Cute and pithy (and how do you know who I voted for?), but I think it reveals in part that one of your biggest fears is that Obama might be remembered as very good or even great.
That’s not a fear. By now you should know that I don’t fear being wrong. What I do fear is that Obama might be considered great simply by comparison to what follows. Although I’m optimistic that Clinton will not only be a solid President, but will put the Obama Presidency into better perspective. She’ll make deals where Obama failed to, she’ll defeat ISIS where Obama failed to, and she won’t treat the Iran deal as a “decent interval” shtick like the Vietnam peace agreements were. And God help Castro if they shoot down another civilian plane like they did during her husband’s administration. Bill had the balls to threaten military action if they did it a second time.
If Clinton tries to do it this way, things will go terribly. Your idea of what works, in my opinion, greatly weakens America and gets lots of great people (and my friends!) killed for nothing. I desperately hope (and, based on her rhetoric this campaign, believe) that she won’t try this.
If you’re seriously worried about Cuba shooting down airplanes, then I have some insurance I’d be happy to sell you – you pay me $20 bucks a month in perpetuity, and I’ll pay you $1 billion if Cuba shoots down an American civilian aircraft.
It boggles my mind that anyone who has put thought into the subject can still believe that it’s possible for America to unilaterally (or even in leading a coalition) destroy an organization in the Middle East without consequences that may be much worse.
I think people 100 years from now won’t remember any president from our time period for things like how the deficit did during their presidency or how their party did in mid term elections. Even the great presidents that we do remember aren’t notable for these kind of details. Do we remember Lincoln for the details of his budget in 1862 or FDR for how Democrats did in the 1934 mid term elections? We won’t remember Obama for those kinds of details either. Great presidents are remembered for how they responded to difficult challenges. I think that in 100 years people will look back at our time period and not see very much of world changing significance, other than perhaps the war with Islamic terrorism. Certainly nothing on the scale of the American Revolution (Washington), the Civil War (Lincoln), the Great Depression and WWII (FDR), or the Civil Rights era (LBJ). Bad presidents seem to also be remembered not for being ordinary but for responding poorly to a crisis. This category includes Buchanan and Andrew Johnson for the Civil War and Hoover for the Great Depression.
Given that Obama hadn’t had any crisis that significant compared to the ones I mentioned, he won’t be in the very top tier. Let’s say we’re on the 60th POTUS in 100 years assuming mostly two term presidents with a few one term presidents here and there. Obama will probably be somewhere around 15th best, maybe closer to 20th depending on the events over the next 100 years. Regarding his specific accomplishments, I think he will be mostly remembered for getting bin Laden and trying to fix some of the mistakes that Bush II made in the war on Islamic terrorism.* We probably won’t be remembering his battles with Mitch McConnell, or the Democratic losses in the 2010 and 2014 midterms.
- I qualified Obama’s efforts regarding the war on Islamic terrorism as trying rather than as succeeding because we are still dealing with ISIS and the failed war in Iraq.
Her rhetoric is designed with a specific audience in mind, and in response to a challenge from her left. Her record is far more predictive than what she says during a campaign. She’s gonna f*@k some people up.
Do privately owned Cuban exile planes count?
Then what exactly is Obama trying to do? It’s a political strategy. He can’t do nothing, but if he does as little as possible, people like you will accept it because it’s better than the alternative. And you will with Clinton as well, because however much Clinton throws the US’s weight around, she’ll do it less than the likely Republican candidates.
How about we have a pool on the number of US troops in Iraq and Syria by this time next year? I say 20,000. We’re at 5000 right now with an increase just announced of indeterminate number.
I hope not, and luckily I place very very little value on your predictive abilities. 
If they’re Americans, sure.
Obama’s trying to degrade ISIS’s capability with the hope that the armies fighting them will eventually clobber them. Lately, it seems to be working, and with near-zero risk to Americans.
I still prefer a 100% pull-out, since I don’t want anyone at risk and I think ISIS is unsustainable even without US pressure.
And obviously, given this, I prefer less involvement to more involvement. What I find crazy is how anyone could want more involvement, considering how terrible it’s gone for us in the last couple of decades.
No thank you.
How many of my friends do you think should be put at high risk of death in the region?
If I knew the right answer to that I’d be working in the Pentagon. Someone’s telling the President we need more troops and he’s reluctantly listening. Clinton will be more receptive.
I also notice that you’ve changed the terms of the discussion a bit from how our warfighting affects our global image vs. what it costs us. Yes, bombing people means less risk for US personnel than ground wars. I’m not sure how much difference it makes in the US’ image. Obama has not been able to change US foreign policy enough to create the “sea change” you refer to. He’s doing the same things as his predecessor, just less of it, while doing a ton more than Clinton did, while taking less heat for it because he’s not some Bubba.
What it costs us is the most important thing, but both are important. Presumably, our approval has gone way up because bombings and drones are much less damaging to people and to countries than invasions – so he’s not doing the “same thing” as his predecessor.
Well, that answers the question. Obama will be remembered forever as the first and only Communist Nazi Muslim Atheist Idiot Mastermind Spineless Tyrant president.
I say our approval has gone up because of Obama the public image. The exact same policies conducted by another President will go over about as well as those same policies conducted under previous Presidents.
There were no previous presidents who reversed the Cuba policy and made a deal to prevent Iran from getting nukes, among other things. Those things are part of the reason why Obama (and the country since his election) is more popular around the world.
He was popular around the world before last year you know.
And as I pointed out, Presidents have made nuclear deals before, they’ve opened relations with countries we’ve had no relations with before. Bush did it(Libya gave up their WMD, thank goodness given what’s happened since). Clinton did it (North Korea).
Obama did both, for long-considered intractable enemies. He was popular before, largely because of relatively peace-promoting rhetoric – and his actions, in general, have mostly (not entirely) lived up to this rhetoric, including these latest actions. That probably vindicates any prior good feelings from around the world for peace-advocating folks.
His actions have not even come close, it’s just that only a few countries are affected by his actions(and he’s deeply unpopular in those places), while other countries just like his rhetoric. It’s an image thing.
I disagree almost entirely, but probably not going to be resolved here. I don’t believe you’re getting past your extreme anti-Obama bias here, such that recognizing that Obama may have done something really big and great in the scheme of things might be almost impossible for you, no matter the facts.
Not that I’m necessary concluding that yet – just if, in coming years and decades, the Cuba and Iran policies pan out successfully (e.g. peacefully and more prosperously), then Obama will rightly be considered the architect of a significant and positive change in US foreign policy trends.
We can have this conversation again in 20 years or so.
Actually, I’m giving Obama credit in this case, because he really is good at massaging world opinion. He can get away with more than his predecessors did. My point was simply that the next President, regardless of who it is, won’t benefit from the same factors. The next President won’t be succeeding Bush, he or she won’t be fresh and new, and won’t be as likeable. Judging by the choices, the next President will actually be showing a pretty stern face to the world, and who we bomb will be judged in that context, even if it’s the exact same policy Obama implemented. Although chances are the next President will go further than Obama did to take the fight to ISIS.
So you sure you don’t want to bring your judgement of Obama more lin line with the experts at this point?
The experts aren’t saying this at all, from my reading. The experts are almost universal in their praise of the Iran nuclear deal (which wasn’t a giveaway), and the change in Cuba policy.
I meant in OBama’s overall ranking as a President. The consensus is between 15th and 18th:
I think it’s a bit high, but not as much as you think it’s too low. You judged him top 5 or 10 earlier in the thread.
If those things I mentioned are successful and built upon. Few experts have bothered to include Obama in any rankings yet, and his placement now may be very different than his placement in 20 years.
Just read through the first 30 or so responses to this thread. “Top 5”? Worst ever?
Must the responses be so partisan and disingenuous? Sheesh.