Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
I think they were bad in different ways. Carter seemed overwhelmed by the job and became demoralized. He projected weakness. For a guy who commanded a nuke boat, he had very little command presence.
Bush by contrast tends to overreach. His one huge mistake was going into Iraq. He didn't seem to understand that democrats in congress would be implacable foes totally unlike the good ole boy dems he could do bidness with in texas. So he ended up going along with ridiculous spending but got nothing in return.
I think if Bush could go back and undo the Iraq disaster, he would have been a middling president. With Carter, it was not one thing, it was everything.
Looking forward, I think it is somewhat fair to compare McCain with Bush and Obama with Carter. McCain is tough but prone to bad ideas. Obama has not been tested and could fold like a cheap lawn chair in a crisis. He runs whining to the media now when he is criticized. Like Carter, his priorities elevate secondary concerns above critical ones. Carter pushed human rights over national security. Obama pushes marxist economics over a sound economy and global popularity over our own vital interests.
I generally agree. Carter had poor leadership ability, but was intelligent and a nice guy, with reasonable policy abilities. He just wasn't cut out to be president. He could have been a great politician one or two ranks below that.
Bush had more regular guy charisma and ability to get popularity. But he just lacked the intellectual firepower, knowledge, wisdom and experience to back it up. He's like the popular trader at the office who blows up when a Black Swan hits, taking all his friends with him.
Obama has both charisma and intellectual ability. He is untested, yes, but then so is everyone before they become president, CEO, veteran trader etc. The one thing that sucks is his leftism. But if you look at what he is saying about policy, he is actually quite pragmatic, like Clinton. He realises that doing a Kucinich will not only get him voted out in 4 years, but will also fuck up the country.
The US presidency is not an uber-powerful office, like say president of France, or prime minister in the UK. It's only really foreign/miitary policy where the president is ultra-powerful. Domestically, he is less powerful than Congress, and arguably not much more powerful than the judiciary. The US president does not get to make all policy, and take the country wherever he wants. IMO Obama's worst leftist excesses will be jettisoned by himself willingly, and much of the rest will be neutered by Congress. Whereas his personal skills, which even right-wingers cannot doubt, will be extremely useful if he wins. McCain would have no hope in hell of brokering some peace in the Middle East, or getting Pakistan or N Korea onside. He's more likely to start WWIII. Obama has the qualities to do that, and is more dynamic and less corrupt than Bill Clinton. He has more charisma than anyone since Reagan - and look what the Gipper did with the commies...sweet-talked them into surrender. If Obama could do something half as good in the Middle East, in China, Russia...he will be worth a vote.
Now maybe all this is BS, and he flops badly. But I suspect he'll be like Clinton, minus the cigar & blowjob. I.e. partisan Reps will criticize him til kingdom come, but the majority of the US will think he does a fairly decent job.
