FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Obama fails to win the Olympics.





Voodoocat
So much for our favorite syncophantic so-called world leader Obama. It appears that despite all of his begging and pleading, accompanied by his simpering wife and her star studded entourage, Chicago was the first city eliminated today.

The only good thing that came out of Obama's futile pleading was that it forced him to actually say something good about America Very Happy
Bikerman
I think that is an entirely unfair and rather bitter comment.
Obama did his best to win the games for his 'home' city. Why is that a problem? Tony Blair did it much better, of course. He spent 2 days canvassing and politiking when he paid HIS visit.
The fact is that Chicago was never going to get the games. World opinion is still very suspicious of the US. I think that Obama's visit was probably a positive influence, but there was too much ground to make up. Add to that the fact that the IOC feel 'guilty' that the games have never been held in South America.....well...that, to me, makes it a no-brainer.
Peterssidan
Sport and politics doesn't have anything to do with each other. Obama or not, I don't think it makes much of a different.
jmi256
To be fair, I don't think Chicago was denied the Olympics based on Obama. That city has a plethora of problems and issues resulting from decades of mismanagement and corruption that I'm sure the OIC took into consideration.

But I do think the whole affair further highlights a growing disenchantment with the Obama brand, and Obama’s cluelessness in realizing that. He has basically started to “believe his own press” as the saying goes, and thought that he would be the knight in shining armor who would save the day. But people are starting to see that past the thin veneer there really isn’t anything behind the campaign promises.
handfleisch
Bikerman wrote:
I think that is an entirely unfair and rather bitter comment.
Obama did his best to win the games for his 'home' city. Why is that a problem? Tony Blair did it much better, of course. He spent 2 days canvassing and politiking when he paid HIS visit.
The fact is that Chicago was never going to get the games. World opinion is still very suspicious of the US. I think that Obama's visit was probably a positive influence, but there was too much ground to make up. Add to that the fact that the IOC feel 'guilty' that the games have never been held in South America.....well...that, to me, makes it a no-brainer.

The Obama hatred of the right wing nutjobs is hilarious -- a couple days ago they were complaining that his strong push to bring the Olympics to the US was suspect because it would be in Chicago, his home town. Now that it's been decided that the US won't get the Olympics this year, Obama is being blamed! Obviously the Obama-haters are against anything he does, no matter what. It's just more Hope-To-Failism dragging down America by the losers rejected by the voters in 2008.
ocalhoun
jmi256 wrote:
But I do think the whole affair further highlights a growing disenchantment with the Obama brand, and Obama’s cluelessness in realizing that. He has basically started to “believe his own press” as the saying goes, and thought that he would be the knight in shining armor who would save the day. But people are starting to see that past the thin veneer there really isn’t anything behind the campaign promises.

Really, his going there to try to get the Olympics in Chicago was not an ego trip...
The leaders of all the other countries being considered showed up, so if he didn't go, it would be a heavy blow against the chances of Chicago being chosen... after all, "the Americans apparently don't even care if they get the games or not, since their leader didn't even show up, while all these others did..."

Now, I'm as anti-Obama as (nearly) anybody, but be reasonable people.
Voodoocat
Quote:
Hope-To-Failism?


Not hope to fail, but did fail. And publicly. In front of the whole world.

You have to admit, he did not even bring home a bronze medal. All Obama was able to bring home was the equivalent of a hand-written "thanks for participating" certificate.

A better approach would have been to send Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate that was the CEO of the Salt Lake City Olympics. Not only would Obama have sent someone to the IOC with Olympic credentials, he would have a scapegoat in case of failure. Think about it: Chicago gets dumped (like it was) and Obama is not only separated from the fiasco, but could claim bipartisanship while giving the Republicans a black eye.

Of course, if Chicago had won their Olympic bid, Obama would have had to give credit to someone other than himself.
liljp617
I can't tell if you're being serious or not.

Do you think the decision would have been at all different if any President besides Obama did this? Honestly...
ocalhoun
liljp617 wrote:

Do you think the decision would have been at all different if any President besides Obama did this? Honestly...

No. Stop the silliness.

Though, the fact that he is internationally popular and from Chicago probably had something to do with Chicago being considered...

Here's an interesting thought... Suppose that had Chicago was chosen because it was Obama's home town. But, then it was denied because Chicago was an unacceptable choice. But, what if a different American city could have won the bid? In that case would Obama's presence have caused the failure to get the games in the USA? Of course, even if that was the case, you can't blame Obama for that. You can't blame someone for what their home town is.
Voodoocat
Actually, it is always fun to stir the pot and watch it seethe Laughing

Both America and Europe were probably not going to get the games since they have both hosted numerous games while South America has never hosted the Olympics.

I honestly believe that Obama should no have gone personally to the sales pitch. He is facing plenty of opposition in America and any Olympic bid is a gamble.
ocalhoun
Voodoocat wrote:

I honestly believe that Obama should no have gone personally to the sales pitch. He is facing plenty of opposition in America and any Olympic bid is a gamble.

The only sound argument I can see against it is that there are bigger problems the president should be worrying about and spending time on right now...
After all, the economy is in a fragile state, he's trying to get health care legislation passed, we're ending one war, and trying to turn another around back into our favor, two countries are developing nukes and missiles that have a distinct possibility of being used on the US or allies, and the (likely controversial) budget needs to be done, as well as a host of other, smaller problems.
lagoon
To be honest, I think he was utterly humiliated. He is the most powerful man in the world, and pulled the votes of 100 million voters, but he couldn't persuade 200 in one room.
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
Voodoocat wrote:

I honestly believe that Obama should no have gone personally to the sales pitch. He is facing plenty of opposition in America and any Olympic bid is a gamble.

The only sound argument I can see against it is that there are bigger problems the president should be worrying about and spending time on right now...
After all, the economy is in a fragile state, he's trying to get health care legislation passed, we're ending one war, and trying to turn another around back into our favor, two countries are developing nukes and missiles that have a distinct possibility of being used on the US or allies, and the (likely controversial) budget needs to be done, as well as a host of other, smaller problems.


If he didn't make some effort to bring the games here (especially with it being his hometown) he would have been criticized just as much. "Oh Obama doesn't care enough about the US to try to bring the games to one of our cities", "Shows how much he cares about his hometown of Chicago" and other random nonsense, pretty much akin to the nonsensical purpose this thread was started for.

Never mind that I personally didn't hear (doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't out there) a thing about Bush enjoying himself and observing the games...when he had almost exactly the same issues facing him that you just outlined.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
The only sound argument I can see against it is that there are bigger problems the president should be worrying about and spending time on right now...
That would have been my argument. The President should have spent more time with McChrystal and on issues that are genuinely pressing. He could have left everything for Michelle to do, as she seemed to be more than capable to do the job. She really came across very well for me and it perhaps was completely unnecessary for her husband to join her. I hope she will in future do more of these kinds of pursuits. I have lots of respect for her, not only as a gracious lady, but a formidable speaker and I'm sure negotiator. She comes with excellent credentials, perhaps even better than her husband's at times.
handfleisch
America loses Olympics. Right wing applauds.
They don't care what damage the US incurs, as long as they can spin it against the president.
Compilation of right wingers applauding and celebrating failure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko4nZnuJess

Warning: Watching these nutjobs and America-haters could make you queasy
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
America loses Olympics. Right wing applauds.
They don't care what damage the US incurs, as long as they can spin it against the president.
Compilation of right wingers applauding and celebrating failure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko4nZnuJess

Warning: Watching these nutjobs and America-haters could make you queasy
How about a little dose of realism Handfleisch. There were a great number of people in Chicago who felt that the Olympics would bankrupt the city and they existed long before Obama decided to go to Denmark to market Chicago for the Olympics. Why is it that those who have a different opinion to the President are always regarded by you as being damaging to the US or unpatriotic? There were many more people than just Beck who were relieved and happy it did not happen. That did not make them unpatriotic nor damaging to the US. They just had a different opinion.

I'm personally sorry it did not happen for the US. I think it would have been good for Chicago and for the States.
truespeed
Rio was always going to get the Olympics,Europe has the next one with London,the far east had the last one with Bejing,and the USA have had two in the past 25 years (LA 84 and Atalanta 96).
handfleisch
Here's a responsible conservative site also noticing the Hope-to-Fail attitude of the right wing:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/34809_America_Loses_-_Right_Wings_Blogs_Celebrate
Quote:

America Loses - Right Wings Blogs Celebrate

Blogosphere | Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 10:59:29 am PDT

Michelle Malkin and her commenters (and many other right wing bloggers) are dancing and celebrating this morning, because America lost its bid for the Olympics: The noble “sacrifice” of Michelle Obama.

This is where the rhetoric of “FAIL” leads — they’re openly celebrating when America loses, just because Barack Obama is President. And even though this Olympic bid was also promoted by George W. Bush.

This completely puts the lie to the excuse that those who say they want Obama to fail really mean they want his policies to fail.

No, they want Obama himself to fail, and if that means America fails too, they’re just fine with that.

A sample of the comments at Malkin’s blog:

Quote:
On October 2nd, 2009 at 9:49 am, cicerokid said:

She wants to make a personal sacrifice? Never a Mayan priest around when you need one...

[...]

On October 2nd, 2009 at 10:33 am, Kingfish said:

That is assuming sasquatch has a heart to cut out in the first place.

[...]

On October 2nd, 2009 at 11:42 am, cicerokid said:

Learn to samba, sasquatch!


liljp617
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
The only sound argument I can see against it is that there are bigger problems the president should be worrying about and spending time on right now...
That would have been my argument. The President should have spent more time with McChrystal and on issues that are genuinely pressing.


I'm just not following this double standard. I hate to bring up Bush, as his administration is through, but oh well...

Like I said, Bush had almost the exact same issues on his plate when he decided to go enjoy himself in observing the games. I personally (again, it doesn't necessarily mean the criticism wasn't there..it may very well have been there) didn't see anything about "Bush has more important things to do than go watch the Olympics." Obama was at least trying to do the US a "favor," if you can call bringing something that basically "bankrupts" every city it goes to a favor. He has "more important things to do," but Bush can go sit down and have a hotdog at the games? Not following.
Ophois
I've heard arguments both for and against getting the Olympics in Chicago.
It would have been a nice honor to have it, but it's not so easily done. Sometimes, hosting the Olympics can be an overly expensive, logistical nightmare. A few cities in the past have gone way over in funds trying to prepare themselves for it. Not to mention traffic problems, relocating entire sections of town to make room, etc. With Chicago making huge cuts in other areas, I'm not so sure they could have afforded it, realistically. Maybe, maybe not.

As for Obama making the bid...
Some of you people are showing your true colors here. Just bashing him for doing what every other President would do. Chicago was never going to get the Olympics. It had nothing to do with people being internationally disillusioned with Obama. It had nothing to do with him or his wife making a weak attempt. That's just ugly mud slinging, and quite immature.

Don't like Obama? Fine. I'm not his biggest fan either. But get real people, vying for the Olympics is something he should have done.
Voodoocat wrote:
The only good thing that came out of Obama's futile pleading was that it forced him to actually say something good about America
As if he never said anything good about America before? I don't get your logic here.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
The only sound argument I can see against it is that there are bigger problems the president should be worrying about and spending time on right now...
That would have been my argument. The President should have spent more time with McChrystal and on issues that are genuinely pressing.


I'm just not following this double standard. I hate to bring up Bush, as his administration is through, but oh well...
I don't understand, what has Bush got to do with anything? As you say, he has been history for quite a while now, and as far as I could ascertain, most people had been thoroughly critical of him for most of his presidency.

I still don't get it that the President had to go. I must be missing something here. For example, why could he not have sent Hillary Clinton his Foreign Secretary? Why did it have to be him personally?
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
The only sound argument I can see against it is that there are bigger problems the president should be worrying about and spending time on right now...
That would have been my argument. The President should have spent more time with McChrystal and on issues that are genuinely pressing.


I'm just not following this double standard. I hate to bring up Bush, as his administration is through, but oh well...
I don't understand, what has Bush got to do with anything?


Pretty sure I explained that in the rest of my post.

Quote:
I still don't get it that the President had to go. I must be missing something here. For example, why could he not have sent Hillary Clinton his Foreign Secretary? Why did it have to be him personally?


I don't know, I'm not him.
truespeed
I still don't get why by some this is being seen as a failure for Obama,it wasn't him who put the bid in,in fact the bid was put in as long ago as 2007.

Quote:
On April 14, 2007, Chicago was selected by the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) as the United States Bid city, and on June 4, 2008, the IOC named Chicago as one of four finalists to host the 2016 Olympic games


Source: wiki


Quote:
On October 2, 2009, Chicago was knocked out in the first round of voting, and the Olympics went to Rio de Janeiro despite some high profile people backing and some going to Copenhagen to help with the effort such as the US President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, and television host Oprah Winfrey.


Lets blame Oprah instead.


As for him turning up at the final presentations,why would he not do that? Tony Blair got behind the London Olympic bid.

To have the Olympics is a big deal,Chicago was never favourite to win the bid,in fact it was considered an outsider from the start,so there was little if anything that Obama could of done to readdress this. (But he tried)


The Olympics can be done cost effectively and at a profit,as was proved by Los Angeles in 1984,also the improvement to the infrastructure of the city plus the positive exposure for the city and the country (Which the US could really do with right now) wouldn't harm either.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
Pretty sure I explained that in the rest of my post.
With respect, what Bush did in the distant past has to be irrelevant to what Obama did with regard to the Olympics bid. I can't see a position for Bush in the argument, can you?

liljp617 wrote:
I don't know, I'm not him.
Right, neither am I. Difficult to figure this one out, still remains puzzling to me however, unless he combined his business in Denmark with other high-level meetings that have not been as heavily publicized.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Pretty sure I explained that in the rest of my post.
With respect, what Bush did in the distant past has to be irrelevant to what Obama did with regard to the Olympics bid. I can't see a position for Bush in the argument, can you?


I believe it was the last time the Olympics were held, so not that long ago.

I'm not discussing Bush specifically, I'm discussing the double standard of saying "Obama has more important issues on his plate than 'campaigning' for the Olympics" when Bush had almost the exact same issues on his plate and wasn't criticized for having a hot dog and relaxing while attending the Olympics. If one President doesn't have "more important issues to solve" when it comes to the Games why does the next?

I actually agree that a President has more important issues than the Olympics...any President. I'm just trying to figure out the double standard.

Quote:
Right, neither am I. Difficult to figure this one out, still remains puzzling to me however, unless he combined his business in Denmark with other high-level meetings that have not been as heavily publicized.


It doesn't really matter. He would have been criticized for just about any option he took.
deanhills
liljp617 wrote:
deanhills wrote:
liljp617 wrote:
Pretty sure I explained that in the rest of my post.
With respect, what Bush did in the distant past has to be irrelevant to what Obama did with regard to the Olympics bid. I can't see a position for Bush in the argument, can you?


I believe it was the last time the Olympics were held, so not that long ago.

I'm not discussing Bush specifically, I'm discussing the double standard of saying "Obama has more important issues on his plate than 'campaigning' for the Olympics" when Bush had almost the exact same issues on his plate and wasn't criticized for having a hot dog and relaxing while attending the Olympics. If one President doesn't have "more important issues to solve" when it comes to the Games why does the next?

I actually agree that a President has more important issues than the Olympics...any President. I'm just trying to figure out the double standard.
I was completely unaware of Bush's doings during the previous Olympics, maybe a number of other people also did not know. But if you would like to add him to the discussion then I have to agree he should be criticized as well. We could make it a general statement for all Presidents. Truespeed also pointed out that everyone would have known that the Chicago shot was one that was almost in the dark, so the only thing I can think off is that perhaps President Obama had some other important meetings in Denmark as well.

liljp617 wrote:
Quote:
Right, neither am I. Difficult to figure this one out, still remains puzzling to me however, unless he combined his business in Denmark with other high-level meetings that have not been as heavily publicized.


It doesn't really matter. He would have been criticized for just about any option he took.
You're probably right. But maybe the news reporting became a little out of whack. Realistic reporting might have shown that the Olympics had been held twice in 16 years in the United States, so it would have been logical for South America to be given a turn:
truespeed wrote:

Rio was always going to get the Olympics,Europe has the next one with London,the far east had the last one with Bejing,and the USA have had two in the past 25 years (LA 84 and Atalanta 96).
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
I was completely unaware of Bush's doings during the previous Olympics, maybe a number of other people also did not know. But if you would like to add him to the discussion then I have to agree he should be criticized as well. We could make it a general statement for all Presidents. Truespeed also pointed out that everyone would have known that the Chicago shot was one that was almost in the dark, so the only thing I can think off is that perhaps President Obama had some other important meetings in Denmark as well.

I don't usually begrudge presidents their personal time... after all, if I was in their place, I would enjoy myself some, too, so long as nothing short of a nuclear war was happening.

The one time I do begrudge a president his leisure time was in the Clinton administration... The time he put off authorizing Osama's assassination to play golf instead. (Of course, he could not have known Osama would go on to plan the 9/11 attacks, but one wonders if that tragedy would have been averted had it not been for a game of golf.)
Ophois
ocalhoun wrote:
The one time I do begrudge a president his leisure time was in the Clinton administration... The time he put off authorizing Osama's assassination to play golf instead.
While I agree, I have to play devils' advocate here.

Clinton would have been criticized heavily for whacking bin Laden. In the public eye, the crimes that bin Laden was actually wanted for at the time seemed very removed, and didn't quite hit home as much as the WTC attacks. So it would have looked a lot like huge Government doing black-ops type stuff, offing people without giving them trials and whatnot. A lose/lose situation for any President, really.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
The one time I do begrudge a president his leisure time was in the Clinton administration... The time he put off authorizing Osama's assassination to play golf instead. (Of course, he could not have known Osama would go on to plan the 9/11 attacks, but one wonders if that tragedy would have been averted had it not been for a game of golf.)
My argument was along similar lines, as there were really stressful and urgent issues on his agenda, particularly a meeting with McChrystal and making decisions regarding Afghanistan. For starters.

On the other hand I also second-guessed myself as in hindsight perhaps he could have combined his meetings with other less publicized ones in Denmark that had been crucial enough for him to have made the trip. Otherwise it would not have made any sense, as he must have known in advance that Chicago would not get it. The intelligence had been out there.

What did you think about Oprah's presence there? I admire her as a talk host, but was wondering about her inclusion in a visit like this?
handfleisch
Another opinion
Quote:
I know that facts are pesky and frequent ignorable and non-essential things for conservatives, but all four final candidate countries were represented by their respective head of state. If Obama hadn't gone, the right would have excoriated him for losing the bid because he didn't show. And it's the same hubris and American exceptionalism that dismisses that King Carlos of Spain and Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama were also snubbed. So there was no scenario in which Obama could have not gotten slammed by these wingnuts.

And it is in that Catch-22 that the wingnuts lose even more supporters, because these idiots are happy for failure for this country just to score some cheap political points, as Republican strategist Mike Murphy so aptly proves.

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/meet-press-rachel-maddow-calls-conser
deanhills
handfleisch wrote:
Another opinion
Quote:
I know that facts are pesky and frequent ignorable and non-essential things for conservatives, but all four final candidate countries were represented by their respective head of state. If Obama hadn't gone, the right would have excoriated him for losing the bid because he didn't show. And it's the same hubris and American exceptionalism that dismisses that King Carlos of Spain and Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama were also snubbed. So there was no scenario in which Obama could have not gotten slammed by these wingnuts.

And it is in that Catch-22 that the wingnuts lose even more supporters, because these idiots are happy for failure for this country just to score some cheap political points, as Republican strategist Mike Murphy so aptly proves.

http://crooksandliars.com/nicole-belle/meet-press-rachel-maddow-calls-conser
Right. It is just an opinion. Since when has Obama ever really worried what the right had to say about him? He's the President, he had a thorough discussion with all his advisors, and he made his decision to go. Guess one has to trust that he knew what he was doing. I had a look at some of the reports of his meetings in Denmark, and his attendance at the Olympics may have been a smaller percentage of the sum total of all his meetings in Denmark. He multi-tasked his stay in Denmark, so must have been working very hard.
ocalhoun
Ophois wrote:

Clinton would have been criticized heavily for whacking bin Laden. In the public eye, the crimes that bin Laden was actually wanted for at the time seemed very removed, and didn't quite hit home as much as the WTC attacks. So it would have looked a lot like huge Government doing black-ops type stuff, offing people without giving them trials and whatnot. A lose/lose situation for any President, really.


Probably true, but either a definite 'authorized' or 'not authorized' would have been the acceptable responses, not 'don't bother me, I've got a game of golf to play'. (And the fact that they had gone to all of the trouble of getting him into the sniper's scope suggests that they had reason to think the world would be better without him.)
Ophois
ocalhoun wrote:
Probably true, but either a definite 'authorized' or 'not authorized' would have been the acceptable responses,
I am with you there.
Quote:
not 'don't bother me, I've got a game of golf to play'
Dammit. I just got mustard on a white shirt. Mustard doesn't wash. And that phrase has been held true by every President for at least 50 years. We turned them into reality TV stars once we started allowing the media to crawl up their asses. So now they "play to the cameras" much more than doing what their office requires of them.
Quote:
(And the fact that they had gone to all of the trouble of getting him into the sniper's scope suggests that they had reason to think the world would be better without him.)
You should know this. Any time a President goes abroad, there are sniper scopes on him, in order to calibrate his location. It's not out of the ordinary. Maybe it's just weird because it's now in the public eye so much, but not really a new thing.
ocalhoun
Ophois wrote:
Any time a President goes abroad, there are sniper scopes on him, in order to calibrate his location.

But do those location-calibrating scopes have rifles attached?
Seems like it would be too much of a security risk if they did; all it would take would be one disgruntled or subverted secret service agent...
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Ophois wrote:
Any time a President goes abroad, there are sniper scopes on him, in order to calibrate his location.

But do those location-calibrating scopes have rifles attached?
Seems like it would be too much of a security risk if they did; all it would take would be one disgruntled or subverted secret service agent...
Think we have seen some movies on that! I was thinking about Obama's security guys in Denmark however, as they probably had to have their act together in a huge way. He did do a lot of travelling over there.
Ophois
Quote:
The only good thing that came out of Obama's futile pleading was that it forced him to actually say something good about America Laughing
I've been thinking about this for some time, and have come to a point where all I can do is a massive "facepalm".



Obama says plenty of good things about America. To acknowledge the problems of our nation does not mean that he hates America or that he never says anything good about America. The conservative-rights' unconditional love for the country often leads to a blindspot effect when it comes to pointing out what is wrong with this country. And we do have problems, more now than ever.
"America is the greatest country in the world" is the line that is towed. But it seems like the worse America becomes, the louder these words are shouted.

It is of the utmost hypocrisy to insinuate that Obama never(or not often enough, apparently) says good things about America, while openly cheering for a national loss. We can debate the fact that the Olympics tend to be an economic and logistical nightmare for it's host cities. Whatever. But it would be a bold faced lie for anyone to say that it would have been Ok to gleefully applaud, had the previous President(or any other, for that matter) made a failed bid for the Olympics to come to his home town.

As a side note, this post was not directed at the person who I quoted. That quote just reminded me of the sad and pathetic hypocrisy of the far right. Imagine if W vied for the Olympics to come to New Haven, Connecticut, and lost the bid to a foreign country. Anyone hoping for that loss, and then cheering for it afterwards, would have been labeled an unpatriotic traitor.

The conservative-rights' hatred for Obama now outweighs their love for America. Congratulations, righties, you guys have officially done what you keep accusing Obama and the entire left of doing: hoping for America to fail, and cheering when it happened.
deanhills
Looks as though the guy in the photo is napping!
Have to agree with you however, Voodoocat's remark that Obama's Olympics pitch forced him to say something good about the States is way off beam. Obama is very strong on positive marketing, I can't recall him ever saying anything negative about the United States, all of it has been positive in the extreme. He is also a man of faith, and seems to always be appealing to the good side of everyone, including his enemies. I'm not too crazy about the latter, however perhaps that is just talk, looks as though he is standing very firm on international issues, when he is called upon to do so. In other words, he may sound naive at times in expressing his goodwill to his enemies, but even to his own detriment (making the lefties in the Democratic party unhappy) he seems to be a pragmatist (with a centrist position). I'm not too crazy about his domestic policies, especially with regard to overspending and overregulation, but in the international arena I have not seen anything yet that he can be seriously faulted on. He seems to be a very fast learner as well. So far so good!
silverdown
I don't follow the Olympics, but if it's Obama's fault..... maybe some good will come out of it. IM not saying i support or dont support just givin a random on the spot opinion. I dont get the point to the Olympics except for athletes to get a good work out...
dickyzin
It is not Obama who failed to win the Olympics for Chicago. He did what he had to do and Chicago was not the best option for now in the eyes of the Olympic Committee.
Related topics
What can you say about Obama being the next president?
Obama
McCain choses Sarah Palin as running mate.
Barack Obama vs John McCain
Kids is the cwaziest people...
Congratulations President Obama
Republican strategy, via Limbaugh: Wanting Obama to fail
Barack Obama got Nobel peace prize..... share your views.
Republican poll numbers crashing
Could Democrats loose Obama's former Senate seat?
India,Pakistan and Amitava Bacchan.....
Obama Fails US Citizens in Libya
What are Obama's chances for re-election?
Obama WON!
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.