General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Presidents should be questioned and confronted, not idolized [View all]Spider Jerusalem
(21,786 posts)Is it necessary? Not any more than it was necessary to insult Bush. But an expression of frustration and anger is something that's understandable in context even if it is not necessary. Sometimes criticism is going to be very harsh. Mind you, I don't think it's especially helpful, not when there are a couple of dozen members of Congress and senators more deserving of criticism re lack of a public option in the ACA (for example); criticising the president for not achieving the politically impossible is not really contributing anything meaningful or constructive to the discussion, but in the circumstance and context? I can understand it.
And my own opinion on this? It'd be far more constructive to channel some of these generalised frustrations into working for a Democratic majority in November in order to actually achieve anything legislatively. Otherwise we'll have two more years of people complaining that Obama didn't do XYZ, and never mind that he was hamstrung by Congress and only has so much room for manoeuvre (just like a lot of these very same people criticised the then-Democratic Congress in the last two years of Bush's term for not bringing impeachment charges, even though the votes were never there to either impeach or convict).