Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Why was Obama so polarizing? From the other side of the pond he looked like a garden variety politician from whom you could expect… well, the expected.

I know that there is an accusation from the US left that all of the right’s obstruction and hostility was just barely concealed racism, but I assume that many in the GOP are not just frothing racists and do have some thought out issue with his actions.

How was Obama more polarizing than, say, Bill Clinton? I remember W being polarizing because he came off as a mouth breather, but Obama just seemed so bland.




> How was Obama more polarizing than, say, Bill Clinton?

When it comes to drone strikes on American citizens: he was the judge, jury and executioner, all that without charges or prosecution, just by saying "they're not really citizens because they are now 'enemy combatants' which BTW does not grant protection under the Geneva Convention and does not require a formal declaration of war either because... reasons?"

We have separation of powers, laws and due process for good reasons. All this rubbed me the wrong way.


Was this a polarizing issue in the sense that extreme approval and disapproval of drone strikes on American citizens is mirrored between Republican and Democrat voters? Or, perhaps voters are more likely to be forgiving when their side is in charge? I'm not commenting on drone strikes. But, in either case I don't see this issue popping up as a frequent answer to why people thought Obama was polarizing.


Relative to his predecessor and successor's activities, focusing on Obama's drone strikes has always felt like a deep cut. Something people bring up when they need to search for a reason not to like someone that reflects on their principles rather than their emotions.


Remember that they impeached Clinton, over sex, after an investigation into his financial affairs went nowhere. The goal was impeachment; the reason would come later.

For Obama, they had his race, and that was sufficient. Not every Republican is a frothing racist, but they're certainly happy to appeal to the frothing racists. But at core, it was simply that he was a Democrat. Democrats are inherently polarizing because they are not Republicans, and the reasons come later.


Obama did take a number of jabs at "country folks" for instance his "cling to guns and religion" comments.

Some minority of people didn't care for his race undoubtedly. But also he was a liberal community organizer from Chicago at the head of a bright new rainbow coalition of social justice (in theory, in practice not so much) and many traditionalists just didn't care for that whole image.

As far as president, he was a good speaker but that's about as far as it went.

He didn't do much of the stuff he said he would, the wars went right on, he weaponized agencies against his political opponents, no radical social justice was achieved, growth in GDP during his time was basically deficit spending (ditto for Trump). He really wasn't as good as people think, he just talked nicely.

To be fair talking nicely seems to be the majority of the job. I'm unsure how much we can really credit or blame a president for the state of the world and even what the government does during their presidency.


I always thought it was weird that "community organizer" was so often used as a pejorative against Obama, someone running for political office. It's like criticizing a writer for being a grammar nerd.


Because Obama and Co castigated anyone who disagreed with policy as a racist. Also Joe Biden during the 2012 campaign said that Mitt Romney wants "to put y'all back in chains"


I think it's a mistake to assume that there are only "frothing racists" or "normal people" - the spectrum is a lot broader and has a broad impact (on politics, and elsewhere), as well as 2nd order effects.




Join us for AI Startup School this June 16-17 in San Francisco!

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: