HA HA, I just can't stop saying(c).........

[PackWest]

The point isn't that Obama "sucks", it's that he's been divisive.

Why don't you give us a list of super-duper awesome presidents that haven't been divisive ? Bwah !

I'll hang up and listen while laughing my divisive ass off

[TerpEagle]

And they lay out a pretty good case IMO.

Now I'm sure someone like terp will say this poll means only that all republicans are racist this has nothing to do with Obama's policies...

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...er-gallup-says

Well, I've never stated all Republicans are racist. I'm much like Eric Holder in that regard but you seem to think otherwise.

It's not surprising that Obama is the most polarizing. It's extremely naive to think that some of it isn't due to race but it's not all of it. Left/right polarization is a major part of it. But it isn't just Obama's policies. It's the ideologies of two sides that choose to hold absolutist positions.

You imply that Obama's policies cause the polarization. Well that must mean that a large group of people like them. If not, then it wouldn't be polarized. Everyone would just dislike him.

Cut to approval rating.

Part of the reason his rating is low is because there are progressive that think he'd given too much away. And conservatives think he's given nothing.

[Riccardo]

This is an endless cycle

This has already been covered in the previous deleted threads. Of course Obama or Holder won't say everyone that opposes Obama is racist - but the implication is clear - if you do oppose him you MIGHT be racist. It's a blatant tactic to squash opposition. And you bring it up yet again below with the assertion that the tea party is racist and surely would have never existed if just Obama was white. Absolute nonsense.

And yes I believe much of the polarization is due to his policies. I have no idea what you're trying to argue above as it makes no sense - dems like his policies, repubs don't. Isn't that the definition of polarization? It's exactly what the poll shows.

[Riccardo]

So yeah, your article sucks and it's ridiculous to hold up the people that wrote it as some sort of "even his own guys think he sucks" premise.

This sums up the left's "argument" perfectly. Your argument/analysis/facts "suck", or are "wrong", etc. And how do I prove it? With a factual counter-argument? No, because I said so. Or because your source is worthless. It's a lazy, insipid, anti-intellectual attitude. How about presenting a cogent argument - from any source - that Obama has been a uniter? That shouldn't be too difficult if the notion that he is divisive is "ridiculous". Good luck.

[T.D-Bag]

Hey Ricci who said this after winning their 2nd term??

"The people made it clear what they wanted," he said. "I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and I intend to spend it.".... Doesn't sound like some who would compromise....

PBO Doesn't get the same consideration??? why not??