Should NYU faculty and their dependent children receive full tuition remission?
So far, President Obama has been an all-around disappointment. His most important accomplishment is not accomplishing anything, and he has an infantile tendency to try to silence, ignore and/or castigate anyone who disagrees with him — as if the critics of George W. Bush weren't equally, if not more, virulent than Obama's critics.
But there is more than meets the eye in this lackluster presidency.
Unfortunately, while the "Obama Show" looks like it's about to be canceled due to low ratings, "Everybody Loves Hillary" might make a comeback due to popular demand. Don't get me wrong, I don't find either sitcom the least bit funny, but the network is failing and there's not much of a choice.
But seriously — Hillary Clinton has suddenly become the most evasive person in Obama's cabinet. Sure, she gives an interview here and there, but other than that she hasn't made a peep on any substantial issue. She appears to be the rat that's got away from the sinking ship.
If things keep going the way they're going, I predict that one of two things will happen. One: By 2012, Obama will be so unpopular that the Democrats will vote to have Clinton run instead of him. Two (and this is more likely): A Republican (assuming there will be one more exciting than a dead toenail) will beat Obama and allow Clinton to run in 2016.
Now, I know that the liberal psychos will come out of the woodwork and say that I don't know what I'm talking about. I've heard it before. But mark my words, Clinton will run again for the presidency and, deep down, is hoping Obama fails.
You don't think so?
We all know the name Clinton is synonymous with ego, and they would sell Chelsea to the Chinese for another four years inside the White House, not just to be near it.
Who else in the Democratic Party has a chance at the presidency? Gavin Newsom? Nancy Pelosi? Possibly, but it's more likely that Clinton will be president of the United States. She knows it, and she's not an idiot. She's keeping her mouth shut and her ego in check. She's stepping back from the spotlight and letting this pathetic excuse for a president have his embarrassing 15 minutes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Clinton, and I don't pander to either party. I am an individual who thinks for himself, not for somebody who tells me he can give me change by blindly worshiping a false idol. My words are harsh because few people speak truth to power, especially at Nouveau York University. This country needs more heated words, because while the sheep are grazing, their barn is burning.
And even though I disagree with Clinton on a range of issues, I believe she can turn this country around. She has an ego, yes, but it's not a fragile ego like Obama's. Obama is like a naive, young college graduate, running the country with grandiose plans that have neither backbone nor specific objectives on how to efficiently and effectively carry out those plans without becoming a dictator. Instead of tackling issues, he lets them fester, and singles out people and organizations like Fox News for all the woes he faces. This is something Bill Clinton or Bush would never do, regardless of what you think about them, and it's something that Clinton, or any competent person, wouldn't do either.
Sulayman
Oct 27, 2009
4:34 a.m.
No, I don't think so.
Clinton is making a presence, she's often seen on international TV news. I've seen her discussing Africa issues, meeting with Zardari and Karzai, and Russian ambassadors and presiding over meetings at the UN. Not being on Wolf Blitzer's show doesn't mean she's "evasive." Agreeing with the administration and talking about AIDS in Africa is boring the media, so they ignore her. Last I saw her make a news headline in America was when a question to her was misinterpreted and she interpreted it as something like a bribe.
Obama is less like a college graduate and more like a wise professor. The man knows his issues cold, his press conferences are filled with information and clear policy, a breath of fresh air compared to his predecessor Bush.
irina
Oct 27, 2009
5:32 p.m.
loool
dave
Oct 27, 2009
9:49 a.m.
The writer has demonstrated an obvious lack of understanding of how governance works in hard times. Rash comments of the likes of Ian and the far-right stand in the sharpest contradistinction to the qualities of a thoughtful president.
Ned
Oct 27, 2009
10:26 a.m.
"Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of Clinton, and I don't pander to either party. I am an individual who thinks for himself, not for somebody who tells me he can give me change by blindly worshiping a false idol. My words are harsh because few people speak truth to power, especially at Nouveau York University. This country needs more heated words, because while the sheep are grazing, their barn is burning."
Hahahahahahahahaha
irina
Oct 27, 2009
5:31 p.m.
I love Ian Nelson. Best columnist and devastatingly handsome. Obama sucks!
Jordan and Alex
Oct 27, 2009
8:52 p.m.
We have found the writing of Ian Nelson to be repeatedly offensive and ill informed. We believe that every writer has the right to publish their own opinion yet there is a difference between informed opinion and nonsensical ranting (hogwash). We believe this to be hogwash and we also believe that this is self-evident. We can't even tell you how many times we scoffed when we read this. It's terrible. It's ignorant. And it's downright offensive.
As politically active and informed students we are also offended by the newspaper's inclination to print such juvenile and sophomoric material. There are clearly better educated and more talented writers at NYU and the staff should make a more concerned effort to appeal to those people.
We recommend that the newspaper drop Ian Nelson and set him up with a Twitter account, where his ranting will be on par and limited to 140 characters.
Maria
Oct 27, 2009
11:33 p.m.
Say what you want about the Clintons, but even their harshest critics agree that they have been excellent parents to Chelsea. Former First Lady, Laura Bush, said recently how much she admired the job they did raising Chelsea. She even said she was grateful to them because their insistence that the press allow Chelsea some privacy helped paved the way for the Bush twins and Obama daughters. The notion that the Clintons would sacrifice their daughter for power is ludicrous. If you are going to hurl insults, at least make them reasonable.
Dan
Oct 28, 2009
1:27 a.m.
Best joke article I've read in a while.
Andrew
Nov 03, 2009
3:04 p.m.
Do you have any evidence for your beliefs other than insane assumptions about Clinton's or Obama's personal character? Your articles are poorly written and reasoned pieces of dribble and while on one level I hope that NYU is providing you with mental health support, I'm aware that doing so would be a complete waste.
Complete hogwash.
Ellie
Nov 03, 2009
8:06 p.m.
Ian, you put a lot of emphasis on the egos of Obama and Clinton, as if this is some sort of fatal flaw. Come on...obviously, they have egos, and those egos are necessary. Anyone who believes they should be President of the United States must have an ego. It just comes with the territory.
Oh, and I think you should do a bit more research before you make absurd claims, like "they would sell Chelsea to the Chinese for another four years in the White House." I know you're trying to be clever, but I suggest you try a different avenue, particularly since the Clinton's are famous for not allowing the media anywhere near Chelsea, even now.
Victoria
Nov 07, 2009
8:30 a.m.
Not a snowball's chance in hell Clinton will ever be President. She had her chance and she blew it. She's not even doing a good job as SOS.
leave a comment
Comments from unregistered users will appear once they are approved. Log in to have your comment show up immediately.