Name something controversial that Obama has done as president

Can anyone think of anything? Basically, I'm looking for an example of something he's done where he was so impassioned on something he wanted to get done that he was willing to risk political capital in order to do so.

ramped up troops in Afghanistan, assumed a neutral stance in the prosecution of the previous administration for crimes against humanity.......................

same goes with troops in Afghanistan. He promised that he would do this. So there was nothing controversial about it. As for his neutral stance on prosecuting the Previous administration,
why would you want that process politicized? That doesn't even compute.

I don't understand how you would see that as something political. As an officer of the court and as President, Obama took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. For him to say that he's "looking forward," while ignoring the ramifications of what the previous administration did, well, I find that gutsy. Or ballsy. Or, since I'm trusting that he knows best, just courageous.

I find anyone who backs down on campaign promises to be gutsy, or ballsy, or whatever you want to call it. Obama's promises for health coverage for all were implied single-payer promises, since that is - according to every medical professional I know - the easiest and most basic way to get everyone covered. He has backed away from what he promised. The prospect for us seeing universal health care is, I now believe, laughable.

He never said anything about troops in Afghanistan, which is why his escalation is so shocking. You see, he did promise to bring the troops home from Iraq. I don't find it any kind of leap to infer from that that we would have all our troops out of the Middle East, especially since the 'war on terror' is not a land war; I honestly believed Obama understood that.

It's unfortunate that such things don't compute for you. It could all be a matter of perception, I suppose..............

He had a commercial out during the GE that explained his health plan, and it definely did not leave any type of impression that it was single payer. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnk8minM3Qg

As for Prosecuting the past administration, it will be hard to discuss this with you because your mind is pretty much made up. What I do know is that he stated that he would stop the torture....but never did he say he was going to prosecute the last administration.

So no, he didn't back down from campaign promises.....you only think he did based on things that he didn't say and things that you didn't hear.

But that's ok. You can think that. Just doesn't make it true, no matter how much you wish it.

Hillary and Obama were kind of skirting the issue.

Obama was never very liberal. That's why I preferred Edwards. Between McCain and Obama, Obama is the better choice. But he has not taken a single brave stance on any issue since his election. And his economic team is a disaster.

Hillary and Obama were clear. They weren't talking single payer,
which is why you supported who you did; Kucinich and Edwards.

As for Obama being liberal, I think he is more than progressive enough.....
but yeah, being called a socialist since June of 2008 really is a lie.

As for what is Brave, that's relative and subjective.
As for his economic team, the fact that he didn't cave under all of the naysayer
whiners trying to tell him that they know better, to me was quite brave.

But then, his base is broad, so there was no way that he could have become the President
that you wish him to be, because his name isn't Denis Kucinich.

You just don't have a socialist, who wouldn't be able to get elected anyways.

But good luck with that!Good luck!

Tell John Edwards I said Hi! See you in 2012! :hi:

as long as looks are a major factor in elections

John Edwards is a good looking guy.
Hillary is a good looking woman.
Dennis Kucinich's is quite cute.
Biden is named the Silver Fox by some.
and Obama's got it going on.

I think of all our Democrats were nice to look at.
And yes, they are all Democrats.
and to say otherwise is slanterous and simply not true.

and to say this while posting at Democratic Underground makes it even worse.

support single payer.

"John Edwards, who, by some indications, has offered perhaps of the best healthcare plan of any candidate, has decided to take a far different approach.

Edwards is also careful to temper his progressivism with more centrist positions. Speaking to Rolling Stone, Edwards ... even demonized single-payer health care: "Do you think the American people want the same people who responded to Hurricane Katrina to run their health-care system?"

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/160477.php

The false meme that he did should just die, instead of being perpetrated.

Edwards offered a choice of enrolling in something like Social Security. This is the plan that everyone thought Obama was offering. It was actually Edwards' plan.

Obama was late in presenting a plan (in any detail) and I was never really clear about what he was offering. He always emphasized making health care affordable -- which is a cop-out as far as I am concerned. Affordable compared to what -- the average income, the individual's income, Obama's income?

Kucinich proposed pure single payer. I would prefer that, but it would be an impossible sell -- like Kucinich himself (I like Kucinich very much, but he probably could not be elected, and not just because of his looks).

I remember Kucinich supported it.

in short, things he's done.

I'm looking at what he hasn't done. That video leaves an awful lot of room for interpretation, and that's exactly how campaigning should be done. It's an exercise in raising expectations without specificity.

My mind is hardly made up. That would be stupid. If anyone can explain to me why it's not feasible or reasonable or even legal to pursue the alleged crimes of the previous administration, I would be very interested in hearing them. So, let's not make this personal, shall we?

Did he stop the torture? I thought it had already stopped. How do you know he stopped it? In either event, that's good, but I don't trust the CIA or any of the other agencies, so if it's been stopped, that's a good thing.

Your interpretation of what I think is charming. Inaccurate, full of assumptions, and desperate for a conclusion, but the fact is that my perceptions are mine, and they are just as valid as yours. Your announcement of your superior "truth" is amusing, but, hey, you do what you have to do to make it all right for you.

President Obama is doing, I honestly believe, what will make it all right for us, but I also honestly believe that he's inherited a mess that is beyond fixing. When the realization sinks in that we're economically terminal, that to keep printing money without anything to back it up, we're all going to be seeing an America we never could have foreseen.

In the meantime, as I said, going on the personal is an utter waste of time for me, and, really, you're better than that, I am certain.

We all want it to be fixed, and if President Obama can't do it, I don't know who can....................

who asked a specific question.

The Ad I posted is clear that he was not advocating a single Payer health plan.

Here more Youtube Specifics on Obama's health plan from his mouth....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erspfMkqLN4&feature=related

Peace out!

he wanted to pull troops from Iraq and put them in Afghanistan. He said it more than once. He said he wanted to pull most troops out of Iraq within 16 months of his presidency. Later he said he wanted to reduce the number of troops in Iraq.

2008 first presidential debate, Barack Obama vs. John McCain, at the University of Mississippi:


'Q: Should more US troops be sent to Afghanistan?

We need more troops. The situation is getting worse. We had the highest fatalities among US troops this past year than at any time since 2002. I would send 2 to 3 additional brigades to Afghanistan. Keep in mind that we have 4 times the number of troops in Iraq, where nobody had anything to do with 9/11 before we went in, where, in fact, there was no al Qaeda before we went in. That is a strategic mistake, because every intelligence agency will acknowledge that al Qaeda is the greatest threat against the US, and that the place where we have to deal with these folks is in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It’s not just more troops. We have to #1, press the Afghan government to make certain that they are actually working for their people; #2, we’ve got to deal with a poppy trade that has exploded; #3, we’ve got to deal with Pakistan, because al Qaeda and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan. Until we do, Americans at home are not safe. '

'Barack Obama: FactCheck: Promised 16-month exit; now 16-month reduction
Obama stretched out his schedule for withdrawing troops from Iraq. During the debate, Obama said we could “reduce” the number of combat troops in 16 months. Obama said, “We should end this war responsibly. We should do it in phases. But in 16 months we should be able to reduce our combat troops, provide some relief to military families and our troops and bolster our efforts in Afghanistan so that we can capture and kill bin Laden and crush al Qaeda.”

But in Oct. 2007, Obama supported removing all combat troops from Iraq within 16 months, saying, “I will remove one or two brigades a month, and get all of our combat troops out of Iraq within 16 months. The only troops I will keep in Iraq will perform the limited missions of protecting our diplomats and carrying out targeted strikes on al Qaeda. And I will launch the diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives that are so badly needed. Let there be no doubt: I will end this war.” The quote appears on the campaign’s Web site.'


'http://www.issues2000.org/Archive/2008_Pres_1_War_+_Peace.htm

within a year. just supplying some balance.

may I ask, was done differently from what he said during the campaign?

because although he knew that it would soar the Deficit, and he'd be giving his enemies an excuse to label him a socialist, he obviously didn't give a damn.

Firing GM's CEO. Nobody expected that.

Doing his economic plan his way, instead of the way all of the naysayers have screamed he should.

Keeping Geithner and Summers, although both the Left and the Right have trashed him for it.

Then he did an 180 about face on releasing the torture photos, knowing that many in his base would be totally pissed, and that the Right would accuse him of being a flip-flopper.

He did it again with his decision on the tribunals....as evidenced that the left is totally pissed.

Speaking at Notre Dame was quite gutsy, as he could have simply decided against it.

Further, going to Turkey and speaking in the Turkish Parliament and being called an apologist by his enemies.

Releasing the torture memos was risking political capital on National Security.

or whatever remains of it

But OK, if you think so! :)

I can bet that it will NOT be what we the people want... aka single payer.

of those who didn't believe him when he told the truth about what it is he would do.

I also don't ever remember Obama advocating it- even though he may envision that as a possible long-term result. My clear recollection from the campaign is that he wants to provide people who want it a "public option" and let other people keep their private plan if they want to. To me, that seems entirely reasonable and, more importantly, realistic, and will probably lead (eventually) to the same result, which is why people like Baucus and McConnell are really freaked out- that if we have a REAL "choice" in terms of healthcare coverage, very few people, if any, are going to continue to go with a private plan. A public option to people like Baucus and McConnell is, to them, akin to a "gateway" health plan, which is why we need to make sure that the "public option" stays intact as part of any health care reform plan.

and damned be the voters and that is the point

That was Obama's theme since day one. If you expected divisive or contraversial stuff I think you got the wrong guy, to be honest.

Damn near everything he's done has been controversial here, right down to the dog. If that's not sufficient for you, check out the rest of the internetz.

Yeah, yeah I know It's Only a Two Minute Prayer blah, blah, blah

But it was pretty controversial.

The op is asking since he took the oath, I believe. :shrug:

I believe.

but the invocation occurred before the Oath was taken, me thinks.

Days after the inauguration.

I was beyond mortified! In a pinch, Dijon Mustard can be used on one's Johnsonville Brats and I often put it to good use in a gravy mix*, but on a burger???!!1!1!!


* (1 tsp. of regular Dijon mustard mixed in well to an almost ready to serve cooking chicken or turkey gravy adds a surprisingly nice snap to that gravy! I know it sounds yucky if you've never tried it before but do try it sometime, it makes the gravy taste much richer.)

military tribunals just in this past week alone...

Not to mention rolling over on FISA, telecom immunity, and Don't Ask Don't Tell.

I wish he WOULD do something impassioned and controversial.

What Barack Obama said while still in the Senate in reference to Tribunals.
He is doing exactly what he spoke of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dc6I3jnTRe0&feature=PlayList&p=766B07AF842FF79F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2

Don't ask don't tell is not yet something that anyone can say he didn't do,
because he is still early in his term. Certainly dealing with tribunals and the photo has he has will make it easier for him to push DADT.


He did roll over FISA, but he wasn't President....as that was in July 2008.

to differ from actual, regular-grade dishonesty, but it seems to me that, from the point of "what's the right thing to do", the President is definitely coming down on the wrong side of these issues. Saying "Intellectually dishonest" sounds like a way of saying "yeah, it's basically true, but it's...uh...intellectually dishonest?"

When you say things like "He did roll over FISA, but he wasn't President", you're just making ridiculous excuses. What difference does it make whether he was President or not? Same with Don't Ask. He was definitely going to reverse it; now he's hemming and hawing on it. What matters is that these are a measure of character, and Obama's seems to be revealing itself to be that of no better than a run-of-the-mill politician. No worse than most, to be sure, but he sold himself as the antidote to that.

Your response also suggests to me that you, too, see this for what it is, and it bothers you, but you can't bring yourself to admit it. Whatever motives you want to attribute to my response, dishonesty, intellectual or otherwise, is not one of them.

Or is that not what you meant by "controversy"?

Hekate

president obama has pretty much been all right with me.

the best president i have known.

booya!

except that I think his actions so far are beginning to inspire some serious discomfort among some of his supporters.

He released the torture memos. boy, you guys are either totally uninformed, ignorant as hell, or pushing your own agenda and purposefully trying to dishonestly frame it. I sure don't agree with everything Obama has done, but I do deal with facts instead of conveniently and dishonestly ignoring them because they don't fit my little narrative. Here's another one, champ: Obama decided not to release the torture memos; something I strenusously disagree with, but there's no doubt whatsofuckingever that that's plenty controversial.

lame, lame, lame.

It is quite controversial, especially in republican circles, to thoughtfully challenge ideas, work hard on multiple complex tasks, and speak in an intelligent manner.

People need to quit their bitching and whining about Obama. Give the guy a chance instead of tearing him apart, or we'll be scratching our heads 4 years from now wondering how we gor a president Romney.

The first is closing Gitmo. There wasn't much capital needed to do this since it has become so unpopular, but he is still getting flack from the right for it.

The second is the stimulus and this is really where he spent it.

He's made plenty of controversial decisions, but they're mostly in keeping with the status quo.

Not to mention that Obama hasn't done it and that he's continuing the military tribunals (yeah, yeah, with minor tweaks, I know...)

that is controversial.

He is possibly the greatest politician I have ever seen, and certainly the smartest person I have experienced as President. I think he is deliberately avoiding controversy and picking up huge numbers of people who suddonly find themselves as former Republicans agreeing with the Democrats. The GOP is being reduced to outraged sputterings by an ever smaller number of angry old white men.

mark

Because if you are talking about "around here" at DU, then you have just not been at the same place I have been.

This is FAR from a racist site....and that certainly sounds like what you are calling us.

"Around here" usually refers to a more confined area than the entire country.

Oh...and I don't RIDE horses.

and spurred a spate of teabagging, so I guess it qualifies as controversial.

to me or controversial to a fooled in the dark population?

He promised "beginning on day one" that he would begin the withdrawal of US Combat troops from Iraq at one brigade a month. Now not only has he not removerd a single troop but his top Generals are saying they will disregard the "treaty" signed with Iraq to withdrawe all US troops from all Iraqi cities by June 1st 2009 and all US troops from Iraq by 2011.

:nuke:

- The entire stimulus package, for which he's been ripped incessantly day after day.

- A budget that increases the deficit, for which he's been ripped incessantly day after day.

leaders of foreign countries that pissed off the Conservatives. Set a date to close Guantanamo.

there's more- but i'm in a hurry-:hi: