Replies

I'd like to think the author is right but I don't see the media and history professors EVER admitting 0 was a failure because they would be admitting that they were all wrong for supporting him.

Not going to happen.

Not going to happen.

I'd disagree. I believe when the FULL SCOPE of WHO and WHAT Obozo was all about, and how he got into office, it will take everyone that was supportive of the movement down dramatically like those still clinging to the Titanic when it went down.

A past example of this in history would have been the support Nazism had prior to the holocaust which CHANGED EVERYTHING rather dramatically.

You can only hide a dead body so long before the stench and decay are overwhelming. Obozo, IMO, falls into the same category as history will eventually reveal.

Most academics are Democrats (if not further to the left). They despised GWB from the time he began to run for the Presidency and hated him once he defeated Gore's attempt to steal the election. Apart from a brief armistice after 9/11, it was all negative all the time. Compare how Bush was blamed for the poor handling of the aftermath of Katrina whereas Obama got no criticism for the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy.

If the Presidents were to be judged by objective historians, I think GWB would rank somewhere above average, and Obama near the bottom (along with Carter and a couple of the mid-19th century Presidents).

Carter's one big accomplishment was the Camp David Accords, which may have marginally improved the situation in the Middle East but did nothing to resolve the overall Arab-Israeli conflict and was tangential to American welfare overall. Obama's major accomplishment, Obamacare, is causing and will continue to cause damage to the country, so Obama already deserves to rank below Carter, even before his last two years operating the wrecking ball. But academic historians will try to rank him higher.