Grade Obama

[Faeelin]

B, so far.  I think he's doing the right thing in Afghanistan and the legislation he's got passed is pretty impressive this early in a term (benefits of being a President in a crisis).  On foreign policy so far I think he's been excellent, I can't think of a serious misstep so far. 

I'd actually disagree about the legislation; the stimulus plan was a watered down compromise to get GOP support, which it failed to do; but more telling, at least to me, is that when he entered office he really seemed to have no clue how to handle the recession.

[Berkut]

B, so far.  I think he's doing the right thing in Afghanistan and the legislation he's got passed is pretty impressive this early in a term (benefits of being a President in a crisis).  On foreign policy so far I think he's been excellent, I can't think of a serious misstep so far. 

I'd actually disagree about the legislation; the stimulus plan was a watered down compromise to get GOP support, which it failed to do; but more telling, at least to me, is that when he entered office he really seemed to have no clue how to handle the recession well, anything.

Fixed that for you.

I cannot really think of a single thing he has done so far that made me think "Wow, he really has a firm grasp of that problem and how to fix it...".

[jimmy olsen]

C-.

Voted D though since "poor" is my evaluation.

[Faeelin]

I cannot really think of a single thing he has done so far that made me think "Wow, he really has a firm grasp of that problem and how to fix it...".

Eh, I thought the health care proposal was... Actually, I take that back. Obama never really explained what his proposal was, and you would never guess that it was basically Romney's + a public option.

[Sheilbh]

Funny, it would seem that is just what they are thinking as well.

  I don't mind what because it doesn't matter to me.  US healthcare policy debates seem to me to be mind-numbingly dull.  I just can't read anything about it so I've literally no opinions.  But I think the US does need root and branch healthcare reform.  I think it's a really serious problem that the US government spends almost double what the British does on healthcare and it covers the elderly, veterans and the ultra-poor.  Meanwhile I believe healthcare costs outpace wages and inflations and grew by almost 7% between 2004 and now.  I've said before that the cost to US companies of healthcare is the equivalent as the cost to French companies of all their paid holidays or a shorter working week (though not both).  I just don't get the US system.  But it would seem to me that if you're planning to deal with deficits in the long-run you need systemic healthcare reform, as well as a debate about defence spending and again root-and-branch reform of social security.

I'd actually disagree about the legislation; the stimulus plan was a watered down compromise to get GOP support, which it failed to do; but more telling, at least to me, is that when he entered office he really seemed to have no clue how to handle the recession.

Not many people did, to be fair.  When he entered office the economy was still in crisis-mode not stabilised as it has been over the last few months and Paulson, Bush, Obama and Geithner deserve credit for taking the unpopular but necessary steps that stabilised the economy, even at a time when everyone hated bankers.  Though, I think every government would have to do the same.  The only candidate who I could see not bailing out the banks is Ron Paul.

Having said that the stimulus probably was too small, as many Democrats said at the time, but it is doing what it was set out to do at this point: it's preventing huge cuts/tax rises in state budgets and I believe it's cut taxes.  I think cutting taxes should have been put off and the stimulus should have just been money to stimulate new growth, while another bill should have been passed to help states.  But I understand the political rationale behind doing it all in one giant bill.

What I mean, though, is that Bush and Clinton hadn't even proposed any major legislation until I believe June and April respectively.  For all the problems with his appointments I think the crisis he had to deal with made it wise that he filled the White House first and seemed to focus on that because there would be legislation very early on in his term, which is odd. 

[Sheilbh]

Eh, I thought the health care proposal was... Actually, I take that back. Obama never really explained what his proposal was, and you would never guess that it was basically Romney's + a public option.

This isn't true.  He published a policy paper before Iowa that was as detailed as Edwards and Clinton's.  The leftist writers I read were worried that Edwards was the best - but he wouldn't win.  Of the Clinton and Obama plans they overwhelmingly preferred Clinton's because Obama's was more incremental a reform.

[KRonn]

Gave him a D. I would have gone a C but lately the trend has been pretty worrying in his push for any kind of health care, the attitude of get it done fast, now, no matter what. Same as with the TARP and Economic Stimulus, and we're paying the prices for it, literally with massive govt budget deficits. Same push was for Cap and Trade; what is it with this admin and Congress anyway? Pass sweeping change, don't bother to read the bills, nor debate them much, nor take into consideration the impact of such sweeping changes.

He's losing points on saying things people don't believe, or going back on what he had said before. For instance, he has in the past said he would push for a single payer health coverage plan. Now he's saying that isn't the case. Who knows with him now on half of what he says? That's having an impact with people/voters, I think.

He loses points for the baggage of the extreme left, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Dodd, and others, who he is caving into at times. That doesn't sit well with people.

I'm also as disgusted with the Repubs since they're part of the political process that needs the hope and change! So my annoyance with Obama isn't an endorsement of the Repubs.

Appointment of so many Czars, many or most outside of Congressional over sight, is  a worry. Some of those Czars pretty radical types from their past history.

He's doing ok on foreign affairs, but some of his ideas are continuations from Bush. I applaud his strong push for Afghanistan. I just hope he doesn't toss in the towel too soon, or that he doesn't get so much pressure from the extreme left, or the Repubs for that matter. He may be looking weak dealing with Russia, Iran, N Korea, but it's early yet, plus they're testing him. So we'll see.

[Faeelin]

This isn't true.  He published a policy paper before Iowa that was as detailed as Edwards and Clinton's.  The leftist writers I read were worried that Edwards was the best - but he wouldn't win.  Of the Clinton and Obama plans they overwhelmingly preferred Clinton's because Obama's was more incremental a reform.

I do not think most Americans have been reading a policy paper Obama published before Iowa over the last few months.

[Faeelin]

Same push was for Cap and Trade

I don't get the cap and trade objection; heck, even McCain supported this on the campaign trail.

[Sheilbh]

I do not think most Americans have been reading a policy paper Obama published before Iowa over the last few months.

No.  But that doesn't make the idea that he never articulated a plan any more true.  I read an article recently which attacked him for not governing as he campaigned and cited healthcare as an example.  That's equally preposterous; healthcare was a thing he mentioned in probably every speech and debate during the campaign.  The idea that it's a surprise or that no-one had any idea what his policy preference was is just wrong.

He's losing points on saying things people don't believe, or going back on what he had said before. For instance, he has in the past said he would push for a single payer health coverage plan. Now he's saying that isn't the case. Who knows with him now on half of what he says? That's having an impact with people/voters, I think.

Sorry to take this from Obama specific but I think this actually raises something I've been thinking about for ages.  To use another Tony Benn line there are two types of politicians the signposts and the weathervanes.  The signposts always point in the same direction, you know exactly what they stand for and where they're going (Maggie, Ron Paul, Tony Benn, in his later career), the weathervanes switch and cut and hem with the prevailing winds (early Tony Benn, Arlen Specter).  Benn said what you want is the signposts but I'm not so sure.

Basically I always think I like politicians who stand for something and you know that about them and they won't change ('you turn if you want to.  The Lady's not for turning.') but at the same time I have this romanticised ideal of a non-partisan Commons in which no-one truly has their mind made up, party is but a loose affiliation, votes can switch on the quality of debate and so on.  There are very few ideological centrists.  Evan Bayh for example has an incredibly liberal voting record in 2007 and 2008, the years when he was considering a run for the White House or a VP pick.

In practice for all I like the values politicians I wonder whether they more often than not just stand in the way of really needed change, at the same time I think the free-wheeling Commons would always be up for sale.  So I don't know whether I'd rather the ideologues who cause trouble or the 'non-partisan', the 'moderate' who are, in all honest, willing to shift votes if they can stuff the bill with pork (or what have you).  Who do I wish politics was more like, Ron Paul or Arlen Specter?

...I think I'd probably rather the moderates for sale, but I'm not sure.

[Grallon]

The GOP doesn't make much effort to support Obama's initiatives despite the deplorable state of the Union.  On the other hand, and since the american system is riddled with clientelism, the Democrats don't support their leader much either.   Considering this, I'd say he's not doing so bad.

It amuses me to see people so keen on proving Obama wrong.  You should count your blessings...  After all you could be saddled with a senile old man and a fanatic ignoramus instead of this inexperienced but brilliant man.

But beyond the personalities involved the present state of affairs should tell you something about the nature of your political system: it's become ungovernable.




G.

[Caliga]

McCain isn't senile.

Then again, your rampant ageism is well known to all of us. 

[garbon]

Then again, your rampant ageism is well known to all of us. 

Which is really nothing more than misdirected fear and self-loathing.

[MadImmortalMan]

He needs to pass a healthcare package, I don't mind what but I think that it's something America desperately needs, I'm always amazed at how much the US government spends on health compared to how little it gets.  It's simply mind-boggling.

There are a lot of things wrong with health care in the US, but getting little is not one of those. The costs are out of proportion to what we get, but it's excellent quality and readily available.

[Josquius]

B/C- He's president? I didn't notice. He's not done anything yet. He's kept the country ticking over just fine though without breaking anything so he passes.