• Facebook
  • Twitter
Abbyrose86 On March - 14 - 2011

Too often when surfing the internet and visiting various blogs and other meeting sites, I read comments from ALL sides of the political divide,  that disparage President Obama’s leadership and or the leadership of other politicians and or powerful people.

These comments put forth by many has bothered me for quite some time, and NOT just when referring to President Obama, but others as well.  Most often when questioned to provide specific examples of what constitutes ‘leadership’ I rarely get a reply.IF, on the rare occasion someone did provide an answer to my inquiry, the answers were  more often than  not, very vague or ended up being exceptionally critical of one individual or another.  The few responses I received, didn’t provide REAL assessments of leaderships or didn’t provide specific examples of HOW leadership was not being shown.    As such, I’ve come to the conclusion that most people don’t KNOW what leadership entails or what actions, behaviors or innate qualities actually SHOW leadership or the different types of leadership techniques a particular individual may employ.

So back to the question…WHAT is leadership?  This question actually evokes more questions.  IS leadership definable or quantified?  Are there more than one definition of leadership?  What attributes constitute leadership? Is the concept subjective? ARE leaders made or born, or a combination of both?  What examples of effective leadership from history can be used to help us define the concept?

Leadership has been loosely defined by some, as the ability for an individual to influence or gain the support of others for a common gain.  Other definitions have included,  ability of one to successfully integrate and maximize available resources within the internal and external environment for the attainment of organizational or societal goals.  Another definition I’ve encountered is the ‘ability for an individual to inspire and influence others to the attainment of a dream.”

Merriam Webster is no help in defining the concept, as they simply define the word leadership as meaning, the ability or capacity to lead.  Further inquiry into what the word lead means, turns up the result; to guide on a way by going in advance; or to direct the operations, activity or performance; or to be first.  There were a few other definitions that Merriam Webster provide for the concept of lead, but they all pretty much provided the same basic concepts, without providing much detail as to what the concepts actually mean.

Various sources provide various meanings attached to the word and the concept, some with more detail than others.  SO, I would suggest the actual concept of leadership IS difficult to define and CAN be subjective based on many variables.

Leadership IS a difficult concept to define and is can have many differing aspects.  ONE can be an effective leader in SOME areas and not effective in others.  Throughout history, various leaders have employed various tactics to make decisions.  Some very effective  leaders have been authoritarian and others have sought the opinions of advisers or trusted others who they admired,  who may have had more knowledge than they or better instincts than they and made decisions accordingly.  While others have employed ‘gut instinct’ to lead their decision making process and others have relied on strategy based on analysis to guide their decisions.  Others have employed a combination of tactics at various times.  Some were just lucky that externalities played into their hands or worked in their favor.

Thus it seems there are various factors in play that influence an individuals ability to be a  leader and their ability bring people together for a common goal.   Innate natural abilities (charisma or to borrow a French phrase “je ne sais quo”, can be a factor).  Knowledge of a particular discipline or concept, attained from formal education or life learning, can be another.  Simply being in the ‘right place at the right time’ can be another. There have been many examples of people, under extreme duress or in extraordinary circumstances, who have found within themselves the ability to lead others out of harms way or help make something happen to benefit others, who have never exhibited leadership abilities before or since, but were able in THAT particular event, to muster the ability to lead.  There are examples in history and common lore, of people who were ‘born leaders’ and other examples point to education or nurturing as the reason for their leadership acumen.

Leadership, in my opinion, seems to be one of the social concepts that defies adequate definition.  As such, it falls under the category of  “I know it when I see it”.  However, that concept is highly subjective.  Other ideas that fall in that category, include pornography or racism.  Some people see those ideas in everything and others are more liberal in their personal perspectives of those same concepts, and are more or less willing to define a particular event of meeting their personal definition of those ideals.

Martin Luther King Jr. was a leader.  Mohandas Ghandi was a leader. John F. Kennedy was a leader.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a leader.  Gloria Steinem is a leader.  Lois Gibbs is a leader.  I would even go so far to say, Paul Krugman is a leader, as is Joseph Stiglitz and James Galbrath, or Micheal Moore among many others.  These individuals are often praised by those on the left for their leadership qualities and their methods or ideas.   HOWEVER, they ALL employed or employ different leadership concepts and did not ALL follow the same ideology or methodology for achieving their goals.

Other famous and EFFECTIVE political leaders, who have come from other political ideologies, include Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Joseph Stalin, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Vladmir Lenin, Ronald Reagan, as well as the Dalia Lama, Nelson Mandela, Winston Churchill, Malcolm X, Pope John Pope the II, and Teddy Roosevelt.  Again to name but a few, we could even add Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck and Michelle Bachmann, to this list as they TOO technically qualify as leaders, even George W. Bush qualifies as a leader.

Business leaders, too, come from a variety of backgrounds and ideologies AND employ different methods to LEAD their flocks.   From modern business leaders such as Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Steve Jobs and Donald Trump to the robber barons and other business leaders o(both legal and illegal) of the early 20th century, such as John Jacob Astor, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and even Al Capone.  Leaders come in many shapes, sizes and ideals.

WE can even add the different types of monarchs to the list, such as Middle eastern Emirs and Russian Tsars, and other kings and queens, and Emperors, Pharaohs throughout the ages who have employed different EFFECTIVE leadership styles as well as ineffective styles.

Regardless of the methods or  STYLE of ANY leader throughout history or today, the one thing that is fallacious and VERY disingenuous to suggest is that these people WEREN’T leaders.  Like him, love him or have indifference to him….BARRACK OBAMA is a leader.  Whether you like his leadership STYLE or disagree with his methods or conclusions….arguing that he IS NOT a leader or doesn’t possess leadership abilities or isn’t effective is simply not true and not an honest assessment of what he has accomplished or is attempting to accomplish.  His style may not be the same authoritarian, cowboyish, ‘my way or the highway’ type of leader that was  employed by his predecessor OR as aggressive and and experimental as FDR was, (as much as I admire FDR, I acknowledge he as just HUMAN and had his own negative attributes).

Obama has HIS own style and methods for dealing with issues.  Does he and his staff always have the ‘right answers’ or does he always make decisions that people of ALL AMERICAN’S like?  No.  Does he make decisions that his ‘base’ don’t like?  YES.  Is that a part of leadership?  MOST definitely.


As leadership is such a subjective concept and provides many definitions and ideas to quantify what the term entails, I think we need to have a discussion as to what WE on the progressive side of the political spectrum want from those we appoint as leaders of our cause or ideals.

Do we want an authoritarian leader who simply extols the ‘my way or the highway’ method of leadership OR do we wish to wish to follow those who are willing to listen to various perspectives and ideas when making decisions?  DO we, as a whole, want a leader that is pragmatic and who thinks of what is possible to attain? OR do we want a leader who tries to attain the impossible, to make us feel good?  Do we want a leader who is willing to make unpopular decisions or do we want a ‘yes’ man?

WHAT kind of leader does the Left want?  What kind of leader does the MAJORITY of the American people want?  Are the two the same? What kind of leader does America need?

These are the questions I think we all need to ask ourselves, before we simply deride any type of leader or leadership style.



Enhanced by Zemanta

Written by Abbyrose86

For the last 21 years, I worked in international trade as a licensed customs broker, international freight forwarder and international trade consultant. I ended up in that business after having studied Journalism and communication in college. (Strange how that worked) Over the last 3 years I have been trying to change my life and my career, so I left my job, returned to school and am on the last leg of completing my Bachelor's of Science in Business Administration and Economics, and am planning on going on for my masters in International Business. It might seem odd that I decided to formally study the business I was in for 21 years...but there is a reason for that... I hope to teach and write on the subject in the future. I'm a mother of 2 young adults and have many hobbies; reading, researching, writing, blogging, decorating, are my current favorites.

83 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. Cory111 says:

    Hi Abby,

    It’s nice seeing you over here.


  2. exPatPatti says:

    Great, thought provoking post Abby.

    Especially this:
    “Like him, love him or have indifference to him….BARRACK OBAMA is a leader. Whether you like his leadership STYLE or disagree with his methods or conclusions….arguing that he IS NOT a leader or doesn’t possess leadership abilities or isn’t effective is simply not true and not an honest assessment of what he has accomplished or is attempting to accomplish.”

    Well said and I absolutely agree.

  3. agrippa says:

    Obama does have his own style; and, it starts with ‘play with the cards you have been dealt’. Look at what he has inherited; inlude in that list the woeful state of the two parties. The Democrats are a disorganized and fractious coalition of politicians ( a politician’s first characteristic is ‘does not work well with others) who don’t like each other very much.

    The GOP is being run, in fact by the RW and politicans from the deep South. The same faction ( who are now GOP) that FDR had to placate to get anything done.

    It is a wonder anything got done at all considring the woeful state of Congress.

    And, hardly anyone actually elects them, as 40 to 60% of the eligible voters do not vote.
    What kind of leader does America want? Most neither know nor care. Most will tolerate just about anything.

    What kind of leader does America need? It does not need one. Americans need to wake up; to pay attention; to learn about government; to learn about politics, current events and history. That would be a good start.

  4. fredamae says:

    Just to simplify: I want the leader Candidate Obama said he was; Not the “leader” he has become.
    I want less BS, more frankness and honesty. We can handle the truth.

    For me, this Pres has moved too far center right; or was dishonest during the campaign about where he really stood.
    The continual compromising is not right. Sometimes compromise is simply Not acceptable, especially the terrible tax cuts he signed off on while at the same time Raising taxes on the lowest wage earners.
    This is simply not right. I wish he would have listened to the people who objected, not to mention the Public Option…….

    • biznesschic says:

      Respectfully, I have to disagree. I can promise my granddaughter a trip to Disneyland, however, If I lose my business, it has to wait. In her mere 12 years, she would not like the grandmother I had “become”, when she gets a little older, she understands.

      Our president has managed to pass the most liberal policies since FDR, with a hostile congress, frightened blue dogs, and impatient “progressives” The problem with progressives is their definition of “liberal”. We true liberals define progress as a step in the right director, not necessarily winning the race. Sadly, by some of the so called “progressives” standards of progress, Lincoln would have been scorned, because the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in hostile territory, but didn’t include full voting rights.

      I no longer call myself progressive, but a proud liberal. We liberals have a history of dying for what we believe, and not wait around for one guy to give it to us. I take back the name with pride, as other have paid their blood, to leave me the name.

  5. Smedley Butler says:

    Thanks Abbyrose for a great and thought provoking article.

    Our system is suffering from basic fundamental failures. Voices asking basic questions, discussing fundamental issues and concepts are needed today more than ever.

    If you’d like I would be glad to seed your article to MSNBC Newsvine.

    • Abbyrose86 says:

      Thanks Smedley! I was hoping to start a dialogue on leadership and what it means to different people, when I posted this.

      I think that we, especially those on the left, need to define what WE want in our leaders and what we are REALLY looking for from them.

      DO we just want the liberal version of “W”?? Or do we want a leader who actually extols the values that the left espouses?

      I think we need to question what WE want and come to some consensus, both for the short term and the long term before we can HONESTLY get the leader we want and GET him/her elected.

  6. KillgoreTrout says:

    “When the country is ruled with a light hand
    The people are simple.
    When the country is ruled with severity,
    The people are cunning.

    Happiness is rooted in misery.
    Misery lurks beneath happiness.
    Who knows what the future holds?
    There is no honesty.
    Honesty becomes dishonest.
    Goodness becomes witchcraft.
    Man’s bewitchment lasts a long time.

    Therefore the sage is sharp but not cutting,
    Pointed but not piercing,
    Straightforward but not unrestrained,
    Brilliant but not blinding.”

    Lao Tsu

  7. KillgoreTrout says:

    It ticks me off when those on the right try to smear Obama by saying, “he’s just a community organizer,” Well, isn’t America to be considered as a huge community?
    I think skill in organizing a community is a really essential in leading a nation, state or city.

    • Big Al says:

      A Community Organizer has been given the task of cleaning up one of America’s most difficult times. I believe he is doing a decent job with what he inherited. Would I have liked him do do more, yes of course, but I’m not the one in charge. Who knows what our leaders really know when campaigning and than what they know once in leadership. Let’s not forget also that our last President had an MBA from Harvard and in what condition did he leave the country in.

    • choicelady says:

      Around my neck of the woods, the response has been:

      “Pontius Pilot was a Governor. Jesus was a community organizer.”

      Tends to make the RW steam. Worth it, just for that.

    • For America and Roosevelt says:

      “ Community organizer ” means “ you know, those people ”. It’s the new version of “ welfare queen ”.

    • Abbyrose86 says:

      @Kilgore….Excellent point! A normal, rational person would think that the skills one hones as a Community organizer would be necessary for a political leader!

      Sadly, they don’t seem to understand that!

      • KillgoreTrout says:

        abby, the number of things they don’t understand is staggering. They actually think it’s a put down.
        I often see this when righties try to compare Palin to Obama. Invariably they say, “well, Palin was a governor and a mayor, and Obama was just a community organizer.”
        It would anger me to no end, if I allowed it.

        • Truth says:

          Killgore, especially for you: [img][/img]

          • KillgoreTrout says:

            Thanks Truth! A very big NOPE!

          • Buddy McCue says:

            The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin is a book I won’t be reading, but I find the Amazon page kind of funny.

            It’s a book by Joe McGinniss that purports to be a “startling and penetrating examination of the illusion and reality of Palin.”

            What amused me was the list of “Tags Customers Associate with This Product.” The ones on the first page are:

            unfit for office
            narcissistic personality disorder
            third rate reality show actress
            fake hunter
            unfit mother
            bad mother


            • KillgoreTrout says:

              That IS funny buddy. And every bit of it true.

            • jkkFL says:

              Hey Buddy,
              What’s wrong with the list?
              You jsut described 2/3 of the GOP, and they think they’re ok!! (Actually, they think they’re role models :)

            • Abbyrose86 says:

              OH Buddy…that was very funny, thanks for sharing.

          • For America and Roosevelt says:

            Seeing Russia from America’s doorstep,
            Hearing Real America singing,
            Alaska’s North Star is
            Restoring freedom – a
            Triumph of the Will!

            Contribute your Sarah Palin shart acrostic today!

          • Abbyrose86 says:

            @Truth…seeing that poster almost make me throw up a little.

        • Abbyrose86 says:

          KT…no doubt, they are a very naive lot!

          I’m sometimes so baffled by their silly arguments, that all I can do is laugh. Otherwise I would simply go postal! :)

          • Artist50 says:

            Abby -- I’m with you. I’m a very patient person in life ( how else could I live with 100 sorority girls) but I find myself steaming at the RW arguments that hold no logic. Thank god I found this place before I stroked out!

            • Smedley Butler says:

              I just thought this might be a good place to mention that I have the patience of a saint and an always willing to help a friend should you need someone to watch the Sorority girls while you take a well earned two week vacation.

        • jkkFL says:

          KT, apologies..St Wasilla was a half-governor, thereby decreasing her total value by 50%.
          Thanks :)
          BTW- agree.

  8. Sabreen60 says:

    Thanks Abby for this very thought provoking post.

    BTW, I did send an email to the White House to suggest that someone needs to be reading PlanetPOV. Hopefully they already are.

  9. KQuark says:

    Great post Abby. Two other points about leaders. Some leaders are not recognized in their time and leaders words are usually far ahead of their actions because their actions are muffled by the basic conservative nature of people.

    I think Lincoln was the best leader this country ever had and he was the most hated American president in his time by far obviously. But not just in the south but in the North as well. Radical Republicans who were more like the progressives of today hated much of what Lincoln was doing because they thought he acted slowly on freeing the slaves and prosecuting the war on the South. Read the reactions from abolitionists after Lincoln’s first inaugural address when he tried to reach out to the South. Lincoln made constant attempts at what we would call bipartisanship today when selecting Democrats in his cabinet. Hell he picked Andrew Johnson, a Democrat as his running mate the second time just so he could smooth over things with the South when the war was over.

    We are in a cold civil war today with both ideological ends of the political spectrum vehemently hate the moderates and pragmatist. It’s happening on the right with the teaparty hating any politician that does want to start a revolution to make this country a libertarian paradise and with many on the left who want to make this a socialist Utopia. I hear constantly means justify ends rationalizations from both sides.

    Of course lost in the moment is what Obama has actually accomplished so far. One of my biggest arguments to illustrate healthcare was a right was to point to the studies that showed the lack of access to our healthcare system in this country caused tens of thousands of Americans to needless die due to not getting treatment mostly because they did not have insurance coverage. It is in fact our greatest humanitarian crisis in this country. That’s why I stated over and over that Universal Healthcare coverage was the goal. Again if the ACA is implemented successfully that will be Obama’s biggest legacy at least domestically and on no other issue when it came down to the time ACA was all but dead (lest we not forget many progressives wanted it dead as well) he led and passed the ACA with Pelosi and Reid. Of course I could be totally wrong because we are in the present, future events could change everything and the history of this president’s legacy is yet to be written.

    • For America and Roosevelt says:

      Oh, of course, it’s KQuark! I’m starting to notice we agree a lot. :)
      I have made the same comparison with Lincoln for the past year – it is one I find rather, er, deeply uplifting and moving. The letter to the New York Tribune, 22 August 1862, is one of my favourite items in my cut-and-paste Obamabox – I think every word of it is as true of our current President as of Lincoln.

      I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.

      I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.


      • bito says:

        Roosevelt, that is one of my favorite quotes. Do we want to elect people to be so ideological that they cannot see circumstances change and it requires a modification for a solution that best serves the country? From one of your previous comments about pragmatism, I can look back at some very foolish notions I have had because of both ignorance and ideology. Seeing only in black and white is not using one’s full abilities.

        • Abbyrose86 says:

          One of the things I believe made Roosevelt such an effective leader, was that HE wasn’t a strict ideologue and was more interested in results.

          I also think his background and ‘insider’ knowledge of the elite (as HE WAS one of them) helped him KNOW how to handle THEM. The elite of the time, DID consider him a traitor to his ‘kind’ and were not his greatest fans.

          I think that is one of the things that hurts Obama, he is NOT of their class, and as such even though he is a self made man and has attained the same educational credentials that THEY have…he is not one of ‘them’ and is not able to play the game the way FDR was able to do.

          • KQuark says:

            Exactly Social Security was a huge compromise. It did not cover professions that were dominated by women and minorities and at the time did not even cover most federal workers. As far as being universal it covered far less workers than the ACA does today when fully implemented.

            I also agree with your “one of them” hypothesis.

            • Abbyrose86 says:

              KQ…you bring up an excellent point…it wasn’t the system we have today, when it was first unveiled. IT has evolved, as does much or most of our legislation.

              Side note, some of FDR’s ideas put forth in the beginning of the New Deal, didn’t make it past the SCOTUS of the time…who were VERY conservative. FDR’s New Deal, met with many defeats from the SCOTUS in the early years of his presidency. As luck and time would have it, FDR was able to replace those VERY conservative members with those more to his liking and by the end of his presidency had succeeded in replacing ALL of them, with judges of HIS liking.

  10. Personally, I would prefer a leader that does not give away bargaining points before he gets to the negotiation table.

    I guess I am looking for a better poker player. I thought Obama had a decent poker face, but he seems to prefer letting everyone know what he’s holding when the cards are dealt.

    • audadvnc says:

      Say, did you catch that rousing pro-labor speech Vice President Biden gave in Madison last Saturday? Now THAT’s leadership. Have you ever heard such a rousing stem-winder, that hit all the right notes? Isn’t that what you’d expect from the Hope and Change leadership of our country? Seriously, did you hear his speech?

      Neither did I…

    • Truth says:

      That’s what Hillary and McCain thought too… 😆

  11. Chernynkaya says:

    Abby--great post! I have chores today and will wait to give this the comment it deserves.

    • Abbyrose86 says:

      @Cher, Thanks. I really wanted to open up a discussion as to what do PEOPLE and especially the left want from our leaders.

      I think there are so many different perspectives and concepts that many believe equates to a good leader, that is causing some added friction, to an already contentious situation.

      IF we don’t all WANT the same kind of leadership or if WE all have different definitions of what a good leader means….and WE don’t discuss are different ideas…how can we EVER hope to seek consensus and thus find the leaders we want?

  12. kesmarn says:

    Interesting subject, Abby, and thanks for bringing it up.

    I rarely try to define things in terms of negatives, but in this case, I think there are a few traits that would raise red flags in terms of a leader’s trustworthiness:

    1. An unwillingness to take personal risks for “the cause.” Throwing others under the bus instead.

    2. An interest in getting personally rich.

    3. Lack of a healthy sense of humor. Only finding humor in other peoples’ misfortune.

    Any or all of the above is reason to run top speed in the opposite direction of any purported “leader.”

  13. SequimBob2 says:

    Hi, Abby. Good topic.

    Leadership is standing for something bigger than yourself. Sometimes leadership is standing up and saying, “Follow me,” the classic Infantry leadership motto. Sometimes it can be saying nothing at all, but leading by example, by following a moral code and not asking of others what you would not do yourself. Leadership is telling the truth when speaking the truth is difficult. Leadership is communicating clearly, convincingly and being willing to put the country’s (or others’) interests ahead of your own. Leadership is inspiring people to do what they did not think they could achieve.

  14. ADONAI says:

    Put simply, a leader is anyone who can convince people to follow them. I think the definition of a “good leader” is transient. Changing depending on the situation we are looking to be led from or to.

    There are some qualities that most people agree on as far as leadership. Confidence, intelligence, moral certitude, and, most importantly, similar religious beliefs.

    What kind of leader am I looking for? Well, what kind of leader would I be? In a word: ruthless. America needs to be ruled by an iron-fisted tyrant for awhile. Not the pretend ones we claim are in charge now, but the real deal. An actual fascist state. I just want to see what the people who call this place a fascist state everyday would do if they found themselves in an actual fascist state. I bet it doesn’t go well.

    That’s what America needs. Perspective.

    • Smedley Butler says:

      I agree about the nature of leadership. it’s simply the act of a person leading, I’m not evn sure if followers are necessary. If you’re playing a game of follow the leader and the followers miss a turn and get lost your still the leader.

      You only have to wait as long as now to see how people react to a fascist state. The difference you might see between here and a “real” fascist state is only a matter of degree just as comparing here to a “real” Democracy would be.

    • KillgoreTrout says:

      Adonai, what do you mean by, “a fascist state?” Do you mean a centralized government that runs our corporations, or do you mean a totalitarian state, run by a dictator?

      I think a good leader should not be a hardcore leftist or a right wing fanatic. A good leader should be liberal when an issue requires a liberal approach, and conservative when an issue requires a conservative approach.
      Locking a leader into one political philosophy or another is a sure way to stagnation.

      • ADONAI says:

        KT -- Well, you can’t really have a fascist state anymore without some form of totalitarianism. It’s a small step from authoritarianism. Since the early 20th century, anyways. Fascism kinda went hard right then. It’s not classical fascism, I know, but it’ll work in a pinch!

        I agree with the flexible leader part. But I would favor the one who leaned to the left on most issues. Liberals have always been concerned with people, and conservatives are concerned with property.

        • KillgoreTrout says:

          Adonai, fascism has always been far right. The term fascist is derived from Mussolini’s Fascisti Party that was established in 1922.
          Hitler was so impressed by it, that he used fascist principles in his National Socialist organization, in other words, the NAZI party.
          As far as flexibility is concerned, I stand by my comment.

    • KQuark says:

      Sorry AD we are at odds again.

      Two steps backwards does not even equal three steps forward let alone the the two plus steps forward we need.

      Americans have perspective, the election of an African American by over 10MM votes proved that, we need more discernment.

      • ADONAI says:

        KQ, People didn’t elect Obama to be their President. They elected him to be their nanny. Their babysitter.

        And we have plenty of time to “improve the country”. I just want to whip these loud babies into shape before we do.

    • coffeegod says:

      Didn’t this kind of leadership just end in ’09?

      Dubyah’s regime is as close to a fascist state as I ever want to experience. We were fed the ‘news’ they wanted us to hear. Laws were passed for ‘our own good’. The ‘Homeland’ became secure via an act. I waited for brown to become the new…whatever. ‘Christianity’ became the law of the land.

      I am at a loss for answers. I can’t even begin to figure out what will pull this country from the cesspool in which it now languishes. You may just be correct, Adonia…may the gods help us if you are.

Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories