During an interview that aired Monday on NBC’s “Today” show, President Obama said that he gets “better as time goes on” at his job and that he believes the grassroots movement that propelled him to victory in 2008 will help him win a second term.
“What’s frustrated people is that I’ve not been able to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008. Well, it turns out our Founders designed a system that makes it more difficult to bring about change than I would like sometimes. But what we have been able to do is move in the right direction,” Obama said.
“And you know what? One of the things about being president is you get better as time goes on,” he added.
The president defended his record, arguing that he has been successful despite his confrontations with Congress.
“We’ve been able to get a lot done. Not as fast as we want; sometimes it’s messy; the process is frustrating,” Obama said.
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
10 Responses
The proof will be when he learns the trick of stealing ideas from the opposition and tricking them into agreeing with him.
Remember that he did make law review at Harvard (and grading is anonymous, so there’s was no issue of affirmative action affecting grades), so he’s obviously clever. He might actually learn on the job. Well, it is possible.
Did you see those airborne hazerais?
“What’s frustrated people is that I’ve not been able to implement every aspect of what I said in 2008.”
Thank G-d for that! Why didn’t you finish the sentence? “And whatever I did implement is a disaster.”
He’s criticizing the “Founder’s system” for not allowing him to make the changes he likes?!? THAT system is the Constitution! Those are the rules of his job! Checks and balances so that no one establishes a dictatorship! What is he thinking?
I am everyday amazed at the brilliance of our founding fathers that designed this system years ago. It is working!
What better proof could there be of free speech in this country than the disrespectful clap trap found here?
And voseppes, if you knew and understood the difference between a parliamentary system and ours you would know (1) what the President is talking about; (2) that his point is not invalid; and (3) that political a great many scientists and historians agree with him.
In a parliamentary system, where the electorate votes for a party, and not an individual candiddate…and where the victorious party chooses the head of State, one cannot get into a divided government situation like we have here…one can get mired in plurality governments with unwieldy coalitions (like Israel), but that is a rarity.
Mr President, we don’t have more time for you to continue your on the job training!
The ego he has is colossal. The denial he has is incredible.
Uh, YonasonW, I think voseppes knows exactly what the difference between presidential and parliamentary systems of government. And that’s the whole point. There’s meant to be gridlock. As the late Senator Robert C. Byrd said regarding the perceived inefficiency of the Senate (filibusters, cloture, etc.):
“The Senate is often soundly castigated for its inefficiency, but in fact, it was never intended to be efficient. Its purpose was and is to examine, consider, protect, and be a totally independent source of wisdom and judgment on the actions of the lower house and on the executive.”
Thank yoi, Give Me a Break, for your defense. YonasonW, I am very aware of the dif. When someone advocates changing the system solely in order to push his agenda, that is going too far.
Akuperma – Harvard Law Review clearly states on its website that A) the majority of the editors don’t get there based on grades at all, and B) that they do have an affirmative action policy. Look at the current president of HLR.
Obama – Stupid? No. Clever? Who knows… The fact that he was HLR’s first AA president just means that he was at least the most qualified AA in Harvard at the time.