Lurker - being derisive isn't necessarily the best way to debate seriously.
As I said above, I don't think he should've won it.
He has, however, done quite a bit since he's been in office. It's probably not covered very well in the U.S., however, the speech he gave in Cairo went a long way towards a more friendly attitude towards the U.S. from the Middle East, as well as his willingness to talk rather than threaten. Most Europeans I've spoken to have a much softer attitude towards the U.S. with him in office, and have more respect for us as a country for voting him in. We're not so much seen as a bunch of blithering bullies. That's two things that are rather huge. Add in bringing healthcare to the forefront, the various meetings with world rulers, giving more credence to the UN, and, indeed, actively participating with the UN. How about only taking 1 week off for a vacation, as opposed to Bush who took the entire month of August off in his first year.
Diplomacy is a long and quiet process where it looks like not much is going on until it's done. Think of it as filling a huge pool with water from a single hose. Obama is a diplomat.
No, he should not have won. Saying that he has not done anything, however, is just showing your own ignorance.
Also, you're arguing in the style of Glenn Beck -
"I'm not saying he didn't do anything, but prove to me that he did."
Glenn Beck to first-ever Muslim congressman wrote: |
"I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies.' I'm not accusing you of being an enemy, but that's the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."
It's a bullshit tactic. Have a little class in your debating style please.