Pres. Obama a "Leader"?

[GeorgeWendtCFI]

In another thread, a poster made a reference to Pres. Obama being a leader. What do you think? Is he?

I found a definition of leadership on about.com:

A simple definition of leadership is that leadership is the art of motivating a group of people to act towards achieving a common goal.

Put even more simply, the leader is the inspiration and director of the action. He or she is the person in the group that possesses the combination of personality and skills that makes others want to follow his or her direction.

Using that definition, it is my opnion that he is a miserable failure at the leadership game.

And, oh yeah. This thread is NOT about any other Pres. It is about the statement made about Pres. Obama. If you want to talk about other presidents, start your own thread.

[ScareCrow57]

The very essence of leadership is that you have to have a vision. It's got to be a vision you articulate clearly and forcefully on every occasion. - Theodore Hesburgh, President of the University of Notre Dame

Given the lack of direction coming from the White House it appears there is no leadership. The Health Care issue has changed numerous times over the last 12 months. It is now so convoluted and twisted no one even knows what the purpose of the bill is.

[neiowa]

If he rebelled and cut the puppet strings and could magically generate a record of accomplishment he might be able to rise to the level of Jimmy Carter or Neville Chamberlain.

[ChiefKN]

I think we should just be glad that he has not been really tested yet. I hope that his biggest challenges are domestic.

[scfire86]

I think we should just be glad that he has not been really tested yet. I hope that his biggest challenges are domestic.

So a leader isn't really tested until he (or she) has been subjected to a foreign crisis?

Given that as a yardstick, Bush was a failure.

[Jonathan Bastian]

I'm certainly not a fan of Obama, but I think he has demonstrated some significant leadership skills. He is a master orator...probably better than Reagan at reaching the general populace. He knows the direction he wants to go and is able to pull a large portion of the electorate with him. He recognizes he IS the POTUS...and isn't afraid to put his foot down and say so...essentially saying, "You know what, you can disagree, but I'm the boss, so that's the way it is." Good leaders need these skills.

He has some key weaknesses, though. He shows a lack of focus on his key issues. Obama is trying to tackle 20 issues at once, failing to focus his political capital on several key issues and seeing them to fruition. He also has mistakenly assumed that his personal beliefs are universally shared, and he is stunned by discord on his beliefs and at a loss as to how to build consensus...how to get "buy in." I think he has also demonstrated a common weakness of most politicians, a complete and utter lack of economic knowledge. Considering that raising and spending taxes is the basis of government, I find this to be one of the most critical failings.

[scfire86]

Given that he inherited a country engaged in two wars and an economy in meltdown I believe he's doing a great job.

Bush inherited peace and prosperity and passed off just the opposite.

When Obama was sworn in, the market plummetted to about 6500. Many were saying the market was voting on his presence with a lack of confidence. I think one of those was our very own idiotboy. I'm feeling too lazy to search for the post, so it could've been someone else. One pundit went so far to say Obama was the greatest wealth destroyer he'd ever witnessed. Now the market is up over 9500 and all of those detractors are mum on the subject. He was getting hammered for the market tanking, but is given none for its recovery.

[231Engine]

No. . . . .

[ScareCrow57]

Given that he inherited a country engaged in two wars and an economy in meltdown I believe he's doing a great job.

Bush inherited peace and prosperity and passed off just the opposite.

When Obama was sworn in, the market plummetted to about 6500. Many were saying the market was voting on his presence with a lack of confidence. I think one of those was our very own idiotboy. I'm feeling too lazy to search for the post, so it could've been someone else. One pundit went so far to say Obama was the greatest wealth destroyer he'd ever witnessed. Now the market is up over 9500 and all of those detractors are mum on the subject. He was getting hammered for the market tanking, but is given none for its recovery.

Good god you are a hypocrite. If you do your research you will find that Bush was handed an economy in a recession. As for a world at peace have you heard of the USS Cole? Do you realize that a culmination of at least the 10 previous years worth of errors lead up to the events of 9-11.

It is true the market started recovering towards the end of Bush's term in office and when Obama won the election it dropped again and is recovering now. Of course how the economy is doing isn't controlled by the administration in office so that is really a mute point. What we can say is that Obama has doubled the deficit in less than a year. I find it interesting that he thinks putting federal dollars into the economy is good and then in the next breath he wants to raise taxes and take money back out of the economy. Just another show of his inconsistencies.

He has clearly failed to lead on the health care issue as becomes a different approach every week.

And let us not forget his first failure. The Stimulus (aka Pork) Bill. He signed the thing then screamed it was terrible the AIG execs were getting their bonuses. For the love of god, the dumbass authorized the bonuses when he signed the bill. Of Course the party in control of congress also screwed that one up. They have no one to blame butt themselves.

[ScareCrow57]

I'm certainly not a fan of Obama, but I think he has demonstrated some significant leadership skills. He is a master orator...probably better than Reagan at reaching the general populace. He knows the direction he wants to go and is able to pull a large portion of the electorate with him. He recognizes he IS the POTUS...and isn't afraid to put his foot down and say so...essentially saying, "You know what, you can disagree, but I'm the boss, so that's the way it is." Good leaders need these skills.

He has some key weaknesses, though. He shows a lack of focus on his key issues. Obama is trying to tackle 20 issues at once, failing to focus his political capital on several key issues and seeing them to fruition. He also has mistakenly assumed that his personal beliefs are universally shared, and he is stunned by discord on his beliefs and at a loss as to how to build consensus...how to get "buy in." I think he has also demonstrated a common weakness of most politicians, a complete and utter lack of economic knowledge. Considering that raising and spending taxes is the basis of government, I find this to be one of the most critical failings.

He talks well, then again so does the used car salesman and the medicine man. Unfortunately, he fails to provide a clear direction or a vision for the future.

[ChiefKN]

So a leader isn't really tested until he (or she) has been subjected to a foreign crisis?

Given that as a yardstick, Bush was a failure.

Not my point. The point was that the implications would go beyond the economic and threaten national security.

[ChiefKN]

He is a master orator...probably better than Reagan at reaching the general populace.

Imagine if Reagan used a Tele-prompter.

.

[scfire86]

Imagine if Reagan used a Tele-prompter.

.

He did.

The teleprompter is merely a performance device. It doesn’t write the speech or control what is being said.

It says a lot that Obama's critics have focused on this. It's understandable since they were willing to overlook a president that demolished the English language and rationalized it as plain speaking.

It's easy to understand why someone who has both good grammar and good diction would confuse them.

[ScareCrow57]

Imagine if Reagan used a Tele-prompter.

.

All entertainers use a teleprompter. They have to because they don't write their own stuff and really don't know what they are supposed to say.

[ScareCrow57]

He did.

The teleprompter is merely a performance device. It doesn’t write the speech or control what is being said.

It says a lot that Obama's critics have focused on this. It's understandable since they were willing to overlook a president that demolished the English language and rationalized it as plain speaking.

The focus has been the over reliance. His inability to think without using the thing.

It's easy to understand why someone who has both good grammar and good diction would confuse them.

Gee, I didn't think Reagan confused anyone.

[ChiefKN]

He did.

The teleprompter is merely a performance device. It doesn’t write the speech or control what is being said.

It says a lot that Obama's critics have focused on this. It's understandable since they were willing to overlook a president that demolished the English language and rationalized it as plain speaking.

It's easy to understand why someone who has both good grammar and good diction would confuse them.

Please, Reagan used it for some speeches, but not to the degree Obama uses it.

No matter, I just love how defensive Probama's get when it's mentioned.

[Jonathan Bastian]

Given that he inherited a country engaged in two wars and an economy in meltdown I believe he's doing a great job.

Bush inherited peace and prosperity and passed off just the opposite.

When Obama was sworn in, the market plummetted to about 6500. Many were saying the market was voting on his presence with a lack of confidence. I think one of those was our very own idiotboy. I'm feeling too lazy to search for the post, so it could've been someone else. One pundit went so far to say Obama was the greatest wealth destroyer he'd ever witnessed. Now the market is up over 9500 and all of those detractors are mum on the subject. He was getting hammered for the market tanking, but is given none for its recovery.

Oh, how selective our memory can be. Bush did inherit prosperity...but he also inherited the most devious terrorist attack ever prepared. The wheels were already in motion for four aircraft to be flown, nearly simultaneously, into American icons. This attack would not only devestate a nation and stun the world, it would basically shut down transportation for weeks and cripple the transportation industry for months. The attack happened on his watch, but the planning, preparation and infiltration occurred on someone else's.

Research the headlines during the Bush era. You will find the front page articles on the poor market conditions early on. But the recovery stories are hidden on page B7 later.

If the economy was an Obama priority, he should be touting the market's halting recovery. If the wars were a priority, he should be explaining his conditions for considering victory and developing an exit plan. (Did anyone notice the Bush Surge was poo-poo'd, but the Obama Surge is ignored?)Instead, he's trying to change a health care system that most people are comfortable with and trying to stop Americans from making carbon dioxide, while 2.5 billion people in SE Asia face no restrictions.

That is lack of focus.

[ScareCrow57]

Oh, how selective our memory can be. Bush did inherit prosperity...but he also inherited the most devious terrorist attack ever prepared. The wheels were already in motion for four aircraft to be flown, nearly simultaneously, into American icons. This attack would not only devestate a nation and stun the world, it would basically shut down transportation for weeks and cripple the transportation industry for months. The attack happened on his watch, but the planning, preparation and infiltration occurred on someone else's.

Research the headlines during the Bush era. You will find the front page articles on the poor market conditions early on. But the recovery stories are hidden on page B7 later.

If the economy was an Obama priority, he should be touting the market's halting recovery. If the wars were a priority, he should be explaining his conditions for considering victory and developing an exit plan. (Did anyone notice the Bush Surge was poo-poo'd, but the Obama Surge is ignored?)Instead, he's trying to change a health care system that most people are comfortable with and trying to stop Americans from making carbon dioxide, while 2.5 billion people in SE Asia face no restrictions.

That is lack of focus.

Actually, Bush inherited the dot.com bubble burst that triggered the early 2000s recession. Recession.org

...

In the year 2001, the early 2000s recession hit America. The collapse of the dot.com bubble was truly the cause of these recessions, as well as the attacks that occurred on September 11th on the World Trade Center Towers in New York City. Accounting scandals also ran rampant, contributing to the overall downward financial spiral that America faced. Everyone remembers the attacks on America’s soil, and nobody will forget how, despite economic trouble, the attacks brought Americans together, more united than ever. And with that kind of perseverance, America was led out of that struggle to a new future of prosperity.

And lastly, America has been hit by what has been called the Late 2000s recession. The collapse of the housing market really set this one off on a bad note, and it, coupled with bank collapses in the U.S. and Europe, have caused consumer confidence and credit availability to plummet to new lows. Hopefully, things will turn around. But for now, the modern economic cycle again comes around to purge itself of the problems put on it by humanity, and unfortunately, that purge is known to us as recession.

[DaSharkie]

He did.

The teleprompter is merely a performance device. It doesn’t write the speech or control what is being said.

It says a lot that Obama's critics have focused on this. It's understandable since they were willing to overlook a president that demolished the English language and rationalized it as plain speaking.

It's easy to understand why someone who has both good grammar and good diction would confuse them.

See, Bush and Obama are opposites. Bush spoke well in unscripted moments in his town meetings and gatherings, whereas Obama does not as well. When the teleprompter is in front of them, Obama does well and Bush did not.

Considering neither of them allowed people with opposing views to actually ask them questions during their "town hall" meetings one has to really wonder about their ability to debate the issue. Although we all know that you think that no Democrat can do anything wrong - you have even stated so. I would expect as much fron an uneducated and not "smart" individual.


As for whether Obama is a leader is not, I am as of yet undecided. Being a good speaker does not make one a leader. He has stumbled with the financial matters, he has unnecessarily addeded billions to our debt, next year's budget deficit is expected to be a staggering $1,580,000,000,000 which will likely not go down next year (under his first budget), and I see little action in his attempts to close the wars we are fighting (a major campaign promise.)

While I see him as doing what he thinks is the right thing to do, I would not classify him as being in the cetagory of what I would call a great leader.....but he has not been challenged significantly yet, and has shown himself to rise above anyone else out there.

[scfire86]

While I see him as doing what he thinks is the right thing to do, I would not classify him as being in the cetagory of what I would call a great leader.....but he has not been challenged significantly yet, and has shown himself to rise above anyone else out there.

At this point in his presidency neither had Bush. He was too busy at his faux ranch in Crawford clearing brush and ignoring PDB that detailed intel on the possibility of terrorists hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings.

On a separate note. Reagan is regarded as a great leader. Fair enough. However, conservatives had deified him to the point where he bares little resemblance to the way he actually governed versus how he is remembered.