Pulitzer Prize Historian thoughts on POTUS

[deziloooooo]

I admire this man , David Mccullough, and found his interview with Zakaria interesting, nothing deep , but I enjoy hering the thoughts of smart people, even those I might disagree with..I read his book on Truman and found it facinating, though it's been a while...
--------------------------------------------
globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2011/07/28/historian-david-mccullough-on-obamas-job-performance/
--------------------------------------------
[Click on link to read complete article]
--------------------------------------------


July 28th, 2011
05:00 PM ET

Historian David McCullough on Obama's job performance

One way to gain some insight into the current mess in Washington is to step back and get some perspective. I wanted to get some deeper historical perspective on the performance of President Obama and of Congress.

And few today understand the past and present of this nation better than David McCullough.

He is one of the world's most decorated historians, having won two Pulitzer Prizes for his biographies of Harry Truman and John Adams. Given his knowledge of past presidents, I was keen to get his thoughts on the job President Obama is doing. Below is an edited transcript of our conversation.

Fareed Zakaria: We have in the White House a president who clearly is interested in history, a writer himself. How do you think about him?"

[ed1066]

Ridiculous. Like so many liberals, this guy is unable to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. Apparently winning two Pulitzers provides no protection against being a complete idiot...

[Deleted]

I read the article. I'm very interested to see what comes out when Obama leaves office - like when they release the e-mails and memos and that kind of thing. I don't know if it will improve or worsen my opinion of him. I think it's too hard to tell until time has passes and their policies have come to fruition.

[Deleted]

He is one of the world's most decorated historians, having won two Pulitzer Prizes for his biographies of Harry Truman and John Adams. Given his knowledge of past presidents,

How does writing a book on 2 past presidents qualify you in any way to comment on the performance of a sitting president? Past presidents are (mostly) dead. The things they did in office are public knowledge as are the RESULTS of those things. If Harry Truman killed someone on the front lawn of the White House that doesn't mean that Barrack Obama could kill someone on the White House front lawn & the results would be the same.

Lastly why does anyone believe that a Pulitzer Prize is important? It is the title? The money they get? Are sanitation workers more important than garbage collectors because it sounds better?

[mtntigger]

Lastly why does anyone believe that a Pulitzer Prize is important? It is the title? The money they get? Are sanitation workers more important than garbage collectors because it sounds better?

EXACTLY! Now if he had won the Nobel Peace Prize...

[deziloooooo]

Jul 29, 2011 15:24:08 GMT -5 @ed1066 said:

Ridiculous. Like so many liberals, this guy is unable to distinguish between legal and illegal immigrants. Apparently winning two Pulitzers provides no protection against being a complete idiot...

Thanks for your input ed. ;D

[deziloooooo]

Jul 29, 2011 15:38:14 GMT -5 @anne81 said:

I read the article. I'm very interested to see what comes out when Obama leaves office - like when they release the e-mails and memos and that kind of thing. I don't know if it will improve or worsen my opinion of him. I think it's too hard to tell until time has passes and their policies have come to fruition.

That's what Historians do Anne..glad you read it..the problem is most historians feel it takes at least 5o years or more, usually more , before one can really judge..see when he wrote his two biographies..and I am afraid that will be to late for me.

I agreed with him as far as those who hold the ofice , the coping and doing the job, in awe of..to me, impressive and of wonderment.

[deziloooooo]

Jul 29, 2011 16:22:40 GMT -5 @oldtex said:

He is one of the world's most decorated historians, having won two Pulitzer Prizes for his biographies of Harry Truman and John Adams. Given his knowledge of past presidents,

How does writing a book on 2 past presidents qualify you in any way to comment on the performance of a sitting president? Past presidents are (mostly) dead. The things they did in office are public knowledge as are the RESULTS of those things. If Harry Truman killed someone on the front lawn of the White House that doesn't mean that Barrack Obama could kill someone on the White House front lawn & the results would be the same.

Lastly why does anyone believe that a Pulitzer Prize is important? It is the title? The money they get? Are sanitation workers more important than garbage collectors because it sounds better?

"qualify you in any way to comment on the performance of a sitting president?"

" If Harry Truman killed someone on the front lawn of the White House that doesn't mean that Barrack Obama could kill someone on the White House front lawn & the results would be the same."

Huh ??
Lastly why does anyone believe that a Pulitzer Prize is important?

[mtntigger]

I agreed with him as far as those who hold the ofice , the coping and doing the job, in awe of..to me, impressive and of wonderment.

I agreed with that too... it's an impossible job. I also agree that the POTUS needs to create a vision and try to move the Americans farther than we think we can (paraphrasing here). Obama did that before he was elected and then he quit.

[deziloooooo]

Jul 29, 2011 16:57:38 GMT -5 @mtntigger said:

I agreed with him as far as those who hold the ofice , the coping and doing the job, in awe of..to me, impressive and of wonderment.

I agreed with that too... it's an impossible job. I also agree that the POTUS needs to create a vision and try to move the Americans farther than we think we can (paraphrasing here). Obama did that before he was elected and then he quit.

I agree with you, I think, IMHO, the problems he was given, from day one, and the continuous opposition, just took all the wind out of those sails, making a impossible job even more impossible..can't think of one positive really beyond when the Special Forces got Osama, and even there, his role was called into question.

Some might say his fight over the health care is the reason, and i think it was necessary personally, no perfect in any way, but necessary was the problem but I firmly what ever intuitive on anything he do would garner the same type of objections..

Possible this is what all POTUS will face in the future, from both sides..so we might have to get use to it and if so, then it's one of the things that on is thankful for age, one can remember back when it wasn't so toward our elected officials. Criticism yes but blind hatred, it is there toward him, except for the insane was not present.

Just read some posts here and other such sites, it's not dilike of policies, it's hatred toward the man and his own..a sickening display IMHO.

[Virgil Showlion]

It's a strange interview. Mr. McCullough claims to admire President Obama, but provides no rationale for his admiration. Rather, he opines about how Pres. Obama has been faced with unprecedented challenges, and his tone seems apologetic at times.

[deziloooooo]

Jul 29, 2011 18:03:45 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

It's a strange interview. Mr. McCullough claims to admire President Obama, but provides no rationale for his admiration. Rather, he opines about how Pres. Obama has been faced with unprecedented challenges, and his tone seems apologetic at times.

I noticed that too Virgil, was wondering about it, possible not what Zakaria was hoping for in his lead in to the interview..

Possible being a Historian, doesn't want to make a comment on job performance till at least 50 years from now, just mention the job for him and anyone has to be a impossible one..critique for another time like say 2061 ?? LOl, ;D

[Deleted]

It's a strange interview. Mr. McCullough claims to admire President Obama, but provides no rationale for his admiration. Rather, he opines about how Pres. Obama has been faced with unprecedented challenges, and his tone seems apologetic at times.

I think Obama is going to be judged more harshly than other presidents because he is the first African-American one. People expect more of him because of that and also because of the promises he made while campaigning.

I noticed the other day that his speeches while under stress are quite different than the ones he made while campaigning. These days he seems tired, cold and frustrated. He doesn't project any warmth. For all of Clinton's faults he was very folksy when he spoke - like your cousin who is morally bankrupt but awesome to party with.

[deziloooooo]

LOL,, you bad..I like Bill...warts and all..

"
For all of Clinton's faults he was very folksy when he spoke - like your cousin who is morally bankrupt but awesome to party with. "

[tskeeter]

I find Mccullough's comments about immigrants as a national resource, especially in respect to Canada, rather interesting. He doesn't seem to be aware that most Mexican immigrants probably would not have been admitted to Canada due to their poor education and poverty. Immigrants are a natural resource of Canada only because Canada has typically admitted only the best and the brightest (a Canadian government study reports that children of immigrants (including immigrants from the USA) graduate high school at a significantly higher rate than native Canadians, in part due to the high education level of their parents). Canada has not imported poverty and lack of educational achievement, as the US has.

[henryclay]

I guess my heroes of "literature" would be Zane Grey and Elmore Leonard. Both of these writers actually lived some of the things that they wrote about. David McCullough on the other hand, , , , well he read what other people wrote, and he wrote about what he read. Not all of it was accurate.

He quoted Jefferson as referring to John Adams as "a colossus of independence". Maybe that was because McCullough had read where Jefferson did say Adams was "a colossus on the floor of Congress". But no other researcher has found where Jefferson ever referred to Adams as a "colossus of independence.

And then there is the part about a June 4, 1945 Truman memo in which the number of casualties to expect if Japan was invaded. No one has ever seen that memo, but one written by someone else with the relevant number of casualties mentioned is archived. It is not dated.

And there are other inaccuracies, mis-statements and glossed over facts that bring his attention to professional writings into serious question. So much so that I find it easy to make this comparison: There was another "hero" of historical writings a few years ago, too. He started a museum in New Orleans on WWII. - - Steven, (or Stephen), Ambrose. - - He was defrocked as a plagiarist time and again, but he was considered a "hero" of historical writings just the same.

Maybe it is so with David McCullough. That's why I like Zane Grey and Elmore Leonard.

Tell you what. I'll just provide one single first person link. You can take it from there.

hnn.us/articles/157.html

[BeenThere...DoneThat...]

Jul 29, 2011 18:56:33 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

I find Mccullough's comments about immigrants as a national resource, especially in respect to Canada, rather interesting. He doesn't seem to be aware that most Mexican immigrants probably would not have been admitted to Canada due to their poor education and poverty. Immigrants are a natural resource of Canada only because Canada has typically admitted only the best and the brightest (a Canadian government study reports that children of immigrants (including immigrants from the USA) graduate high school at a significantly higher rate than native Canadians, in part due to the high education level of their parents). Canada has not imported poverty and lack of educational achievement, as the US has.

...kinda sobering for the average American to realize that no other country on Earth might want them, huh?

[deziloooooo]

Jul 29, 2011 18:56:33 GMT -5 tskeeter said:

I find Mccullough's comments about immigrants as a national resource, especially in respect to Canada, rather interesting. He doesn't seem to be aware that most Mexican immigrants probably would not have been admitted to Canada due to their poor education and poverty. Immigrants are a natural resource of Canada only because Canada has typically admitted only the best and the brightest (a Canadian government study reports that children of immigrants (including immigrants from the USA) graduate high school at a significantly higher rate than native Canadians, in part due to the high education level of their parents). Canada has not imported poverty and lack of educational achievement, as the US has.

You have a point there , however, I think in his comments he was referring to a question that Zakaria has brought up, many times in fact, and questioned, where after educating many foreigners in our Universities, there is little incentive to get these educated ones , in fact a concerted move to have them return to their homes, to stay here thus using their talents for our benefit, , even those who profess a desire to stay and work, and thus they go home with this education we gave them, whether paid for by their country's, themselves or by grants from the University's or themselves and we are losing these best and the brightest.

This is my guess on the question you brought up, I wish he had gone into what he was referring to in a more concise way, but as I said, as a follower of Zakaria, I know he has brought this occurrence, educated ones being forced to leave our shores, when they want to stay, and he felt it a wrong policy, thus my thoughts on what Mccullough really was referring to.

[Deleted]

...kinda sobering for the average American to realize that no other country on Earth might want them, huh?

I do get irritated when people here complain about our immigration policies - they have no idea how tough it is to get accepted in other countries! I was reading a story about a German doctor and his family who were recruited to work in a very rural area of Australia. After ten years Australia would not grant them citizenship because their daughter had Down's Syndrome - Australia said that she would be a burden on their national healthcare system.

[deziloooooo]

Jul 29, 2011 19:00:04 GMT -5 henryclay said:

I guess my heroes of "literature" would be Zane Grey and Elmore Leonard. Both of these writers actually lived some of the things that they wrote about. David McCullough on the other hand, , , , well he read what other people wrote, and he wrote about what he read. Not all of it was accurate.

He quoted Jefferson as referring to John Adams as "a colossus of independence". Maybe that was because McCullough had read where Jefferson did say Adams was "a colossus on the floor of Congress". But no other researcher has found where Jefferson ever referred to Adams as a "colossus of independence.

And then there is the part about a June 4, 1945 Truman memo in which the number of casualties to expect if Japan was invaded. No one has ever seen that memo, but one written by someone else with the relevant number of casualties mentioned is archived. It is not dated.

And there are other inaccuracies, mis-statements and glossed over facts that bring his attention to professional writings into serious question. So much so that I find it easy to make this comparison: There was another "hero" of historical writings a few years ago, too. He started a museum in New Orleans on WWII. - - Steven, (or Stephen), Ambrose. - - He was defrocked as a plagiarist time and again, but he was considered a "hero" of historical writings just the same.

Maybe it is so with David McCullough. That's why I like Zane Grey and Elmore Leonard.

Tell you what. I'll just provide one single first person link. You can take it from there.

hnn.us/articles/157.html

I like Zane Grey too..one of the best, very prolific writer..

I pulled up a wicki on Mccollough, usually in those there are posted negatives too, even if insinuated and I found none regarding the man there, on any level.

Not questioning the dissing article you put up, the author has a problem with the man, though in skimming down the article, [very, very long ] I see Mccullough did agree to have subsequent copies of one of his biographies corrections made to it, yes I notice no notes to those who bought original copies and as one who at times purchases books, I wouldn't have paid that much attention to such , how I would get it I haven't a clue , but to dismiss the man as it seems you are doing, well your call..your right , I will stay with the man is a re known and qualified Biographer in my book.

{I bet there is some one out there who is critical of Zane Grey too.accuracy, story telling, bad breath, scratches when he shouldn't, something..}