Harry Reid is right about Obama.

[branders seine]

Harry Ried said, "He is a person who doesn't like confrontation. He's a peacemaker," in an interview with Las Vegas television station KSNV. "Sometimes I think you have to be a little more forceful. And sometimes I don't think he is tough enough with the Republicans. On a few occasions, I think he should have been more firm with those on the other side of the aisle," he said.

I agree with Reid. I don't read anything there I take the slightest exception to.

Despite Reid's own lack of forcefulness in dealing with Senate rapublicans, his point is valid. Dismissing his point by criticizing his (hypocritical) behavior is an ad hominem tu quoque logical fallacy.

[Subdivisions]

1. Just happen to be watching Harry on Big Ed right now. And I agree. And

what about Gibbs? He said we're going to lose seats in November.

[Winterblues]

19. No he did not..

He said we could lose the House, not that we would lose the House.

[VMI Dem]

2. If there is one thing a milquetoast can do, its recognize a fellow milquetoast.

[Donnachaidh]

3. Mr. Limpet's Family Reunion. n/t

[Subdivisions]

5. Yea, when ole Harry was blabbin' about Obama not being tough

enough, I was thinking ole Harry could grow some nuts his ownself.

[tridim]

4. I'm pretty sure most people here agree that it's valid

Proper constructive criticism is always a good thing.

[griffi94]

6. reid may not be any better at standing up to the repubs than obama

but the differece is reid also didn't win a sweeping national mandate to get the country back
on what a majority of voters perceived as the right track.

[SargeUNN]

14. again check at all the back downs of Reid

that has blocked bills that the house passed, and nominations. The biggest obstical in getting things done is the SENATE with Reid in charge.

[AnArmyVeteran]

18. How has Reid been able to win any elections? He's a weak 'leader'.

Reid just caved to the republicans when he should have forced the senate to cancel their 4th of July recess and vote for the unemployment compensation package. Reid is the king of compromise without getting a single republican vote. I know five people on my neighborhood block who could easily lead better than Reid. It's almost funny how the king of meekness is telling Obama to be more forceful. I think they both should start to be forceful if they want to deliver on all that change that was promised. You can't change anything if you constantly give in to the enemy.

[mmonk]

7. He's pretty tough on those on the left.

[Karmadillo]

9. He sure kicked ass on the single-payer faction.

nt

[branders seine]

13. yeah, but they are just

fucking r***rds.

They have been plenty forceful in going after the left generally, supporters of single payer, those opposed to the continuing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, those who believe the bush cabal should be held accountable, and anyone advocating for return of the civil liberties we lost over the last 8 years.

(Not to mention journalists trying to cover the real clean-up in the Gulf, although that hasn't been Obama personally.)

[sendero]

8. Peacemaker..

... is not the term I'd use, milquetoast is a lot closer.

Making peace is fine but not at the expense of your agenda.

[jobycom]

10. I agree partially about Obama, but not necessarily about reid.

I don't think Reid is all that weak. I think he's ineffective, but not because he is afraid of confrontation. I think he's unimaginative, and he has served mostly in a minority position so he doesn't know how to direct his power. He's used to having to compromise to get anything, and he doesn't know how to use his muscle.

I think Obama is just inexperienced at executive power. He's a legislator who has never held a real position of leadership. He's learned to be a concensus builder, because that's how you lead in a legislature. As an executive you have to know when not to compromise, and how to compromise from power. You dictate terms and give up just enough to make the other person feel like they haven't lost completely. I don't think Obama's too weak or too nice to do it, I think he's just never had to do it, so he doesn't have the skill.

That's actually why I haven't given up on him. He's accomplished some things through concensus building, and he does have a tough streak. If he learns to direct that tough streak, he could be a heckuva leader. Even a concensus builder can be a strong leader, but there's a different art to it. I think Obama has to develop his own style, and it may take a while longer. So I think he should have done more, and he's given up too much on a lot of things, but I don't think he's a write-off yet. He could be a good second half quarterback still.

Just my opinion. Probably wrong, as always. Someone will likely tell me why, too. :)

[branders seine]

11. +1

Oustanding observations. :-)

[SargeUNN]

12. Harry was half right

Yes Obama needs to forget about trying to win over Republicans but the half Harry left out was Harry needs to quit whimping out an stand up even more. Look at how many bills are sitting that the House passed but Harry isn't working on getting them active, look at how a Republican threatens to filibuster Harry doesn't say ok let's bring out the cots. No he just says oh well that will be considered filibustered. Harry is trying to pass the buck for how own jellyfish being.

[branders seine]

15. Harry sucks, but what he said about Obama is 100% right.

[Robeson]

22. Edit: wrong place.

[Skittles]

16. sucking up to repukes = peacemaker

riiiiiiiight

[dflprincess]

21. Sounds more like "appeaser" to me

they could both give Neville Chamberlain lessons.

[Cleita]

17. Harry needs to look inward first before he criticizes

anyone else about being non-confrontational. He could start by changing the Senate rules and ending the filibuster. Apparently, it is within his powers to do so. In blaming Obama, he is finding a scapegoat for his own short comings.

[bvar22]

20. It takes one...

....to know one.

[Robeson]

23. Harry should have included himself, too.