This is the "change" he promised?

[eliza61]

Exactly. But people were sure quick to hop on his band wagon. I've been holding it back for now, but I'm just waiting for the day when I add to my sig...

Change...for the worse!

Wow, that is so sad. Waiting for the country to fail simply because who you voted for didn't win.
So on the off chance (at least in your view) the country actually does rebound (which in my view we will) what do you do?

 

[Suzie Zoo]

Well, isn't that the main reason people didn't vote for him? Seems that the winners just want us (losers) to wait and see. Give the guy a chance. A chance at what? Implementing the policies we voted against?

Actually, about 68% of Americans view Obama favorably. Figure that means that 16% of Americans voted against him (probably because they viewed McCain more favorably than they viewed Obama), but still view him favorably.

I suppose you could say I voted against him since I didn't vote for him. But I didn't vote for McCain to keep Obama out of office. (And yes, I realize that's basically what you said.)

Do I view him favorably? Eh.. I don't have an opinion yet. I hope that he succeeds, but as Charade pointed out that doesn't mean that I want him to implement policies that I don't support.

Like I said earlier... Hillary has been senator here for about eight years. And I think she's done a lousy job. For the sake of the entire country, I hope she'll be a better Secretary of State.

 

[wilderness01]

I suppose you could say I voted against him since I didn't vote for him. But I didn't vote for McCain to keep Obama out of office. (And yes, I realize that's basically what you said.)

Do I view him favorably? Eh.. I don't have an opinion yet. I hope that he succeeds, but as Charade pointed out that doesn't mean that I want him to implement policies that I don't support.

Like I said earlier... Hillary has been senator here for about eight years. And I think she's done a lousy job. For the sake of the entire country, I hope she'll be a better Secretary of State.

Please explain. What has she not done in NY or done wrong? I don't live there, so I don't know. Someone else from NY said that they thought she did a great job. What do you think that poster meant by that?

 

[SplshMtn99]

I actually feel that the person holding the top job should have the experience and not depend on others for that. It should not be a case of the tail wagging the dog.

Exactly. I've always had the least respect for bosses who haven't actually worked their way to the top. The ones who have held the jobs on the way up make better decisions I think. If you are in the top, and you have to relie on everyone around you for experience & know how, then I think you shouldn't be there.

 

[The Mayor]

I suspect even many of those who voted for him disagree with him on some policies and some choices, but that's not what we're talking about... we're talking about the ability to lead.

What has he lead

 

[ols386]

In the words of one of the PP's you really should get over it.

I agree. I think we should all get on with it at this point in time. The election is over, Obama is President Elect, and now we all have to move forward. Going back and rehashing so much actually gets us nowhere, it just continues to keep everyone stirred up. Even with Obama in office, we will still have some problems, we always will. He can't fix EVERYTHING, but I'm counting on things getting better.

 

[Purrrrfecta]

I think Sarah Palin was the one who was really pushing the "Washington clique" thing way more than I ever heard from Obama. She was the one who wasn't a "Washington Insider." As for getting "new" people, as has been pointed out several times in this thread, where do we propose we find these "new" people? Do you just go out into towns in America and find their leaders? Do we go find the Sarah Palins of the world who seem to not have a clue how things work but sure have a lot of perk and spunk? That's kind of scary. I don't think we are even putting the *same* people back in. Yes, they are familiar and worked around the Clinton administration, but besides Bill's disgraceful end of his presidency, it was a pretty good administration as things go (personal opinion I know).

It was Sarah Palin that said it. I am convinced those who believe that Sarah Palin would have made a good POTUS are in a fantasy world. When you ask the people on these boards who Obama should have picked - they do not have an answer. They do not know the beliefs of anyone that he is putting in there. The only thing they know is what they regurgitate from talk radio. It is amazing how I can hear the radio in the morning and afternoon, and then come home and read what I hear on the dis. Well at least I know they are doing well with their listening comprehension.

 

[Purrrrfecta]

I'm not the only one who thinks he doesn't have a clue. He doesn't have a fresh or independant thought. Huffington Post isn't too happy with him either.

What does teaching const. law have to do with being a leader. He's a smooth talker....as long as he's reading off a teleprompter. Period.

Soooo, in your opinion, who do you believe would be a good leader and what would constitute their being a good leader.

 

[gmboy95]

stay tuned....january 20th 2009 is coming

 

[disneyjunkie]

stay tuned....january 20th 2009 is coming

 

[bicker]

I hope that he succeeds, but as Charade pointed out that doesn't mean that I want him to implement policies that I don't support.

That wasn't the question being discussed. Rather, it was whether or not he has experience "directing or leading". He does. It's that simple. No one, obviously, has experience being President before being President, but Obama has experience leading people, taking in expertise from experts, formulating policy in light of such expertise, etc., in a national context.

People are working so hard, here in advance, to formula criticisms because, perhaps, the feel they need to. They don't. Wait for him to actually be deserving of criticism. It'll happen -- don't worry. No one is perfect.