Democrats in Disarray

[Riot]

Well heck, 'Zig. Interpretation is in the eye of the reader, I guess

If you want to cherry pick partial meaning or half-sentences out of these articles, we can do that:

http://www.slate.com/id/2236708/

how is 'prevented a depression' provable?
and at the time it was passed, it was to keep unemployment from rising above ten percent. whoops as for fixiing health care, that whole bit was prefaced with 'if it passes'-that's not a done deal yet. based on an unprovable thing, and an unfinished one, they're saying he could have a good year-not that he has had one.

Hard to see how you can put that negative spin on an article entitled: "Obama's Brilliant First Year - By January, he will have accomplished more than any first-year president since Franklin Roosevelt." The article points out all the good he had indeed accomplished by November, and how, after healthcare passes, the articles title will be true.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/31098.html

i'll have to re-read this, since the first two times i went through it, i didn't see anything obama actually accomplished...but i did see

'To be sure, Obama’s first year accomplishments are more in the realm of creating good inputs to policy rather than achieving good outputs. Results to date have been relatively few..'

"Dick Cheney wrong on Barack Obama slam" - The part you ignored before the above sentence was: "But in fact, Obama has had a solid first year in foreign policy matters. By one measure, comparison with other first-year presidents in modern history, Obama ranks with the three or four best since World War II by my estimation - and I write this as someone who opposed Obama during the Democratic primary process of 2007-2008 largely because of fears at the time that he would not be strong on national security."

http://www.economist.com/opinion/dis...ptextfeature

yeah, this starts out well. i'd cringe if i read this in my eval:
One year on, how well has he done?

Not too badly, by our reckoning

Well, if that is where you stopped reading the evaluation, I'd continue on to read: "Not too badly, by our reckoning. In his first 12 months in office Mr Obama has overseen the stabilising of the economy, is on the point of bringing affordable health care to virtually every American citizen, has ended the era of torture, is robustly prosecuting the war in Afghanistan while gradually disengaging from Iraq; and perhaps more precious than any of these, he has cleared away much of the cloud of hatred and fear through which so much of the world saw the United States during George Bush’s presidency.

More generally, Mr Obama has run a competent, disciplined yet heterodox administration, with few of the snafus that characterised Bill Clinton’s first year. Just as important have been the roads not taken. Mr Obama has resisted the temptation to give in to the populists in his own party and saddle Wall Street with regulations that would choke it. He has eschewed punitive taxation on the entrepreneurs who animate the economy; and he has even, with the notable exception of a boneheaded tariff on cheap Chinese tyres, turned a deaf ear to the siren-song of the protectionists. In short, what’s not to like?"

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

Well heck, 'Zig. Interpretation is in the eye of the reader, I guess

If you want to cherry pick partial meaning or half-sentences out of these articles, we can do that:



Hard to see how you can put that negative spin on an article entitled: "Obama's Brilliant First Year - By January, he will have accomplished more than any first-year president since Franklin Roosevelt." The article points out all the good he had indeed accomplished by November, and how, after healthcare passes, the articles title will be true.



"Dick Cheney wrong on Barack Obama slam" - The part you ignored before the above sentence was: "But in fact, Obama has had a solid first year in foreign policy matters. By one measure, comparison with other first-year presidents in modern history, Obama ranks with the three or four best since World War II by my estimation - and I write this as someone who opposed Obama during the Democratic primary process of 2007-2008 largely because of fears at the time that he would not be strong on national security."



Well, if that is where you stopped reading the evaluation, I'd continue on to read: "Not too badly, by our reckoning. In his first 12 months in office Mr Obama has overseen the stabilising of the economy, is on the point of bringing affordable health care to virtually every American citizen, has ended the era of torture, is robustly prosecuting the war in Afghanistan while gradually disengaging from Iraq; and perhaps more precious than any of these, he has cleared away much of the cloud of hatred and fear through which so much of the world saw the United States during George Bush’s presidency.

More generally, Mr Obama has run a competent, disciplined yet heterodox administration, with few of the snafus that characterised Bill Clinton’s first year. Just as important have been the roads not taken. Mr Obama has resisted the temptation to give in to the populists in his own party and saddle Wall Street with regulations that would choke it. He has eschewed punitive taxation on the entrepreneurs who animate the economy; and he has even, with the notable exception of a boneheaded tariff on cheap Chinese tyres, turned a deaf ear to the siren-song of the protectionists. In short, what’s not to like?"

Did they mention that he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Riot

Well heck, 'Zig. Interpretation is in the eye of the reader, I guess

If you want to cherry pick partial meaning or half-sentences out of these articles, we can do that:



Hard to see how you can put that negative spin on an article entitled: "Obama's Brilliant First Year - By January, he will have accomplished more than any first-year president since Franklin Roosevelt." The article points out all the good he had indeed accomplished by November, and how, after healthcare passes, the articles title will be true.



"Dick Cheney wrong on Barack Obama slam" - The part you ignored before the above sentence was: "But in fact, Obama has had a solid first year in foreign policy matters. By one measure, comparison with other first-year presidents in modern history, Obama ranks with the three or four best since World War II by my estimation - and I write this as someone who opposed Obama during the Democratic primary process of 2007-2008 largely because of fears at the time that he would not be strong on national security."



Well, if that is where you stopped reading the evaluation, I'd continue on to read: "Not too badly, by our reckoning. In his first 12 months in office Mr Obama has overseen the stabilising of the economy, is on the point of bringing affordable health care to virtually every American citizen, has ended the era of torture, is robustly prosecuting the war in Afghanistan while gradually disengaging from Iraq; and perhaps more precious than any of these, he has cleared away much of the cloud of hatred and fear through which so much of the world saw the United States during George Bush’s presidency.

More generally, Mr Obama has run a competent, disciplined yet heterodox administration, with few of the snafus that characterised Bill Clinton’s first year. Just as important have been the roads not taken. Mr Obama has resisted the temptation to give in to the populists in his own party and saddle Wall Street with regulations that would choke it. He has eschewed punitive taxation on the entrepreneurs who animate the economy; and he has even, with the notable exception of a boneheaded tariff on cheap Chinese tyres, turned a deaf ear to the siren-song of the protectionists. In short, what’s not to like?"

in other words, it's an immeasurable, unprovable bit of opinion there. just like much of what you posted. but not one thing you put up there disproved what i wrote previously. unless i missed where he veered from bush policy on those things i stated?? see, this is what i wrote:

it seems to me that more than anything, it's just continued on from where bush left off. economy still a mess, still talking about more stimulus packages, unemployment still far too high, and two wars still being waged, deficits still rising, housing still a joke. what exactly is it that has been accomplished? what has changed? what's different?


so, what of that list do i have wrong?????