Obama so far: Weak and NaiveFollow

Let's be honest, he's been a below average President so far. He squandered a massive amount of political capital to accomplish very little. He's shown both the inability to effectively communicate with the American people, and also the inability to win political battles. You've got do be able to do one of those things to lead this country, preferably both. He's been an empty suit, so far, and he's shown an almost overwhelming desire to please old white men and avoid conflict. That's probably a great instinct when you're trying to land a job out of Harvard Law, but it's the opposite of leadership. If he stepped down today and I was called upon to write his political epitaph headline it would be this:

Mild Mannered House Negro Assures Nation He Hasn't Stolen any of the Silverware.

Maybe this whole "first black President" was just a failed experiment. Should we wait a few cycles before going with "first female President" or just rush Hillary right in?

Let's be honest, our of the 43 men who have run your country, I'd be willing to bet at least half of them were rather lacklustre.

I don't think that's true, really. It's easy to judge leaders who I dislike as ineffective but they frequently aren't. Bush was astonishingly effective. Clinton also. Bush Sr. less so. Regan was effective, Carter, taken in terms of what he attempted to accomplish, was reasonably effective at passing legislation. Ford is the most recent President who was anywhere near this weak. Nixon was effective, Johnson was amazingly effective, Kennedy less so, but getting shot in the face tends to put a damper on what you can get done. Eisenhower, Truman, FDR, all obviously effective.

"The Black Gerald Ford" doesn't seem like something to aspire to.

Whether it excuses him or not, it is an atypical environment. This is quite possibly one of the worst Congresses in history of the United States. A record setting number of cloture motions filed and complete inability to work together on what should be entirely procedural matters like raising the debt limit.


There's a compelling argument this situation is the result of his weakness, not the cause.

I think you guys should just disband and exist as sovereign states. You had a good run.

Why not? Worked out well for you blokes in Ireland.

Maybe not all 50, but at least dump the ones that go out of their way to identify themselves as "The South."

Why don't you declare war on "The South", then just not show up and let them secede?

Hey! I love the South!!!!! Just not necessarily the people.... but that's also everywhere for me.

The people from Texas who learned ID as science. Y'know, the people who'd be too dumb-as-bricks to do any other work?

Yes, they're stupid.

edit: And I really mean stupid. Like, on the level of homoeopathy, stupid.

Edited, Jul 27th 2011 10:20pm by Nilatai

I suppose you're defining effectiveness as the two criteria in the OP? So, for example, if I want to annex Botswana to improve the economy and I convince the American people it's a good idea and win the political battle, I'm effective even if it turns out adding Botswana to the mix has had a les than restorative affect on the economy? I can see the logic of such an approach because it doesn't lead you to try and profile presidents, but if you cut all that out you're not really measuring their effectiveness as a president but rather their effectiveness in one aspect, albeit a large one, of their job.

P.S. Hey Smash, how stupid a comment would it take to get you to go into one of your rants?

Care to share it?

I'm trying to think about how it possibly could need more exposition? President comes into office with overwhelming majorities in both houses, accomplishes almost nothing in the face of clearly abjectly adversarial opposition, his party is destroyed in the mid term elections and how his weakness might contribute to the tone of that incoming opposition majority is somehow confusing?

Which argument do you want?

The cognitive one? He conditioned the GOP that political success only required their entrenched opposition.

The PR one? He devalued his own brand by allowing health care to consume a legislative agenda where he could easily have passed multiple politically useful programs.

The economic one? He caved on a "compromise" stimulus number for no particular reason. The political will was there for a larger program, the economic case was clear, that half of an effective stimulus in no way approached 50% in useful effect.

The administrative one? His staff is regularly destroyed by both legislative operations on the hill. I can make specific cases for this if it's really necessary, but it's really not a debatable point.

The expectations one? He campaigned, successfully, on a lot of obviously vapid talking points, transparency, change, whatever. Excusable if you present the illusion that any of these have in any way continued to matter after the inauguration. This didn't take place. If you lie to get elected, and clearly that's required, you need to continue to lie if you win. Transitioning from "Yes we can" to "We all have to sacrifice" doesn't work.

How far do you want to take this? Is the outcome really substantively different than if McCain had won the election? Maybe. The SCOTUS justices matter, but the rest? Hard to say.

Cool thanks.. Just curious..

Interesting....

Uh huh.

I am shocked just shocked. Who could have seen that electing a community organizer who had never even ran a lemonade stand could have turned out so bad...........

Just so long as we can all agree that Franklin Pierce was the best president ever!

Personally, I've always been a fan of Buchanan's "come hither" eyes.

I'd be interested to see you do it.

Get legislation passed that I want?

Done it.

Yeah, pretty much. The split of the republican party has had to have made things a bit more complicated in the political arena. He held his ground on the Libya thing - that was ok. Oh and he killed Osama. After a dose of 'restoring science', he's let the big environmental issues wither on the vine. EPA has been a bit directionless.

I'm not enough of an economist to grade him here except the it's obvious that the 'economic recovery' has been lack-luster at best.

He still could pull off a big win with a strong, viable energy policy.

Health care is a losing issue for any president. But needs to be tackled none-the-less. While the policy isn't the greatest - I hope it's a start. If his public opinion numbers have to be sacrificed to at least get a the ball rolling and if he's managed to get it out of the spotlight and out of the public's short-term memory before the next election, then it's probably a good trade-off.

Getting rid of DOMA and DADT are wins in the social arena, but aren't really good indicators of effectiveness.

However this term winds down, barring any earth-shattering revelations or policy disasters, I'll vote for him again.

Second term presidents usually show more teeth.

Some extracurricular activity would, in all likelyhood, draw the pubbies full attention away from governance. Specially if he was caught wanking a whitey.

I miss Rahm Emanuel.

As time goes on I think more and more that Obama would have been a great Cabinet member. I just don't know who, out of the field of viable candidates, would have been a more effective President. Clinton would, I think, have been even more divisive, if that's even possible.

I'm not a Obama hater, but he was definitely not the best candidate in 2008.

That would be... Ron Paul? I still think he was better than Clinton, McCain is pretty much hated by the Tea Party now so he would have been a total flop on both sides as a president... not sure who else was a big name, honestly.