President Barack Obama is beginning to look out of his depth

[snopes]

It is lovely to feature in other people's dreams. The problem comes when they wake up. Barack Obama is an eloquent, brainy and likeable man with a fascinating biography. He is not George Bush. Those are great qualities. But they are not enough to lead America, let alone the world.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...his-depth.html

[Wild Redhead]

The man who has run nothing more demanding than the Harvard Law Review is beginning to look out of his depth in the world's top job. His credibility is seeping away, and it will require concrete achievements rather than more soaring oratory to recover it.

I am wondering if all foreign nations see things like this or a few or just this one. Or is it just this one reporter and all the republicans that see it like this.

[MidgardDragon]

Concrete achievements are what he's going for. Faux News and their ilk of raving lunatics are helping to prevent that, unfortunately. A better economy, national health care, and better civil liberties for certain groups seem right up his alley and like things he has attempted, but every time he moves one step forward some psychotic babbling mob of Republicans gets in his way.

[AnglRdr]

His free trade credentials are increasingly tarnished too. His latest blunder is imposing tariffs on tyre imports from China, in the hope of gaining a little more union support for health care.

I think it was probably more than that he was seeking. China was dumping tires into the US market, which artificially drives down the price, which isn't good for American business.

My guess is he was hoping that the move would prove beneficial to unions while they were negotiating a new contract with Bridgestone/Firestone, and keep a bunch of them in their jobs.

Oh, hey...lookie what happened last week?

Even good moves are ruined by bad presentation. Changing Mr Bush's costly and untried missile-defence scheme for something workable was sensible. But offensively casual treatment of east European allies such as Poland made it easy for his critics to portray it as naïve appeasement of the regime in Moscow.

Yeah, because we need to continue fighting the Cold War. Makes perfect sense.

His appeal to both houses of Congress to support health care was masterly – though the oratory was far more impressive than the mish-mash plan behind it.

What plan is that, Bob?

[Broken Sword]

Some say he is the weakest president since Jimmy Carter.

"Some say" - the sentence intro that you can always follow with absolutely anything you want to.

I googled "weakest president since jimmy carter" and found that before this article it had been said about Obama by:

1 guy on a politico message board
1 commenter on a politico article
1 person posting on yahoo answers

So, apparently, it's fine to say "some say" when you're actually talking about three anonymous people on the internet.

[Viliphied]

Originally Posted by Broken Sword

So, apparently, it's fine to say "some say" when you're actually talking about three anonymous people on the internet.

Who might actually be only one person

[Broken Sword]

Originally Posted by Wild Redhead

I am wondering if all foreign nations see things like this or a few or just this one. Or is it just this one reporter and all the republicans that see it like this.

Apparently not even that many people:

Of seven personal characteristics, Americans rate Barack Obama most highly for those that reflect on his leadership skills. Seventy-two percent say he "is willing to make hard decisions," and 66% describe him as "a strong and decisive leader." Sixty-four percent say he "can get things done."

Of course, that poll is from last week, so maybe he's suddenly become the weakest president since Carter since then. It is interesting that this poll directly overlapped the tea party protests.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Broken Sword

Of course, that poll is from last week, so maybe he's suddenly become the weakest president since Carter since then.

He will be as soon as he makes it official that the U.S. is boycotting the 2012 Olympics.

[Photo Bob]

Originally Posted by snopes

He will be as soon as he makes it official that the U.S. is boycotting the 2012 Olympics.

Really????!!!??? He's doing that???!!!!??????

I am so sending an e-mail to everybody I can find an e-mail address for!!!!!!!!!!

Photo "So that's how these things get started" Bob

[Simply Madeline]

Originally Posted by snopes

He will be as soon as he makes it official that the U.S. is boycotting the 2012 Olympics.

Well, he is "boycotting" the IOC meeting where the 2016 Olympic host city will be decided*. That's kinda, almost, sorta the same thing.

*Maybe. He initially said he would send Michelle Obama in his place, but now it looks like he may attend: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=aB8wdrExnAF8

[Broken Sword]

The funny thing is, who else do they have to compare him to besides Carter? I can imagine them going down the list

Clinton: No, his presidency went too well
Johnson: No, people think he did a good job
Kennedy: No, everyone loves him
Truman: No, he's supposed to be one of the best presidents ever
Roosevelt: No, he's supposed to be one of the best presidents ever
Wilson: No, he's supposed to be one of the best presidents ever

Carter's the only "bad" Democratic president in the 20th century.

On the other hand, the Republicans have Bush, Ford, Nixon, Hoover, Harding, and you could probably throw in Taft and Coolidge. It always shocks me that no one ever figures these things out.

[Saint James]

Clearly the worst president since George W. Bush (though not nearly as out of his league as Bush was).

These are trying times which would tax even the best of statesmen. Given the circumstances, he inherited a union just a little better off than the president with the shortest resume (the only one whose highest office was the house; #16) did - and that guy is revered as a hero by history.

He's doing fine, despite the insanity of many of his critics.

[Ramblin' Dave]

Originally Posted by Broken Sword

The funny thing is, who else do they have to compare him to besides Carter? I can imagine them going down the list

I'd like to know just what criteria they use to determine that Carter was a weak president, actually. Was it that everybody since then has had a habit of playing Rambo in various overseas locales? That doesn't make it "weak" to not do so. Besides, Carter had Afghanistan on his record anyway. Was it his unwillingness to stand up to the Republicans even when he had a sizeable Democratic majority in Congress? I think that's getting warmer, but by that measure Bush I and Clinton were both pretty weak as well. I think what really sets Carter apart from most other recent presidents (maybe even all of them) was his willingness to be honest with the American people when things weren't going well. He paid dearly for that, but so far I think Obama is playing that card somewhat better than Carter did. Maybe the right is hoping for him to get tripped up on a similar issue?

Ramblin' "I never promised you a Rose Garden strategy" Dave