In Defense of Obama

[bedstuy]

I give Obama a huge amount of credit for appointing Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.  At the end of the day, Supreme Court appointments are the single most important part of the Presidential post in terms of long-term consequences, and Obama nailed both his shots.

In terms of policy his record is paltry in the first two years and nonexistent in the next four, but the latter part of that is due more to Congress.  The first part is on the White House and Democratic Congressional leadership, though.

His foreign policy, though it has had some setbacks, is still a net positive by any reasonable standard.

Barring events (and events will happen over the next two years) I would be surprised if Obama is considered below a C to C+ president, and could well end up in the B- or B range.

The ACA.

The stimulus bill and managing the recession.

Dodd-Frank.

That stacks up to any President in recent memory.  It not only stacks up, each one was more important than anything Clinton did in terms of domestic policy.  The ACA especially is a major accomplishment that ought to go down in history.

How is that record paltry?

[pbrower2a]

Lacy Ledbetter.

...Economic stewardship is part of the job of President, at least since Herbert Hoover did such a poor job of it.

Barack Obama has gotten us out of the most dangerous economic meltdown since the autumn 1929- autumn 1932 calamity (really -- compare the first year and a half) and has allowed an economic expansion with no speculative boom. Sure, it involves low interest rates, but it has been driven by investment. That can continue until interest rates rise.

OK, so after Dubya we watch the President closely, and America started extremely polarized in 2009 and is just as polarized today. Has any President faced such relentless hostility from a large part of the media on a strictly partisan and ideological basis?  Liberals gave Nixon and Reagan credit when and where it was due. Dubya got the liberal consternation that he deserved when he failed or when he got caught -- which was often.


 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, Obama's first two years saw more progress in US public policy than any other two-year period since the 1970s at least. Had the dems kept filibuster-proof majorities throughout his presidency, he would probably be rated as one of the best Presidents in history.

[Mr. Smith]

@Antonio: Pretty sure I could pick out a random two years from Clinton that did just as much.

Next, any liberal glorification of Nixon comes from the fact that the spectrum overall has gone so far right that they are starved to find someone who doesn't bow the deregulation, "Government is Bad" BS that Reagan brought into the fold.

It's no different than an early Rockefeller Republican that voted for Wilson reluctantly and was disgusted by how leftist things were headed...only for FDR to force the GOP to the left to stay relevant. Both sides were pretty far left in the 40's and 50's that a Wilsonian could be disgusted.

I agreed with Krugman's skepticism then, and I'm being proven entirely correct. He could've done a lot better by simply going the whole-hog on something. But it's all half-assed. The Regressives (Obama and New Democrats are Conservative, Neocons are Conservative, the GOP is too far right for that title) will heckle him anyway no matter what he does, so he should've shoved up the Public Idea or done a huge-ass stimulus.

Then he could've had FDR,LBJ or Reagan status, partisan,but effective...or hell the principled statuses of Truman,Hoover, or Carter.

The only reason to continue the tolerance of him is the exact same reason the Regressives had to wait for Watergate to abandon the equally opportunistic Nixon,...because Congress is obstructing them (the 70's Dem controlled congress...which is exactly what is needed here and now)

[bedstuy]

@Antonio: Pretty sure I could pick out a random two years from Clinton that did just as much.

I'm pretty sure you can't.

[Antonio the Sixth]

@Antonio: Pretty sure I could pick out a random two years from Clinton that did just as much.

I'm pretty sure you can't.

[Lief 🗽]

In 20-30 years, Obama will be widely regarded by most Americans (especially once the teabaggers die of old age) as one of the great presidents, certainly by historians.

This will especially be the case if he grows some balls and puts boots on the ground in Iraq to fight and destroy ISIS.

[Antonio the Sixth]

This will especially be the case if he grows some balls and puts boots on the ground in Iraq to fight and destroy ISIS.

Yes, he really needs to do that. If ISIS keeps taking over the Middle East while we do nothing, Obama's legacy will be seriously tarnished.

[AggregateDemand]

In 20-30 years, Obama will be widely regarded by most Americans (especially once the teabaggers die of old age) as one of the great presidents, certainly by historians.

The president who borrowed $10T to make America suck less. Quite a legacy.

[King]

In 20-30 years, Obama will be widely regarded by most Americans (especially once the teabaggers die of old age) as one of the great presidents, certainly by historians.

The president who borrowed $10T to make America suck less. Quite a legacy.

Two of our most beloved Presidents FDR and Reagan were also Great Borrowers.

[Rooney]

I do not see Obama being known as a great president. He has not got Americas invovled in enarly enough wars. The wars he did get America involved in (such as Libya) were short, professionally handled and not nearly enough quirky anecdotes were created. Also, no historian will look kindly on a president who actually thinks the U.S. millitary is not the answer to every foreign policy question. No, Obama will rank the middle of the pack and chill out with Gerald Ford and Chester Arthur. That should be a good conversation, though.

[King]

I do not see Obama being known as a great president. He has not got Americas invovled in enarly enough wars. The wars he did get America involved in (such as Libya) were short, professionally handled and not nearly enough quirky anecdotes were created. Also, no historian will look kindly on a president who actually thinks the U.S. millitary is not the answer to every foreign policy question. No, Obama will rank the middle of the pack and chill out with Gerald Ford and Chester Arthur. That should be a good conversation, though.

Obama's image makes him impossible to be middle of the pack. He's too memorable of a human being. He's either worst or first, and all the people who say worst are racist old whites who will be dead when the history books get written, young libertarians who will forget about him and move on to vilify the next President, and young white trash with 0 chance of ever gaining the academic credentials to be an historian.

[AggregateDemand]

Two of our most beloved Presidents FDR and Reagan were also Great Borrowers.

They were the first of their kind. I guess you could say the same about Obama, if you want to play the race card.

The only way he will be recognized as great is if Democrats continue to polarize the population on issues of race, and anyone who disagrees about Obama's merit is publicly shamed as a racist.

[King]

Two of our most beloved Presidents FDR and Reagan were also Great Borrowers.

They were the first of their kind. I guess you could say the same about Obama, if you want to play the race card.

The only way he will be recognized as great is if Democrats continue to polarize the population on issues of race, and anyone who disagrees about Obama's merit is publicly shamed as a racist.

So yes, then.

[Mr. Smith]

Obama got rid of Bin Laden,that'll be enough for him to get up on the top in the long run,despite his digustingly Nixonian record of half-assing everything.

And also to the poster that assumes War and Imperialism = The Tops...they appear to be forgetting Dwight Eisenhower,Bill Clinton and George Washington.The last you could pout has the Founding Father nostalgic effect going on,but fact is there still were no wars when he was President.

And Eisenhower and Clinton both were like reactive,peacetime  moderates to the likes of the dominant New Dealism and Reaganomics. But both handled the economy nicely,both managed a decent hand at domestic policies (though not to the extent of Johnson or FDR). While there may have been minor skirmishes, there were no real wars under them [Eisenhower was all about ending the Korean War], yet they are on top.

Also LBJ and Nixon should totally be farther up the ladder for Vietnam, Wilson too for WWI, McKinley for the Spanish-American War and being the first serious imperialist [also he should have the assassinated effect like Lincoln and JFK]. And yet Nixon will always be tarnished only by Watergate, and wars destroyed LBJ and Wilson in hindsight.

So yeah I'm calling bullsh**t on that.

And if Obama had seriously gone all out, with the way things are polarized right now, he'd probably  be impeached for some kind of idiocy or "war crimes" by the crocodile tears of the chickenhawk "New Democrats" and Conservatives and Regressives, and the liberal base still left would do what they did to LBJ.

Besides he's already pretty much added nothing new to foreign policy and really just continued the Dubya doctrine...except smarter, more efficient, and not as explicitly arrogant.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Two of our most beloved Presidents FDR and Reagan were also Great Borrowers.

They were the first of their kind. I guess you could say the same about Obama, if you want to play the race card.

The only way he will be recognized as great is if Democrats continue to polarize the population on issues of race, and anyone who disagrees about Obama's merit is publicly shamed as a racist.

What exactly is "the race card?"

Also, Obama is routinely criticized-often viciously and irrationally, but that's neither here nor there-by countless people, whether they be public figures or not. Who is "publicly shaming" them as racists?

[AggregateDemand]

So yes, then.

I'm trying to be optimistic about the future of race relations.

[All Along The Watchtower]

So yes, then.

I'm trying to be optimistic about the future of race relations.

You say that, but you and others on the Right have repeatedly claimed that black people and other minority groups are "brainwashed" into "government dependency" by Democrats. Not only is that not true, but it's really insulting to non-white voters.

[AggregateDemand]

You say that, but you and others on the Right have repeatedly claimed that black people and other minority groups are "brainwashed" into "government dependency" by Democrats. Not only is that not true, but it's really insulting to non-white voters.

It is clearly true, and your denial of the patently obvious preserves lingering racial tensions in the United States. Apparently, you believe that minorities are a single-minded demographic who all adhere to the same political philosophy? That's not racist at all.

Next you'll be telling us that Republicans do not exploit evangelicals.

[King]

There's nothing racist about saying blacks and Latinos vote Democrat. The way you say it is 100% racist, but that's because you're a racist who sees everything through a racist lens.

White urban voters vote the same as black and Hispanic urban voters. The only difference is most whites are suburban/rural while most blacks and hispanics are urban.

Urbanites see the benefits of the government first hand with public transportation, public schools, public libraries, etc. Urban culture is generally aligned with Democratic Party policy.

[AggregateDemand]

There's nothing racist about saying blacks and Latinos vote Democrat. The way you say it is 100% racist, but that's because you're a racist who sees everything through a racist lens.

White urban voters vote the same as black and Hispanic urban voters. The only difference is most whites are suburban/rural while most blacks and hispanics are urban.

Urbanites see the benefits of the government first hand with public transportation, public schools, public libraries, etc. Urban culture is generally aligned with Democratic Party policy.

The thriving progressive urban metropolises of South Texas, West Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Southern Colorado, and the Inland Empire. The progressive cosmopolitan powerhouses in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina.

How can you be from New Mexico, and know so little about minority demography?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

And, at least on the basic macro-economic questions, love or hate him, Paul Krugman was proven right in the past 5 or 6 years.

Such as?

-The economic stimulus worked and probably should have been even bigger and heavier on spending as opposed to tax cuts.
-QE didn't lead to a giant economic collapse or runaway inflation
-Obamacare has worked better than expected.

I'm surprised Krugman supports QE given his criticism of "trickle down economics."

[King]

There's nothing racist about saying blacks and Latinos vote Democrat. The way you say it is 100% racist, but that's because you're a racist who sees everything through a racist lens.

White urban voters vote the same as black and Hispanic urban voters. The only difference is most whites are suburban/rural while most blacks and hispanics are urban.

Urbanites see the benefits of the government first hand with public transportation, public schools, public libraries, etc. Urban culture is generally aligned with Democratic Party policy.

The thriving progressive urban metropolises of South Texas, West Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Southern Colorado, and the Inland Empire. The progressive cosmopolitan powerhouses in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina.

How can you be from New Mexico, and know so little about minority demography?

You've clearly never been here.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

And, at least on the basic macro-economic questions, love or hate him, Paul Krugman was proven right in the past 5 or 6 years.

Such as?

-The economic stimulus worked and probably should have been even bigger and heavier on spending as opposed to tax cuts.
-QE didn't lead to a giant economic collapse or runaway inflation
-Obamacare has worked better than expected.

I'm surprised Krugman supports QE given his criticism of "trickle down economics."

The problem with New Keynesian economists like Krugman is that they advocate for progressive policies by invoking the insights of a contradictory framework of analysis which was formalized by the neoclassical synthesis.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

There's nothing racist about saying blacks and Latinos vote Democrat. The way you say it is 100% racist, but that's because you're a racist who sees everything through a racist lens.

White urban voters vote the same as black and Hispanic urban voters. The only difference is most whites are suburban/rural while most blacks and hispanics are urban.

Urbanites see the benefits of the government first hand with public transportation, public schools, public libraries, etc. Urban culture is generally aligned with Democratic Party policy.

The thriving progressive urban metropolises of South Texas, West Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Southern Colorado, and the Inland Empire. The progressive cosmopolitan powerhouses in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina.

How can you be from New Mexico, and know so little about minority demography?

The thriving progressive urban metropolises of San Jose, Los Angeles, San Diego and Denver. The progressive cosmopolitan powerhouses in Chicago, New Orleans, New York and Philadelphia.

Whether the white elite live in McMansions in far-lung suburbs or in expensive condominiums in the inner-city, they are dependent on the labor of Latino, Asian or Caribbean immigrants and would have no cultural materials without the tremendous influence of African-Americans on the heart and soul of America. Blacks, Latinos and Asians almost uniformly vote for Democrats because they see the injustice of a system that is dependent on them but uses and abuses them in every aspect of life. Their voting patterns are not an indication of anti-white racism but rather an indication that people of color wish to eradicate racism.