What would you define as "bold" leadership?

There are some that seem to believe that President Obama is too cautious? They believe he should be doing much more than he is presently doing. That he needs to throw the status quo overboard.

What do you think he should be doing about the banks and the economy? Do you agree with the gradual piecemeal bailout of the banks and failed institutions? Do you see anything else he could do to jumpstart our economy?

What do you think he should do about the photos and the torture issue? Do you think he should call for the investigation and prosecution of anyone and everyone that broke the law, including the former President and VP of the United States?

What do you think he should do in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do you think he should change the military leadership, up to and including Secretary Gates at the Dept of Defense?

How much more "bold" should he be under the circumstances we now face as a nation? Is it even possible to show bold leadership under these conditions?

That'd perk some ears up.

:wow:

Not a blusterer, that Mahatma, but methodical and got results.

the President known for Shock and Awe Bold Moves. While generally not as satisfying to his base, it is likely to bear more fruit.

At this stage of the game that'd seem supremely bold.

If you believe the policy right for the people who need your help, then you follow through.

would be pulling out of Iraq. Bold would be holding a press conference and announcing his full support of Single Payer, and challenging Congress to get it passed. Bold would be closing Guantanamo and restoring habeus corpus.

And actually I think he should call for the investigation of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and anybody else implicated by the documented torture over the last 8 years.

Or would it even be possible with our Congress and Senate?

endless compromise does not necessarily yield solutions. You've probably heard the old saying "the truth is not the average of right and wrong" Similarly, solutions to problems are not the average of liberal and conservative proposals. This is particularly true when you've got two contingents whose proposals are more or less diametrically opposed. If you try to compromise, you end up with a vector of zero length. To make progress, you have to pick a direction. All alternatives cannot be satisfied.

Democracy, as a governing principle, does not guarantee that everybody's view is added into some compromise solution. What it guarantees is that everybody's voice is heard. A final solution does not need to include everybody's proposals, even partially.

The other question, is this possible with our current Congress, depends on how you mean. Numerically, it's certainly possible. Dems have a majority. The GOP might filibuster, but we could force them to do it. They can't filibuster forever. In terms of constituency, it's possible. The public supports all the liberal positions on health care, economics and foreign policy. Obama could easily solidify that support using the bully pulpit. He's quite good at that. Now the problem is that the actual members of Congress that we have mostly seem to be believers in "compromise" and "bipartisanship" in the most unproductive senses of those words.

Pull all troops out of the Mid-East immediately.
Their presence there is only instigating the violence and emboldens the fundies here and there.

I think the banks should have been handled in freemarket style,
let them eat their losses from the greed and fail if they can't.