2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Gups]

Lol

"If he got the most votes then it would be my expectation of Hillary Clinton to offer a gracious concession speech and pledge to work with him in order to make sure that the American people benefit from an effective government," he said. "And it would be my job to welcome Mr. Trump, regardless of what he's said about me or my differences with him on my opinions, and escort him over to the Capitol, in which there would be a peaceful transfer of power. That's what Americans do. That's why America's already great."

#POTUSFaced

I don't know whether he's been a great President or not, but I just love Obama's bearing, fluency and general approach.

[garbon]

An important endorsement!

Vogue has no history of political endorsements. Editors in chief have made their opinions known from time to time, but the magazine has never spoken in an election with a single voice. Given the profound stakes of this one, and the history that stands to be made, we feel that should change.

[Barrister]

Lol

"If he got the most votes then it would be my expectation of Hillary Clinton to offer a gracious concession speech and pledge to work with him in order to make sure that the American people benefit from an effective government," he said. "And it would be my job to welcome Mr. Trump, regardless of what he's said about me or my differences with him on my opinions, and escort him over to the Capitol, in which there would be a peaceful transfer of power. That's what Americans do. That's why America's already great."

#POTUSFaced

I don't know whether he's been a great President or not, but I just love Obama's bearing, fluency and general approach.

Well that's been the line on Obama since he first ran for President.  He is a wonderful speaker, and his bearing and fluency, as you put it, are top-notch.

His policies though?  What's he going to be known for?

1. Bank bailouts.  Probably necessary, but very unpopular.
1a. No bank prosecutions flowing from 2008.  Have to think that's a mistake
2. Obamacare.  Okay I don't get the massive republican opposition - it seemed like a very pro-free-enterprise approach.  I think history will be kind here.
3. Withdrawal from Iraq, which led to the country becoming an unstable Iranian puppet, and to ISIS.  Huge mistake.

Personally I'd rank him as one of the weaker Presidents (though you have to give him credit for being a two-term president - he's no Bush 41 or Carter)

[Berkut]

Lol

“If he got the most votes then it would be my expectation of Hillary Clinton to offer a gracious concession speech and pledge to work with him in order to make sure that the American people benefit from an effective government,” he said. “And it would be my job to welcome Mr. Trump, regardless of what he’s said about me or my differences with him on my opinions, and escort him over to the Capitol, in which there would be a peaceful transfer of power. That’s what Americans do. That’s why America’s already great.”

#POTUSFaced

I don't know whether he's been a great President or not, but I just love Obama's bearing, fluency and general approach.

Well that's been the line on Obama since he first ran for President.  He is a wonderful speaker, and his bearing and fluency, as you put it, are top-notch.

His policies though?  What's he going to be known for?

1. Bank bailouts.  Probably necessary, but very unpopular.
1a. No bank prosecutions flowing from 2008.  Have to think that's a mistake
2. Obamacare.  Okay I don't get the massive republican opposition - it seemed like a very pro-free-enterprise approach.  I think history will be kind here.
3. Withdrawal from Iraq, which led to the country becoming an unstable Iranian puppet, and to ISIS.  Huge mistake.

Personally I'd rank him as one of the weaker Presidents (though you have to give him credit for being a two-term president - he's no Bush 41 or Carter)

I think you are missing several items that I suspect history will consider to be rather important:

1. His handling of the recovery.
2. His handling of the war on Islamic radicalism.

I don't know that he gets particularly high marks for either of them, but I think they are both important. And I suspect that in the long run, his approach to #2 for the position he is in, has been well though out, if nothing else. I applaud him for refusing to be baited into actions that don't make sense, but will make Americans feel good.

[garbon]

What was he supposed to do on point 3? Force Iraq to accept a permanent occupation?

[frunk]

The withdrawal from Iraq was negotiated by the Bush administration.  You could argue he should have reneged on it but it's doubtful anybody would have argued for that until 2013.

[garbon]

The withdrawal from Iraq was negotiated by the Bush administration.  You could argue he should have reneged on it but it's doubtful anybody would have argued for that until 2013.

Yeah American will wasn't really there.

[garbon]

I think history will be fairly kind. While he never garnered my vote, things stayed pretty much okay during his tenure and we avoided much of the terrible effects that could have happened after the economic downturn. Despite all the doom and gloom bandied about, that isn't really reflective of America on the ground today. Upper middle of presidents. He even has fairly good favorables for an outgoing president.

[Berkut]

What was he supposed to do on point 3? Force Iraq to accept a permanent occupation?

I don't buy that excuse.

He was elected trumpeting how he would bail on Iraq. He made it clear that he had zero interest in trying to accommodate any kind of arrangement with Iraq which would contemplate American troops staying there. Given the political climate internally in Iraq at that time, it would have taken some careful and considered negotiation to make it possible for US troops to stay, even while both parties really knew that they really did NEED to stay.

So he has the fig leaf now and then that it really wasn't up to him - and that is crap. There are a lot of ways that problem could have been approached, and he chose to follow through on his ridiculous campaign promises to just cut and run as fast as possible. It did not have to be that way. There was no binary STAY OR GO decision that had to be made.

That was a terrible error on his part, even if it was one that political circumstances had forced on him.

I have to wonder though - if he had reneged on his promise to the moveon crowd to cut and run as fast as possible (in a similar fashion to how he abandoned the promise to close Gitmo), you could easily imagine a reality where

1. US troops would continue to die in Iraq over the last eight years in insurgency violence, and
2. ISIS would never have really had the success they did have.

I wonder at stuff like that - we could have a vastly better situation overall compared to what did happen, but it would *look* in many ways to the PEACE AT ALL COSTS crowd that dominated politics in the US eight years ago as a much worse outcome, because of course they would not even be aware of what was avoided...

[garbon]

He ran on it because that's kind of where American sentiment was.

[Berkut]

He ran on it because that's kind of where American sentiment was.

Again, that is a dynamic thing - it was where sentiment was for reasons of the circumstances, but also because politicians made conscious choices to emphasize it in an effort to sway voters. Those things feed back on themselves.

Fox News isn't just a mirror of the radical right, they drive it as well. The same is true for other segments and their leadership. The leadership doesn't get a pass when it comes to where they led because they want to argue that they had no choice, and the "will of the people" tied their hands.

[The Minsky Moment]

Bank bailouts were already well under way when Obama came to office. It is true that Obama made an explicit decision to continue that policy, which had bipartisan backing, as evidenced by his appointment of Geithner to Treasury. 

Individual prosecution decisions are not taken by the President but by the US attorneys, who are insulated from direct pressure from the WH.

Not clear to me what the policy alternative was in Iraq.  The internal politics there did not have permit a revival of the previous SOFA and I have not heard any sensible scenario of how the US stays on in the absence of that agreement.

[alfred russel]

Why did we need to stay in Iraq? Is America worse off now that ISIS controls Mosul?

[garbon]

To expand, as I'm just home and not on my phone anymore, I think even had he not used that cause as part of his campaign, I think he would have been hard pressed to maintain sizable presence in Iraq. And I say that even though at the time, I thought his pledge was quite ridiculous and unnecessary.

Americans were at a pretty low ebb on positive feelings about our nation and the role that he had to play in places like the Middle East. I don't recall a lot of strong desire to stay in Iraq and in fact the withdrawal of most forces had already taken place pre-Obama.

I guess, as you've noted, he could have used political influence up to maintain those troops but would that have been sufficient to prevent ISIS? I guess we can't really say.

[garbon]

He ran on it because that's kind of where American sentiment was.

Again, that is a dynamic thing - it was where sentiment was for reasons of the circumstances, but also because politicians made conscious choices to emphasize it in an effort to sway voters. Those things feed back on themselves.

Fox News isn't just a mirror of the radical right, they drive it as well. The same is true for other segments and their leadership. The leadership doesn't get a pass when it comes to where they led because they want to argue that they had no choice, and the "will of the people" tied their hands.

Maybe. But with something like lives on the line for no exactly clear benefits to the US (Iraq was a quagmire), I'm not sure how much a leader should push against the grain. Particularly not with things like Vietnam in the not far remote past.