Stumble This | You should also watch “Colbert and Stewart appear on Late Night with Conan O'Brien” |
Obama talks to Jay on 10-17-07. It seems like there's a new Ron Paul video in the top 15 every week. It's scary, but I haven't heard much of anything about Obama in the last few months.
I believe you need a certain kind of sneaky, cunning, ruthless characteristic to get the job done (note how Prez Bush doesn't fit this description either). Cheney certainly was sneaky, cunning and ruthless and he got the job done, but only the things HE wanted.
Obama is too clean, too idealistic and certainly under experienced relating to the government to get the job done, though he is very likable as a person. But then again, anything is better than the current Bush administration... so anyone who gets elected after Bush would be popular no matter who it is.
Now, if he was the vice president for Prez Hillary or something... then I can see that combo being good.
They DID do a good job. Good job whatever the hell they wanted to do. Yea, it screwed up the nation. But the point is that they did a good job doing what they targeted to do. Unless of course, their opposition was too dumb to stop them (cough *democrats* cough!). Either way, they've proven to be 'better'.
When you have an important public execution at your hand, you'd get the best executioner in town to behead Marie Antoinette (i know it was the guillotine historically) . Yea cutting people's heads off is a terrible job. But if you're the execution-producer-guy, you'd get someone who's good at cutting people's heads off. You know what I mean?
If only they had democratic ideals, I'd say they would've made fine leaders. Get my point? Or are you too spiteful to give them any credit?
I have to admit, I'm a little confused. Are you criticizing ("Yea, it screwed up the nation", "If only they had democratic ideals, they would've made fine leaders") or celebrating ("they DID do a good job, they've proven to be 'better'") figures like Cheney and Rumsfeld?
To them, the ends justify the means. Of course most of us feel that the ends weren't desirable to begin with, but that's separate.
Obama does not feel the ends justify the means. He believes the whole process should be kosher. His platform is largely based around being unwilling to play dirty and wanting to restore honesty to Washington. This leads legacy to question Obama's ability to achieve what he proposes.
To further illustrate the concept, allow me to get a little Godwin-ish here for a second... Hitler was a horrible, evil man but he was still a charismatic genius. It's awe-inspiring when you look at the differences he made in Germany while in power. The achievements he's known for are very negative, yes, but they're still achievements. They still took hard work and planning and coordination and so on.
The ability to achieve does not go hand-in-hand with the desire to do good. legacy believes in Obama's desire to do good, but has doubts about his ability to achieve.