Campaigning has become nothing more than an entertainment platform.
And it appears that by and large the public is more interested in being entertained, than say, educated, or properly informed.

Trump is valued for his clownmanship.

America is well into the "bread and circus" stage of its reign.

Actually, despite a few political and social blunders, imo, Obama did not do such a bad job at POTOS.
It's an impossible job to succeed at.

In all likelihood, Obama will be remembered as one of the better presidents in a few years time. Considering what he inherited from Bush, he did do pretty well. Despite all the big talk from republicans, the ACA will stand. They wouldn't dare tear it down. They have nothing to replace it with (indeed it was THEIR plan to begin with). It was brilliant move on Obama's part. He left the republicans ranting and railing against their own plan which left most Americans scratching their heads and then, on top of that, he largely succeeded with it--millions more Americans have coverage now and preventative medicine is largely free in those states that too the ACA money.

When my appendix burst last January, I had to pay out of pocket, but the ACA wasn't designed for that. When I got a colonoscopy a couple of months later, it cost me nothing. When I ran into some guy online who was all proud of his state for refusing the ACA money, he said he paid $5000 for a colonoscopy! Damn, my out-of-pocket for my appendectomy was $3800 and the colonoscopy was free! Sounds more the republicans in his state screwed him big time.

So, all in all, Obama hasn't done to bad especially considering he got little support from Congress whether majority democrat or republican. Too many of the democrats who backed the ACA bill and made it law, then turned around and tried to say they didn't like it and didn't want to vote for in a cheap bid for what they hoped would be an easy reelection. Instead, they got voted out and good riddance. It gave the pubs a majority Congress but so be it. Stupid is as stupid does.

With all the criticisms of Obama, I think most Americans are satisfied with the job he did and I suspect if he could run again, he'd be reelected easy. As it is, I expect Hillary Clinton will be the next president. I think Bernie Sanders could beat Trump but I don't think he'll get the nomination. Plus I don't like that he's teamed up with Cornell West whose criticisms of Obama all rely on race-baiting and amount to "Obama isn't black enough to understand the problems faced by black people in America." I don't go for that kind of stuff.

For seventy years the democratic party has been riding the coat tails of FDR, Obama has not been much more than an office holder, giving him four more years wouldn't change that. Using the analogy of a car driving down a country road, Obama keeping it between the ditches while lecturing his predecessor's hardly raises the bar.

i must be too cynical

i always thought politicians were just front men for the oligarchy.

rarely i see a politician move in a direction contrary to the oligarchy and they soon cease to be a problem for the oligarchy.

Taylor wrote:For seventy years the democratic party has been riding the coat tails of FDR, Obama has not been much more than an office holder, giving him four more years wouldn't change that. Using the analogy of a car driving down a country road, Obama keeping it between the ditches while lecturing his predecessor's hardly raises the bar.

There's really no argument here from you, Taylor, other than an expression of what seems like personal distaste for the man.

We needed, at a minimum, at least a start at universal healthcare.

We did NOT need another war, and pretty much effectively stayed out of a large scale one.

For all you "terrorism" inquiring minds, OBL was brought down on Obama's watch.

We didnt do any worse economically, and improved adequately (i think)

And we broke the white presidency club barrier.


Anyone who becomes POTOS automatically inherits his predecessor's and nation's baggage.

Regan repackaged Nixon and began the slow arduous task of destroying the middle class.

ant wrote:Taylor, other than an expression of what seems like personal distaste for the man.

As I've written elsewhere, For the entirety of my life time, it has been the man with charm that has won the white house,(a couple assassinations altered available charm, both Kennedy's) Obama had the necessary charm to win against both Romney and McCain, big deal.

I was and am charmed by Obama, like many others I suspect, I did not how ever vote for the man, I voted Nader.

I would not use the word distaste, I can appreciate his whit, his nerve, his cheek.

youkrst wrote:i always thought politicians were just front men for the oligarchy.

It appears no less certain than what you've opined

Taylor wrote:

ant wrote:Taylor, other than an expression of what seems like personal distaste for the man.

As I've written elsewhere, For the entirety of my life time, it has been the man with charm that has won the white house,(a couple assassinations altered available charm, both Kennedy's) Obama had the necessary charm to win against both Romney and McCain, big deal.

I was and am charmed by Obama, like many others I suspect, I did not how ever vote for the man, I voted Nader.

I would not use the word distaste, I can appreciate his whit, his nerve, his cheek.

The word charmed never even crossed my mind.

ant wrote:The word charmed never even crossed my mind.

I don't see why it should.

The use of the word charm was my attempt at reviewing a history of general elections.

It seems to me that there is historical precedent for popularity or charm as being a deciding factor in who wins the vote, my way of saying that there seems to be a shallowness in the decision making process.

Anyway, where the heck have you been, hope you are well.