Leadership

[_Markk]

Policies aside.

After "the speech" last night I flipped back and forth between Fox, CNBC, and CNN and a common thread was he did not say anything new, and whether directly or indirectly he is not leading at all. It has been apparent for sometime he is not a leader. And our enemies certainly know this.

In the speech he told us it was a terrorist act...3 or 4 days after the world knew this.

He told the nation there are "growing efforts" by terrorists to "poison the minds" of people. Again we all know this?

There are many examples like this that make many folks wonder what the heck is going on. The first commentator I watched after his speech was Chris Mathews and his take was more or less "huh"...?

Anyways my question is why do you think he is, or is not a leader?

I am leaning on that he is just so far over his head, has no advisers that
have a clue, and too much pride to ask for help.

What say you?

[_ajax18]

In the speech he told us it was a terrorist act...3 or 4 days after the world knew this.

It's been hard for everyone on the left to admit this was a terrorist attack or even say those words. Hillary Clinton is still blaming gun control and Bernie Sanders is still blaming climate change.

I never expected leadership from someone who is the product of Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dorn, and Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He represents absolutely none of my interests as a working class white American, nor does the Democratic party.

[_Doctor Steuss]

When there's a mass shooting weekly in this country, did the rest of the world really immediately know that it was a terrorist attack?

[_The CCC]

When there's a mass shooting weekly in this country, did the rest of the world really immediately know that it was a terrorist attack?

One small correction. There has been more mass shootings in the US this year than days of the year. Do we expect any President to personally respond to each?

[_Markk]

When there's a mass shooting weekly in this country, did the rest of the world really immediately know that it was a terrorist attack?

The feds did within 12 hours of the attack. As soon as the bodies were identified, it was pretty much known, and identifying the bodies was the number one priority of the investigators after the scenes were secure . It did not take four days for the president to figure it out, or know it.

Even when he did respond he was rehashing talking points and seemed like it was a hassle to even be bothered.

Do you believe our current administration is doing a good job with the war on terror and are leading in an acceptable fashion?

[_Markk]

When there's a mass shooting weekly in this country, did the rest of the world really immediately know that it was a terrorist attack?

One small correction. There has been more mass shootings in the US this year than days of the year. Do we expect any President to personally respond to each?

I expect our president to lead and be on top of terrorist attacks in our country. He should've got his butt on a plane and been here supporting the investigation and victims...at least that is what I believe a leader should do.

[_Analytics]

I expect our president to lead and be on top of terrorist attacks in our country. He should've got his butt on a plane and been here supporting the investigation and victims...at least that is what I believe a leader should do.

If the President went to California to thoughtfully walk around the crime scene with a grim look on his face, have some photo ops with the victims, and give enraged speeches about how we were going to get the bad guys, an incredible amount of law-enforcement personnel would be distracted from the investigation and from actual law enforcement to assist with presidential security and the related zoo. It wouldn't actually help. Perhaps some people would fall for the grandstanding, but I suspect the haters would then see it for what it was.

[_Markk]

I expect our president to lead and be on top of terrorist attacks in our country. He should've got his butt on a plane and been here supporting the investigation and victims...at least that is what I believe a leader should do.

If the President went to California to thoughtfully walk around the crime scene with a grim look on his face, have some photo ops with the victims, and give enraged speeches about how we were going to get the bad guys, an incredible amount of law-enforcement personnel would be distracted from the investigation and from actual law enforcement to assist with presidential security and the related zoo. It wouldn't actually help. Perhaps some people would fall for the grandstanding, but I suspect the haters would then see it for what it was.

It would show leadership, that is what leaders do. If you do not get that, then nothing I can say will change your mind.

I am not sure how your logic works here, a leader would not care what haters think, but would lead and do the right thing. Are you saying the only reason Obama would show up would be to grandstand?

At any rate, I, and most people across the political spectrum do not believe we have a leaders on this issue.

[_honorentheos]

There was a video that circulated among my conservative Facebook friends that clearly showed President Obama introducing Russian President Medvedev to a line of people. The claim was that it showed President Obama being snubbed repeatedly by people who wouldn't even shake his hand when offered. It supports this underlying belief that no one in the world respects the President because he is weak. This thread is another example of seeing what one wants to see because one has already concluded that the President is weak, therefore his actions evidence this weakness whatever they may be.

[_Markk]

It is obvious that Obama is not respected as a leader. Bad people know he is all talk with no action.

I heard a interesting take from a pundit that Obama looks at the world the he wants it to be, and not like it actually is, which actually makes sense.