Comments on: Churchill and Obama – Leadership Challenges in Tough Times

By: Jack Mahogoff

Jack Mahogoff — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 13:14:28 +0000

obama couldn’t be a pimple on Winton Churchill ass. The democrats just wanted someone in the white house who would do anything they wanted to push their crooked socialist agenda. I am afraid for the United States. The idiots who voted for this sorry excuse for a president do not know any better. With the current destruction obama has cause in just over a month hopefully will bring some sane voters out at the next election. If we survive that long.

By: Charlene Lynch

Charlene Lynch — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 23:38:41 +0000

I have to agree to compare Obama to Churchill makes no sense, unless D’Este is saying to Obama needs to learn from Churchill’s example in leading Britian from the brink of ruin. Fortunately, the problems we face today are neither new or worse than the economy of the late 1970’s, early 1980’s. Everybody wants personal freedom but will not accept the personal responsibilty that must go with it. I think the only thing Obama and his fellow Democrates have learn from history is the usual big gov’t tax and spend policies of FDR that they are doomed to repeat again. God help us.

By: J.R. Riggins

J.R. Riggins — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 06:29:52 +0000

LOL, In reality, it is an insult to the memory of these deceased gentlemen by making the slightest comparison between them and Obama.

Up to this point, Obama is probably the least accomplished President-elect in this nations history. The author started this ill conceived debate and it was a foolish initation on his part. I think we should all re-visit this in November of 2010. At that point we will be able to compare Obama’s Presidency with Pres. Clinton’s. The comparisons can start there.

By: Richard Korman

Richard Korman — Tue, 30 Dec 2008 16:35:08 +0000

Some of the responses are further off base than Mr. D’Este’s blog.

When did military service, however much it may build character, ever guarantee political success or even successful leadership as Commander-in-Chief?

President-Elect Obama is an untested liberal politician, and I find a more apt comparison than Churchill is FDR. He was a son of privilege who had followed his cousin’s path to Undersecretary of the Navy and Governor of New York. He made costly mistakes as president, but he made many other brilliant decisions including his willingness to help defend England and lead the U.S., belately, away from isolationism. What I’m saying is FDR grew and provided needed intangibles.

Hell, Harry Truman didn’t even want the top job.

Let’s pray that the crucible of the presidency bestows on our our brainy and eloquent President-elect all the wisdom he has yet to acquire.

By: jaywhite

jaywhite — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 20:41:09 +0000

I agree to compare Churchill who was one of the greatest war leaders in history to an empty suit, is quite a stretch. The experience that Churchill possessed including Lord of the Admiralty in WWI among very extensive experiences both in government and in real combat are the opposite of what Obama brings to the table. Obama shows no qualities to even make this comparison. Obama won the election that a yellow dog running as a democrat would have won. I give almost all the credit to his campaign manager and the group that started and ran his fund raising campaign which allowed him to outspend McCain 4 to 1.

By: B. Morse

B. Morse — Thu, 25 Dec 2008 22:20:12 +0000

Comparing “The One” with Churchill is like comparing Hitler with the Pope. “The One” is more like Chamberlain, an appeaser. “The One” wants to talk with the enemies of the US (Islamofacist’s and the ilk like them). Oh by the way, I thought when “The One” was elected the world was going to like us again because the “evil” Bush was disposed of. Also Mr. Churchill was a great orator-could deliver an excellent speech without 50 plus uh’s-so distracting!

By: J.R. Riggins

J.R. Riggins — Thu, 11 Dec 2008 05:46:13 +0000

I have not read significant histories specific to Churchill, but I’m sure the new President would be swooning over the notion that a historian of note favorably compares the two.

I’ve seen nothing to this point that suggests any similarities beyond the President elect’s ability to stand at the podium and deliver a rehearsed speech. We have heard the new President’s responses where he doesn’t have the benefit of the tele-prompter and his struggle to project a clear answer when he hasn’t been tutored on the question. He deserves to have a grace period, but the author has already elevated him beyond that point.
I believe the new president would be in a perpetual stammer if he were taking Prime Ministers Questions.

By: Robert L. Coggins

Robert L. Coggins — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 12:01:23 +0000

Churchill charged with the 17th at Omdurman and personally killed a number of the enemy at close range. He was captured by and escaped from the Boers. He fought in the trenches in WWI. He wrote the History of the English Speaking People. He was First Sea Lord in WWI and WWII before he was PM.

President Obama was a community organizer, a 2 yr senator and has written 2 autobiographies. As I live and breatheI hope he does the right thing but as I live and breathe I’m not sure he knows what it is.

By: Martin Harder

Martin Harder — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 15:22:32 +0000

“Until December 1941 Britain would stand alone”

Until _June_ 1941 Britain would stand alone

Fixed it for you, The USSR is often overlooked, but contributed significantly in the struggle to free Europe from Naziism.

By: Gary Cowart

Gary Cowart — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 02:58:21 +0000

Is this some sort of a joke? Obama looks a lot more like Chamberlain than Churchill.