@engineer,
Quote:I think it a line of thinking in Republican circles that if they refuse to negotiate with Democrats, Democrats will eventually cave for the good of the country.
But why would such a recalcitrant attitude develop right now, at this point in time, with this particular Democratic president?
And, it did develop from day one of his presidency-- at a time, 2008, when the entire country was suffering and reeling from a failing economy that was hemorrhaging and losing 600,000--700,000 jobs a month, the housing market had collapsed, banks were failing, the auto industry was teetering, and we were involved in two costly wars. That's the time the Republicans decide not to cooperate "for the good of the country"? I'm not sure I buy that one. Particularly since this Democratic president seems generally open to compromise and negotiation, and that was evident even during the primaries.
I don't know whether Hillary would have encountered the same intractable obstinacy. I preferred Hillary and voted for her in the primary. I still feel she has more leadership ability than Obama, and she certainly had more experience than Obana had prior to the election. I think Hillary would have encountered flack and obstacles from proposing traditional Democratic policies, the normal partisan resistance from the other side, and anomosity from those who dislike the Clintons. But I don't know if it would have gotten as personal in nature, questioning her legitimacy to even be holding the office, as it is with Obama. And I think she would have been able to deal with the resistance more effectively. I think she's a more savvy politician and a stronger leader than Obama. And she wouldn't have had to deal with all the racial insults that snood just pointed out in his last post.
I think Obama's more vulnerable than Hillary would have been, maybe that's why the Republicans started going after him so fast. Not only is race a possible factor, he seems like one of the East coast intellectual elite, another group not popular or trustworthy with the Republicans, or their base. So, on more than one count, the Republicans could emphasize, and try to exploit, his "differentness" or his "outsider" aloofness, and then use it to send a message that this "foreigner" was going to radically change the country, redistribute the wealth, you can't trust him, etc.
I think Obama's been a decent President, a very decent Preident, and I like him on a personal level. I wasn't bowled over by him before he took office, so I'm not among those who feel overly disappointed or let down. I didn't expect him to wave a magic wand and turn the economy around, given the mess he inherited. And I do feel his second term will be better than the first, because the economy will continue to improve, and I hope Obama will be a little bolder. I do think he failed to go directly to the American people often enough, so they really understood the state of the union, and what he was doing, and accomplishing, and what he needed the people to do. In other words, he should have been doing more campaigning all along, and not hesitant about tooting his own horn, because he has accomplished a lot. I think, had he done that, that might have made his re-election battle a little easier.
But Obama has faced an entire Republican party determined to defeat him since day one--and I don't remember any other President having to deal with that.
