Surprise: the presidency actually requires some skills
We in America have been pretty lucky for quite a long time. Despite the fact that our method of electing presidents hardly guarantees greatness or even competence, we’ve mostly had presidents who displayed at least the latter, competence. And we’ve even be blessed with quite a few who might merit the former: greatness.
So perhaps this got too many of us to thinking that the presidency isn’t such a difficult job after all, and doesn’t even necessarily require a lot of skills that any relatively savvy person would lack.
The unrelenting Bush-bashing was evidence of that, in a sort of twisted way. After all, if under this absolute idiot (village idiot, if I recall correctly), the country still survived, then how hard could it all be?
So for the majority of people, voting for Barack Obama for president seemed like a nifty idea. He appeared to be smart, personable, gave an inspiring speech, wanted to bring us together, wanted to treat other countries right, all that good stuff. So what if he lacked managerial, governing, really almost all national or even local leadership experience except oratory? In the immortal words of Hillary Clinton (although most definitely not on the same subject), what difference did it make?
Put aside for a moment your antipathy to Obama’s leftism or lies or mannerisms or whatever part or parts of his politics and persona you hate. Put aside even the fact that that Obama probably wants to weaken the US on the world stage. I’m just talking about basic skills here: negotiation, managing, communicating, knowledge of the nature of other countries.
Western Europe has gotten used to American competence, too, and started out in 2008 by thinking not only that Obama’s inexperience didn’t matter but that he would be a superior president because of his attitude, with which they could identify and which seemed more like theirs. The Soviets and Chinese probably were more aware of the significance of his lack of skills, but for them his inexperience would be a good thing. And the Arab world was probably dancing with glee, after Bush.
Well, here we are. Even most of Obama’s supporters are either angry at him or somewhat embarrassed for him by now, which can’t possibly be what he intended. They’re not angry about Benghazi, which has gotten the goat of only the right. Nor was it the IRS scandal, which to a lot of people so far seems to be about big government in general and the IRS in particular rather than pinned directly on Obama (and besides, since the targets were on the right, many on the left applaud the IRS’s behavior in the matter).
It’s the NSA story that seems to have been the thing that has upset the left as well as the right. Most of Snowden’s revelations are of things that are not too different from what Bush did, or of what the left thought Bush did. But they had thought better of Obama. And still another thing that has highlighted this more widespread and bipartisan sense of Obama’s incompetence has been the spectacle of Obama impotently asking Russia et al to be nice and help with returning Snowden, as John Hinderaker points out here (also see this).
We’ve had other inexperienced and even somewhat incompetent presidents, especially in certain areas (for example, governors virtually never have prior international experience). But we’ve been fortunate in that for the most part they’ve tended to be aware of their own inexperience, and tried to appoint people to positions in foreign policy who are the opposite from them in having both knowledge and experience. Obama has very different criteria for his appointees; he prefers the inexperienced and/or easily controlled.
For all you American history buffs out there: has any other president whose only previous national experience was a single term as senator (one he essentially left in order to campaign) appointed as his Secretary of State another senator with foreign experience only marginally greater than his own (Hillary Clinton)? I certainly can’t think of one.
You may argue that this essay is predicated on the idea that Obama would do better if he could, and that he has the US’s best interests at heart in the foreign arena. But as I said before, I think he does not, but that doesn’t really change the points I’m trying to make, which are that (a) Obama has a very high opinion of his own foreign policy skills despite his utter lack of experience (he made that crystal clear during the 2008 campaign; see this); (b) he doesn’t want the world to see him as incompetent; (c) he prefers equally incompetent advisors; and (d) lulled into a false sense of security, American voters failed to see his lack of experience coupled with his hubris as a huge red flag, although they should have done so.
It’s (d) that worries me the most, because even if we survive Obama’s two-term presidency it does not bode well for the future, and says nothing good about the judgment of the American people. I began this essay by saying Americans have mostly been lucky in their previous presidents. But maybe it was a luck informed by a certain amount of common sense and even knowledge. I don’t think that someone with Obama’s background would have been elected just a decade or two ago, and certainly not before. And by the word “background” I am not talking about his race, I’m referring to all the facts about Obama that were in the public domain before November of 2008 (and most definitely by November of 2012): his lack of managerial experience and foreign policy knowledge, his tremendous arrogance and narcissism, and his leftist ties and previous leftist statements.
I have lived in the Washington DC area since 1983 and have fond memories of mayor Marion Barry, mayor for life. It didn’t matter what he did, the blacks would vote for him. The main requirement for a position in his administration was personal loyalty to Marion Barry. The administration was incompetent and corrupt, but it didn’t matter because Barry was their man. I see the same characteristics in the Obama administration.
This is great stuff.
He has mastered all of the attributes of a sophisticated and competent intellectual, but he has none of the underlying ability or skill. It’s all in the voice and inflection. Sarah Palin and GWB were morons mainly because of their speech patterns and accents. But give someone a neutral, NPR-sounding voice, with some baritone even, and everyone’s panties get moist.
and to think with these same type of voters
Hillary is a possibility !!!!! (However,
She sounds very shrill when she tries to
*take it up a notch* hopefully she will remind everybody of our worst argument with dear, old
mom !)
I just had a discussion with a very liberal friend about this. She voted for him twice, and was ecstatic after the 2012 election, but now she’s scared to death and embarrassed. I told her that if she had used news sources other than MSNBC and done just a little bit of research she’d have known what he is. She didn’t have a response to that.
The fact that Obama chose Biden as his VP, not once but twice, tells you all you need to know.
Obama selected as VP a man who voted for the Iraq War, and as SoS a woman who voted for the war. Which shows that the war wasn’t really the horrid choice the left claims.
It’s about time others start noticing Obama’s incompetence (the same goes for Hillary’s incompetence at State).
I think option “d” is incomplete, because Obama had a huge assist from the MSM both times. Also, I’ve come to believe that Obama would not have been re-elected without government interference, including the IRS’s actions and Holder harassing any state that implemented voting policies that weren’t friendly to vote fraud. This is just as distressing as the dumbed-down American public.
Another factor is that the Obama campaign got a huge assist from the high tech wizards who built his campaign system. It helped the Democrats get out every vote possible, from early voting through to poll closing.
By contrast, the Romney campaign relied on consultants who cobbled together Orca, a computer system that failed on election day. GOP poll workers had no clue as to who had voted, who needed to be called, and what was going on. So much for Romney, the great manager. His campaign also managed to turn off the Tea Party groups, who had been so effective in 2010.
Teh Won’s problem is that he must be the sharpest tool in the shed.
He won’t hire people who are smarter than he is. He also won’t hire anyone not a leftist of any stripe. As a former boss told me, you always hire the smartest people because they’ll make you look good.
(d) scares me the most too. In a strange way, I think Obama is today’s American’s dream of a son: self-confident, ambitious, college educated, articulate, loves his wife. He’s never had to hold a mundane job or scramble for a living. OK, he screwed up a little, but he’s a wonderful, capable young man, really. Did I mention he loves his wife?
Is Obama the incarnation of Zaphod Beeblebrox or just the precursor? Zaphod was “President of the Galaxy (a role that involves no power whatsoever, and merely requires the incumbent to attract attention so no one wonders who’s really in charge, a role for which Zaphod was perfectly suited)” from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy series by Douglas Adams.
It’s not so much incompetence at work as evil.
Ymarsakar, why choose?
The problem is that Obama may well go–one never knows if he will abide by the Constitution or not–but the increasingly dumbed down voting public will remain, and with the Left in charge of the educational establishment (in which, it is wise to remember, Bill Ayres has played a very key role in designing teacher education and K-12 curriculums and courses of study for over 20 years), the number of ill-educated, but very heavily propagandized voters, will inevitably grow.
We are going to be stuck with an electorate in which more and more voters will have no real, solid, uncorrupted view of U.S. history, or of the fundamental ideas upon which our country was founded, in which an increasing number of voters will have been deliberately deprived of the standards by which to judge, and the analytical skills necessary to dissect, understand, and to analyze arguments, and voters who, more and more, will, very likely, see less and less reason why they should do so; they will just “accept” because they will not know better.
I am almost 70, now, and looking back and comparing today’s electorate with those of my early adulthood, more and more members of today’s electorate–in general–are far less knowledgeable, engaged, and capable than were those earlier electorates; they just don’t have–and deliberately so–the history and civics background and the general mindset that was inculcated by basic general education back then.
Moreover, the level of overt and more subliminal propaganda today’s electorate has to wade through to get to the truth is far greater that in the past.
I’d imagine that, as a parent, you’d really have to try very hard and be extremely wary, careful, and proactive to get a good public (or private, for that matter) education for your children today, rather than having them be put through the equivalent of some Leftist “Young Pioneer” curriculum, there to be turned into good little sheep, able to parrot the politically correct and acceptable, official views and positions.
A case in point among several recent examplest, the young high school student who was recently all over the news for having been suspended from school, and threatened with prosecution and jail time for wearing a NRA-themed shirt to school; the Left loves to play whack-a-mole with those who disagree with the group-think and “correct views” that they are shoving down student’s throats.
So, apparently, in the future (or perhaps even now) students of independent mind and different views will increasingly need to apply the kinds of careful restraints on the expression of their actual views that formerly only those in Communist countries and various other dictatorships and tyrannies had to exercise.
Cont’d.
As Obama’s election and re-election has pretty conclusively proven, an increasingly larger and larger segment of our electorate will vote for whoever sounds or looks the best, or promises them the most, regardless of the candidate’s actual qualifications or policies, will focus on the short rather than the long view. on what’s in it for them personally, rather than on what is good for the country, if they even have any conception of what that might be, based on our founding principles.
So, its springtime for demagogues.
I have two opposite ways of looking at this:
Despair!
How could we re-elect a guy who attacks the Supreme Court by name in a state of the union, makes recess appointments while the Senate is in session and seems to take the (wrong) side in any famous case involving a black person. Meanwhile he is not laughed out of town for “leading from behind” or “creating or saving jobs”.
A Bright Side:
Given his hard-left orientation, is it really a bad thing that he is incompetent? I think not.
Winston Churchill observed that, “The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
He also noted that, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.”
Both statements are of course true. What to do?
Einstein observed that, “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.”
In keeping with the above, I offer some out-of-the-box thinking by the noted SciFi writer R. Heinlein. Who suggested that random computer selection of a President, from a nationwide, representative pool of qualified candidates be used. The selected candidate had no right of refusal, a willingness to serve society being both a qualification and an obligation of citizenship.
Perhaps the most noteworthy ‘qualification’ was that none of the pool of candidates could want to be President. His view being that the desire to be President indicated an unhealthy lust for power. As memory serves, Heinlein hinted that potential candidates were subjected to psychological evaluation, including the use of a ‘truth serum’ to determine suitability and actual predilections.
One six year term, no elections, no big donor or special interest influence. Heinlein’s argument was that an intelligent, regular citizen who wasn’t interested in a political career was a far better choice for President than a politician who had managed to win a dogfight.
I suspect that Heinlein’s inspiration may have been Rutherford Birchard Hayes (October 4, 1822 — January 17, 1893) the 19th President of the United States (1877—1881). Hayes was intentionally a one term President who didn’t want to be President, agreed to run out of patriotic obligation and, swore he’d do the best he could and then was going to go home after his one term, having rendered his obligation to the nation. Which is exactly what he did.
“As president, he oversaw the end of Reconstruction and restored trust in government. Hayes was a reformer who began the efforts that led to civil service reform and attempted to reconcile the divisions left over from the Civil War and Reconstruction.”
In the civil war, he was wounded five times and earned a reputation for bravery in combat.
“Hayes believed in meritocratic government, equal treatment without regard to race, and improvement through education.
Hayes kept his pledge not to run for re-election. He retired to his home in Ohio and became an advocate of social and educational reform. His biographer says his greatest achievement was to restore popular faith in the presidency and to reverse the deterioration of executive power that had set in after Lincoln’s death.”
dbp:
Yes, but it takes far less competence to dismantle something than to build it or repair it.
It really is breathtaking:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/04/obama-i-can-do-any-job-better-than-the-people-i-hire-to-do-it/
BEGIN PASTE
When David Plouffe, his campaign manager, first interviewed for a job with him in 2006, the senator gave him a warning: “I think I could probably do every job on the campaign better than the people I’ll hire to do it,” he said. “It’s hard to give up control when that’s all I’ve known.”
Obama said nearly the same thing to Patrick Gaspard, whom he hired to be the campaign’s political director. “I think I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” Obama told him. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that I’m gonna think I’m a better political director than my political director.”
END PASTE
is it really a bad thing that he is incompetent? I think not.
dbp, so true. I used to be pissed that he didn’t do anything he said he was going to, until he got 100% behind gun control, that pretty much guaranteed that it would never happen!
What an unusually *small* man:
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/09/03/Democrats-Air-Frustrations-with-Obama-Cockiness-Narcissism
BEGIN PASTE
President Obama’s competitive, boastful nature and condescending advice rubs even loyal Democrats the wrong way, a new profile alleges.
The New York Times’ Jodi Kantor airs complaints from “loyal” Obama associates — not as a buried lede but explicitly in her introduction:
—
He has mentioned more than once in recent weeks that he cooks “a really mean chili.” He has impressive musical pitch, he told an Iowa audience. He is “a surprisingly good pool player,” he informed an interviewer – not to mention (though he does) a doodler of unusual skill.
—
The article reports Obama’s associates characterize this bluster and political zeal as “cockiness.” Further, Washington Democrats say he is all too eager to offer unsolicited advice — on handshakes, writing, and parenting, among other topics.
For those activities at which he feels inadequate, Obama reportedly dedicates considerable time to practice, no matter how trivial the pastime:
—
He has played golf 104 times since becoming president, according to Mark Knoller of CBS News, who monitors his outings, and he asks superior players for tips that have helped lower his scores. He decompresses with card games on Air Force One, but players who do not concentrate risk a reprimand (“You’re not playing, you’re just gambling,” he once told Arun Chaudhary, his former videographer).
His idea of birthday relaxation is competing in an Olympic-style athletic tournament with friends, keeping close score. The 2009 version ended with a bowling event. Guess who won, despite his history of embarrassingly low scores? The president, it turned out, had been practicing in the White House alley.
—
END PASTE
“I think I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” etc. etc. Obama
Given Obama’s abysmal performance when he’s had to briefly speak extemporaneously, those assertions are demonstrably untrue. But the accuracy of Obama’s self-assessment isn’t the point. His consistent need for anyone associated with him to maintain the illusion that the ’emperor is clothed’ is the point.
We are all our own worst enemies and Obama is at base, self-destructive. Those who have assisted him throughout his rise to the Presidency have heretofore protected him from his own hubris. All of the scandals, most self-initiated are starting to ‘crack the ice’ beneath Obama’s facade.
The reality of ObamaCare’s introduction, as its implementation looms on the horizon is starting to panic some democrats. The cost of ObamaCare is going to come as a massive shock to the low-information voter. That not one Republican voted for it is going to make of it an albatross that neither Obama nor the democrats can avoid.
While not a certainty, it seems reasonable to presume that future scandals await us, for ambition makes men bold and blinds ambitious ideologues to the thinness of the ice beneath their feet.
Actions have consequences and Obama’s actions have rallied resistance to the left to a level never before seen.
Here are two Orwell quotes particularly applicable;
“Whoever is winning at the moment will always seem to be invincible.”
“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.”
“I don’t think that someone with Obama’s background would have been elected just a decade or two ago, and certainly not before. And by the word ‘background’ I am not talking about his race, [dot dot dot].”
If not for his brown skin pigmentation, would “someone with Obama’s background” even be elected in the present?
The electorate is changing, and is being dumbed down, its true, but I cling to the hope that the elections of Obama are freak occurrences. I cannot imagine another candidate succeeding with anything remotely like Obama’s qualifications. Going forward, the damage wrought by his governance will be increasingly, blindingly, obvious. I think in 4 or 5 years he will be understood by most citizens and even mainstream public intellectuals to have been the worst president certainly in living memory, if not longer. I think insiders, business leaders, politicians, and especially foreign leaders will have the most terrifying stories to tell, and they will tell them. Can you imagine the thoughts of Putin, Merkel, Sarkozy, Steve Jobs, Jerry Brown, Eric Cantor . . . when they sit across from him exchanging ideas, planning, or negotiating? They take the measure of the man and soon realize he has no idea what his job is, how the world of money, business, government, or human relations work. He is not even interested in them. They are mostly silent now because it is so frightening (both to have him in power and that most elites and the MSM were fooled by a huckster), and many of them are embarrassed. But they will talk. And then they will cascade.
So, the electorate is getting “lower information”, but they are suffering, especially those he claims to champion, and it will only get worse at an escalating rate for a few years, and they will wise up – at least to some extent.
I lean more to the belief that Obama is a wildly radical leftist, a true blue all Americana Bolshevik and that what he does he means to do. No incompetence, just absolutely amazing unamerican Marxism being implemented right before our very eyes with almost no opposition at all. Truly amazing.
It’s the narcissism Neo, it always comes down to the narcissism. He can’t admit his faults and foibles, so he can’t find a way to correct them.
“The reality of ObamaCare’s introduction, as its implementation looms on the horizon is starting to panic some democrats. The cost of ObamaCare is going to come as a massive shock to the low-information voter. ”
Team Obama has announced it will delay much of the program until 2015. http://tinyurl.com/kjrn9ew
How convenient for the 2014 election. And a clear demonstration of the cynicism of BHO and his cohorts.
In Book I, chapter 16, of the Discourses on Livy, Machiavelli said that a people used to living under a prince – i.e., used to dependency – is like a brute animal of ferocious and savage nature which has always been fed in prison and slavery. If it is by chance left free in a field, it does not know how to feed or where to hide, and becomes easy prey for the first who seeks to rechain it.
A corrupt people, in short, is naturally acquisitive (as are all people) but lulled into a false sense of security from prolonged protection and feeding by others.
Taking this a step further, since we are after all not quite the brutes Machiavelli makes us out to be, we anticipate these terrifying possibilities of freedom, and so cling desperately to our cages and captivity. We snap at the hands that aim to free us.
In a perverse way, if ever there was a man for a moment in the life of a people, Obama is it.
When we meet even Machiavelli’s definition of “corruption,” we’re in seep caca indeed.
–derp. That would be deep caca.
In this glorious age of genetic engineering and cloning, we can bring back Rutherford B. Hayes!
Which reminds me that stupid Obama even dissed Rutherford B. Hayes a few months ago, and the internet was filled with wonderful Hayes posters mocking ignoramus Obama.
Like others have speculated, I think anti-American Obama is also a puppet for other puppet masters, George Soros, Maurice Strong, the Chinese, the Russians, the Saudis, etc. etc.
I visualize the “czars” as termites working away at undermining huge swaths of the economy. The cabinet officials are also destructive. Sebelius–the marxist mobster who collects protection money from medical companies. Vilsack–who oversees a department that requires bunny breeders and magicians to have evacuation plans for their rabbits.
A Supreme Court that makes up stuff? Army chaplains required to perform homosexual “marriages”? Crazy PC rules that get our forces killed. Money spent to arm Islamic maniacs in Syria and Egypt?
Comedy gold, and yet sinister in a grotesque way, like a Weimar horror film.
I envision some simple and obvious ways that our country could be saved, but naturally I can’t discuss them here. No guns would be used. I just hope that a Vince Flynn type writer comes up with a plot that lays out the plan. It could even be a comical plot, like a Sebelius-type harridan gets addicted to a medical company’s peculiar pill, a Vilsak-type gets bitten by a rabid swamp rabbit, and so on. Blackmail and bank account hacking could also be thrown in for a few laughs. Honestly, the runaway government shows us the way.
HAYES and COOLIDGE 2016 ! ! !
Promethea: How about Slim Whitman’s “Indian Love Call”?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAdvqQzO1PY
🙂 Funny, I’ve been thinking about “Mars Attacks” all day.
Re: Hussein, what’s the theory that stupid people are too dense to realize HOW stupid they are?
G.B. on R.B. Hayes:
“His biographer says his greatest achievement was to restore popular faith in the presidency and to reverse the deterioration of executive power that had set in after Lincoln’s death.”
If true, Hayes did us no favors. It seems Hayes may have been Progressive before there was such a thing.
Mine is a decidedly minority view, but I strongly believe in States’ Rights, fear and have feared the Imperial Presidency, on which we now find ourselves inpaled. It was only a matter of time until we got an Obama.
Don Carlos @ 10:14 . . .
Various posters on Belmont Club write about the possible return of States’ Rights. With the right governors and state legislators in places, this could become a reality.
I wonder where Obama and his incompetent advisors got the idea that they are exceptional people and that just by virtue of their race and/or gender, their opinions are valid and their judgement is sound, so they are qualified to be in leadership roles and need not worry about being held accountable (i.e., will not be fired and in fact may be promoted) for mistakes or misdeeds.
If people believe that he is incompetent, they will be motivated to just vote in more competence. Meaning more con men and Democrats. If they believe he is evil, they begin to question what the Left will not allow them to question. Which means they will either convert by the sword or die by it, in an ideological sense.
Right before the 2008 election a TV reporter asked Obama if he ever doubted himself. A tiny weird smile appeared on the future President’s face as he said: “Never.”
And we still elected him twice.
}}}} American voters failed to see his lack of experience coupled with his hubris as a huge red flag
.
.
N……..N…….OOO……TTTTT…
N.N….N…..O……O………T……
N….N.N…..O……O………T……
N………N…….OOO……….T….
.
M………….M……….EEEEEE……
M.M….M.M……….E………………
M….M…..M……….EEEEEE…….
M………….M……….E……………
M………….M……….EEEEEEE….
.
.
I said in 2007 that the SOB would make everyone appreciate the quivering mound of incompetence that was the Jimmy Carter Administration.
IN WRITING, IN PUBLIC.
Not sure if I’m sad to be shown correct or mystified about the inability of so many to see the ephing incredibly #^%$& obvious…
:-S
IGotBupkis:
Of course I meant “most” voters, or “the majority of voters.” Plenty of voters saw it—I did, you did, lots of people did—but not enough. Not a majority.
It should have been 80% or so. But sadly, it was not.
The Left’s WMD is more powerful than many thought.
“I don’t think that someone with Obama’s background would have been elected just a decade or two ago, and certainly not before.”
Two decades before, an active and substantial voting block were the “Greatest Generation” folks, who valued their country and who understood the seriousness of defending it.
They’ve mostly passed on, a here comes the Millennials who, because of media and academic indoctrination don’t know their country’s history. It’s only going to get worse, until our society learns some very harsh lessons which forces them to revisit and reclaim values that had been passed on for generations.
You once had a running question was Obama a fool or a knave.
All of this talk now about “incompetence is merely another diversion tactic to avoid the cold hard truth about Obama.
He is not a fool. He is not incompetent. he is not even a knave (“an unprincipled crafty fellow”).
Obama is diabolical. He is a devotee and an certain incarnation of the father of all lies.
Obama is out to destroy and remake in his image and to his liking. He is out to be king. He means to payback with interest and penalty what he dreams (of his biological father) has been done wrong by America.
He will stop at nothing. He will only either be stopped or continue to destroy.
The best hope we have is that the outside world marginalizes him for us. There are small signs this is beginning to happen and it may be that America is the one who needs help from the world now, whether they like America or not. The people of Egypt seem to be doing us a solid right now. The Europeans are giving him the up yours; and Russia is mocking him openly.
This is the best news we’ve had in years, since 2010.
The reason most Presidents come from the ranks of Governors is because they have demonstrated executive capability and the ability to appoint and delegate to qualified people. If they failed as governor, they would not get a chance to be President.
Senators are “iffy”. They really have taken little responsibility and do not have executive experience. We can see from Obama’s continuing series of failures that managing his campaign (which he didn’t really do) is not enough. In spite of his reputation, JFK made some serious errors in his short tenure. LBJ knew where the skeletons were buried, but he sent us on a road to ruin with the War on Poverty, Medicare, and Medicaid.
In the primaries, always go for the governor. Romney would not have made the mess Obama has made simply because he has had the proper experience.
Mike: I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m trying to say here.
I long ago decided on the “fool vs. knave” thing in favor of “knave, but sometimes a fool as well.” In this post I’m pointing out that despite his lack of experience and his appointment of people who also lacked experience, a majority of the American people didn’t seem to think that mattered. Even those who basically agree with his leftist politics find him to be somewhat incompetent these days, partly because his clout in the international world has fallen.
Don’t forget enough people were convinced to vote *against* the vilified Bush and McCain and Obama by association at least as much as they voted for Obama.
Nodes that need to be corrected are the popular guides of media, pop culture, academia, and education, in that order.
“… the vilified Bush and McCain and Obama by association …”
Correction: the vilified Bush and then McCain and Romney by association
I would like to know more about Obama and the consequences of his lack of executive management experience. Do you recommend any particular sources?