Assess Obama's first-year performance

What I referenced was rating charts with time lines dating back into 2009. I did not feel it necessary, or prudent, to reference news stories on Gates. If you really need those, try utilizing Google.

Legislative tit-for-tat/logrolling != bribery.

As an outsider, seems to me that so far Obama’s been a “caretaker president”, who has pretty well stayed the course in the face of weathering a major recession and continuing foreign-policy committments; his mode has been damage control. He has no major successes to his name, but also no major failures. A competent but uninspiring performance, the most disquieting part being his seeming inability to dominate Congress and bend it to his will as seen in the heathcare matter. That of course may change.

There is naturally a major disconnect between his performance and the rhetoric that surrounded his campaign. His campaign was after all premised on “change”. When we have gotten, apparently, is a reasonably competent caretaker or manager, not someone willing and able to force on massive change of any sort.

That being noted, having a reasonably competent manager is no bad thing. It isn’t necessarily what was advertised, but it may well be what is needed.

And yet you hung your hat on Gates in your first post:

It’s like saying Bush never recovered from that time the news cameras caught him spitting on the lawn.

I think most people expect the Democrats nominal hold on 60 seats in the Senate is not going to survive the 2010 election. Not sure where you’re getting the idea that it will increase.

I referenced the correlation between that event and the approval rating charts.

If you feel it necessary to revisit the entire Gates story, feel free to open a new thread for that purpose. I refuse to hijack this one.

You expect a drop in 2010 and you’re going to get it. I expect to make it back in spades in 2012.

and according to recent polling, it doesn’t seem like waiting for November will be necessary. Ted has got to be spinning in his grave.

Ecomony: F (He has spent our money, and accomplished nothing with it)

Keeping US safe: F (Nutsack Bomber, nuff said)

Healthcare: F (Corruption as it’s finest. If it passes, I’ll change this grade to an F-)

Global Diplomacy: F (Though I must admit his bowing has greatly improved)

Transparency: F (LOLZ!)

Working towards being a One-Term Prez: A+


I’ll answer it with a general statement: it’s highly strange that the Republican Congress can receive all the blame for the “bad” of the Bush Administration but none of the credit for the “good” of the Clinton Administration.

But this thread isn’t about the most useless and corrupt President since Ford, it’s about Obama, whom was given the highest rating by me of any President I cared to rate, even though I didn’t vote for him.

Apologies, you may want to visit a few past threads on it here; I am loathe to hijack this one.

Just getting elected was enough of a change to make me happy and I’m not an Obamabot (I don’t think…?) If all he did was came on TV once a year and said “don’t worry, the Bush regime is still out” I would give him a solid C. Not doing bad things is just as important as doing good things. He, just by being elected, shows us and the world that democracy works. It was looking pretty bleak, IMO, before the election. As it is, I give him an A+ for the most important job of a sitting president - representing our country to the rest of the world.

I would give him a B- for his efforts so far in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is doing basically what I thought would be a good idea. I give a B- because I was hoping the president would be smarter and better informed than me and would therefore come up with a better idea.

Health care reform I give a D. I had great hopes that he would actually reform the way health care works in the US but so far it looks like we will just get a health insurance reform. Basically more cash for the medical industry for no increase in services.

Domestic stuff like the bailout … I shouldn’t be grading anyone on that but I’m going to say a D+. Under Bush certain industries were making money hand over fist through back doors methods. Under Obama we have tried to cover the problems this has created by pouring more money into the economy and the same people are sucking that up too, through the front and side doors this time. The giant hole of greed is a lot deeper than Obama imagined I guess and even the US economy can’t fill it.

Check out *The Atlantic *this month. An interesting centerfold of presidential first years back to FDR.

Okay. Sorry. I forgot that I was the one who brought up Gates in the first place.

This is the reason for use of the term “unsustainable”. And the cite you mentioned is talking largely about the TARP bailout, not Obama’s spending.

So if the stimulus package was intended as a real fix, not hardly.

So it seems.



I know it’s common for reporters to lead with that line and then put this in the body of the article:

So, technically it’s still a tie. That mere fact, however, would have been unimaginable even a few weeks ago.

If he’s not liked by the crowd that cried when he bowed to a foreign monarch or vacationed in Hawaii, a foreign-like place if ever one there was, then he’s doing a fine job.

I agree with this general sentiment. However, in the spirit of this thread I will go on record as being in opposition to the snark.

What I have seen and heard a great deal of, on this board and elsewhere, are people who originally supported Obama, but are disappointed now that the hoped-for “change” hasn’t materialized. If I may be so bold, the OP seems to fit this description.

And I mean this as un-snarkily as possible… y’all got fooled. You bought into lofty rhetoric, lofty promises, an image, a personality. And you’re disappointed and surprised that the ambitious “change” that was promised hasn’t happened, and doesn’t look like it will.

And again as un-snarkily as possible… we *told *you so. But the cult of personality surrounding him made it easy, fashionable even, to categorically dismiss any criticism of him.

What we generally do see are people who were originally Obama supporters now slowly reversing their opinion. What we generally do not see is the opposite – people who originally were not supporters slowing turning their opinion the other way. I attribute that to the fact that y’all got fooled, but we didn’t.

As for my assessment of Obama’s first year, it was exactly what I expected: nothing of substance. He’s flip-flopped like a fish out of water on campaign promises (the healthcare reform currently in play looks nothing like what he promised on the campaign trail, closing Gitmo vs. not closing Gitmo, “ending” the Bush war(s)), his performance in front of the IOC was abysmal, his performance in China and Copenhagen little better, but he enthusiastically stuck his nose in a local spat that was entirely irrelevant to his presidency (“The police acted stupidly”).

Maybe he has to learn to kiss instead.

Obama continues the policy of pouring money into the banks that caused all the trouble without strings attached. We can not track the money . They were supposed to lend to keep businesses going . They chose not to. Big businesses have been cutting workers for years. Small business is where employment growth has happened. That is where money and credit should flow and was supposed to. It did not. I wanted Obama to stand up to bankers. he did not.
He has not closed Gitmo. He has not pulled out of Iraq. He has escalated in Afghanistan ,which has almost no AlQeada. He still has hundreds of thousands of contractors in the middle east .looting the treasury.
He has not used his political clout to insist on single payer health care. He has stood on the sidelines while lobbyists twisted the bills into something that won’t hurt them or help the people enough.

I have a simple wingnut scale. Basically, the more wingnuts dislike Obama and lose their shit, the better he is doing. So I think he gets an A+.

Well, of course, Bush was term-limited anyway and we can’t know how similar or different a McCain Administration would have been; that would be a whole other thread.