand, but even Democrats criticized Obama for having trouble forming cross-party friendships in a way someone like Bill Clinton did not. When Obama came to office he made no attempt to form cross-party friendships. When a new president responds to criticisms with "I won", you know he's in for a rough ride. The extent to which Obama made enemies, both domestically and internationally, when he didn't need to was astounding. When he was on top he made sure you didn't forget it, and people tend to look for ways to return the favor when you do that.
kevbin 10y ago
Obama had trouble with intra-party relationships, as your third link points out: > “You and Mitch work it out,” Mr. Obama said coolly, cutting off any discussion. > Mr. Reid seethed quietly for the rest of the meeting, according to four separate accounts provided by people who spoke with him about it. … > But nearly six years into his term, with his popularity at the lowest of his presidency, Mr. Obama appears remarkably distant from his own party on Capitol Hill, with his long neglect of would-be allies catching up to him. Great campaigner. Willfully bad politician.
Marazan 10y ago
Due to legal wranglings over the 2008 senate results and Dem senator illness the Dems 'controlled' government for about 75 days. Outside that time the Republicans simply fillibustered everything and the Dems didn't have the 60 votes necessary in the senate for Cloture.

Aloha 10y ago

.. and by doing so POTUS 45 will likely end up restricting the power of the president to act via Executive Order - this will likely bring to a close the era of the Imperial Presidency that began with TR.

btilly 10y ago

...had to resort to more executive orders than previous president. Sorry, you've swallowed false propaganda there. Look at the numbers at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_executive_orders#Consolidated_list_by_President https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_federal_... and compare. The last President to issue fewer executive orders was George Bush Sr. To find a President with fewer executive orders per year, you have to go all of the way back to Grover Cleveland. That was in the 1800s. This said, Trump is indeed on pace to average more executive orders than has been seen in the last 60 years.

fosco 10y ago
Here is a website that also breaks down per-term for ease of viewing/understanding. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/orders.php

gozur88 10y ago

>In the end, it seems he was more gridlocked then any of the prior presidents in recent memory and had to resort to more executive orders than previous president. I doubt that's true - I don't remember Bush having any less trouble getting things done domestically. There's nothing nefarious about executive orders - the president is the chief executive, and he directs his subordinates in the same way a corporate CEO does with memos. EOs are just directions on policy implementation. And it's all written in sand, since the next president can arbitrarily cancel or modify EOs.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]