3 1/2 months to go to end-of-term thought I'd start a discussion on comparing Obama to past presidents but not necessarily ranking him.

On foreign policy Obama seemed to follow Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton - seemingly a lightweight - only intervening when cornered by Congress/UN - Libya in 2011 and Iraq/Syria in 2014.

Bill Clinton was saddled with Somalia when he took over in 1993. He went into Bosnia only after GOP won Congress in 1994.

Domestic/Jobs - Reagan keeps sticking out here. It took Reagan into his second term before the economy fully recovered from the 1981 recession. Likewise for Obama.

Vision - Again this JFK charisma and "New Frontier" "Yes We Can"

Any thoughts?

You'll get the usual split: righties who say he's the worst president of all time, even though compared to his predecessor, this nation is better off in just about every metric since Obama became president.

They'll say he's the cause of the racial divide. And he is if you think the problem is his skin is black, and ignore the rise of white hate group, and the rise of an out-and-out racist like Donald Trump as a presidential nominee.

You'll get some lefties who says he's the greatest president of all time, simply for the mess he inherited from George W. And that despite GOP obstruction, he's moved the nation forward.

Me? I think he's been better than average, given the mess he inherited, and the un-American attitude of the GOP for the last 8 years. The economy could be better, certainly, but from where it was this time 8 years ago, it's a no-brainer that we're better off.

I think history will be much kinder to him that Republicans and conservatives want. I think history will look back on the GOP in this time frame and wonder why the hell they drifted into fascism.

Putting in context all of Obama's 2008 promises versus what actually happened I guess it parallels the predicament of many past POTUS's.

Hillis wrote:

You'll get the usual split: righties who say he's the worst president of all time, even though compared to his predecessor, this nation is better off in just about every metric since Obama became president.

They'll say he's the cause of the racial divide. And he is if you think the problem is his skin is black, and ignore the rise of white hate group, and the rise of an out-and-out racist like Donald Trump as a presidential nominee.

You'll get some lefties who says he's the greatest president of all time, simply for the mess he inherited from George W. And that despite GOP obstruction, he's moved the nation forward.

Me? I think he's been better than average, given the mess he inherited, and the un-American attitude of the GOP for the last 8 years. The economy could be better, certainly, but from where it was this time 8 years ago, it's a no-brainer that we're better off.

I think history will be much kinder to him that Republicans and conservatives want. I think history will look back on the GOP in this time frame and wonder why the hell they drifted into fascism.

This! You saved me from having to type all that. I will add Obama's approval ratings are 52% to 58% right now and have been climbing. Likely they will be near 60% as he leaves. That's high by modern history. GW Bush left with around 22% to 25% depending on poll. Additionally, Obama will be the first President since the 1970s without a massive scandal. Nixon - Watergate, Reagan and HW - Iran Contra, Bill Clinton - Lewinsky. (And no wing nuts Benghazi isn't a scandal and never was.)


http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bushs-final ... 2-percent/

bmacleod wrote:

Putting in context all of Obama's 2008 promises versus what actually happened I guess it parallels the predicament of many past POTUS's.

Poltico tracked over 500 campaign promises from 2008 and 2012:

Promises kept or compromised to pass: 70%
Promises broken: 22%
On hold or pending 7%:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... /obameter/

PacificBeach88 wrote:

bmacleod wrote:

Putting in context all of Obama's 2008 promises versus what actually happened I guess it parallels the predicament of many past POTUS's.

Poltico tracked over 500 campaign promises from 2008 and 2012:

Promises kept or compromised to pass: 70%
Promises broken: 22%
On hold or pending 7%:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... /obameter/

What do they consider "promises broken"? Does that include stuff the GOP killed?

Hillis wrote:

What do they consider "promises broken"? Does that include stuff the GOP killed?

Correct. Ie....Closing Gitmo so far is "promise broken", given he promised to close it his first year.

It takes a better person to do diplomacy than to start wars, in my opinion. Especially unnecessary and impossible to justify wars.

I am really tired of righties saying that "liberals" think Obama is the best president ever. No "liberal" has ever said that. I think Obama is better than a lot of presidents, but not the best. And I have been accused of being a "liberal" on more than just this site.

bmacleod wrote:

3 1/2 months to go to end-of-term thought I'd start a discussion on comparing Obama to past presidents but not necessarily ranking him.

On foreign policy Obama seemed to follow Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton - seemingly a lightweight - only intervening when cornered by Congress/UN - Libya in 2011 and Iraq/Syria in 2014.

Bill Clinton was saddled with Somalia when he took over in 1993. He went into Bosnia only after GOP won Congress in 1994.

Domestic/Jobs - Reagan keeps sticking out here. It took Reagan into his second term before the economy fully recovered from the 1981 recession. Likewise for Obama.

Vision - Again this JFK charisma and "New Frontier" "Yes We Can"

Any thoughts?

I'd rank him better on foreign policy tbh. A big part of his success as President was rebuilding relations with other nations in the post-Bush "your either with us or against us/axis of evil" era. Post 9/11 there was seriously a lot of goodwill towards America and a major paradigm shift in that there were new threats in the post-cold war era that we at the time didn't really know how to deal with. The decision to invade Iraq and all the rhetoric that surrounded that destroyed that goodwill. IRT Lybia and Syria I don't think there was any best response to those situations. I think the two major positive outcomes on foreign relations are the normalizing of relations with Cuba and the Iran nuclear deal. Again despite the pissing and moaning from the usual suspects it was clear to anyone with some level of objectivity that the status quo was not working and something more positive needed to be done.

On the domestic side his crowning achievement is the Affordable Care Act without question. I feel it represents a major step forward in ensuring access to healthcare, and affordable healthcare at that, for more and more Americans. Also the fact that it is showing that the for-profit healthcare enterprise is such a scam is even better.

My biggest disappointments with him are that he continued to be overly optimistic in the spirit of bi-partisanshipness long after it was clear the GOP didn't want to play at all. I suppose on one level he needed to be diplomatic and at least look like he was playing nice -- but I would have honestly liked him to have been more forceful with the GOP and calling them on their bullshit. Next would be him not closing Gitmo and not reigning in the whole surveillance infrastructure, use of drone strikes, etc... I suppose in the greater context of the GWOT this was never going to happen. I also think in the post Great Recession recovery his administration did not go after the banks/financial institutions at all. The whole concept of too big to fail is deeply troubling -- if a handful of financial institutions control too much wealth there should have some moves on anti-trust investigations.

Ultimately my opinion of him is quite high -- I feel like he has left this country in a much better place despite having a Congress for 6 out of 8 years that simply refused to govern at all. I really do wonder where this country would be at had the Congressional leadership been interested in doing their jobs at all.

desertjets wrote:

My biggest disappointments with him are that he continued to be overly optimistic in the spirit of bi-partisanshipness long after it was clear the GOP didn't want to play at all. I suppose on one level he needed to be diplomatic and at least look like he was playing nice -- but I would have honestly liked him to have been more forceful with the GOP and calling them on their bullshit. Next would be him not closing Gitmo and not reigning in the whole surveillance infrastructure, use of drone strikes, etc... I suppose in the greater context of the GWOT this was never going to happen. I also think in the post Great Recession recovery his administration did not go after the banks/financial institutions at all. The whole concept of too big to fail is deeply troubling -- if a handful of financial institutions control too much wealth there should have some moves on anti-trust investigations.

Ultimately my opinion of him is quite high -- I feel like he has left this country in a much better place despite having a Congress for 6 out of 8 years that simply refused to govern at all. I really do wonder where this country would be at had the Congressional leadership been interested in doing their jobs at all.

Wow, exactly my disappointment with him. Sadly, when dealing with those on the right, they never dive into policies they dislike, it becomes "birtherism", Obama's a "Maoist, Racist, Marxist, Muslim, Atheist, blah, blah, blah"...... I really would like to see Obama pardon Snowden, but he won't. I think also, history will judge him harshest on not at least jailing 1/2 dozen or dozen bankers who most egregious in their financial fraud.

Once upon a time fact based problems were mutually agreed upon by both sides. The only difference was on policy prescriptions. Now the right is in full denial of fact mode. Obamacare was a Heritage Foundation answer. Cap-and-Trade too was a Republican ides....it's how we solved the acid rain problem.

I used to vote Republican. Ever since GW Bush was nominated, I couldn't vote for such buffoonery again.

The problem with these sort of questions is that you won't get a truly objective answer until anyone with any memory of that president is long since passed. So maybe in a hundred year we call all come back to this forum and see what people are saying about Obama's presidency.

LMP737 wrote:

The problem with these sort of questions is that you won't get a truly objective answer until anyone with any memory of that president is long since passed. So maybe in a hundred year we call all come back to this forum and see what people are saying about Obama's presidency.

Maybe not that long, but conventional wisdom has always been that you can get a good barometer of a presidency about 3 decades after it has ended. Now, in this information age, I really wonder if that still holds. And we've seen many presidents over time have their legacy altered in some form. Grant was always thought to be a horrible president, but if the nation had kept on what he was doing with trying to slowly integrate AFrican Americans after the war, history might have been a bit different. President's like Wilson, Hoover and Truman have seen some changes in how they're viewed as well.

He certainly will be ahead of George W. I think he'll end up ahead of Ronald Reagan in the minds of those not completely beholden to the myth that has been created about Reagan by the right.

Far too early.

Many scholars now are of the opinion that someone like Reagan, who was the darling of the Right (and still is) was actually a pretty poor President. Likewise, history has been kinder to Gerald Ford who wasn't considered to be that good at the time but is now seen as having been a safe pair of hands. Time is needed for an objective discussion of a Presidency as snap judgments just don't take the full picture into account.

What Obama does have on his side is that he managed to keep the US economy out of the worst of the Great Recession, and saved hundreds of thousands of jobs by saving companies like General Motors. If GM had gone under the damage to the USA would have been incalculable as that company is so ingrained into the national psyche and I'm sure that the White House realised that. Similarly, what you call Obamacare has not yet had time to mature and settle in so again time is needed.

Channex757 wrote:

Far too early.

Many scholars now are of the opinion that someone like Reagan, who was the darling of the Right (and still is) was actually a pretty poor President. Likewise, history has been kinder to Gerald Ford who wasn't considered to be that good at the time but is now seen as having been a safe pair of hands. Time is needed for an objective discussion of a Presidency as snap judgments just don't take the full picture into account.

What Obama does have on his side is that he managed to keep the US economy out of the worst of the Great Recession, and saved hundreds of thousands of jobs by saving companies like General Motors. If GM had gone under the damage to the USA would have been incalculable as that company is so ingrained into the national psyche and I'm sure that the White House realised that. Similarly, what you call Obamacare has not yet had time to mature and settle in so again time is needed.

One thing they'll look at, especially in comparing him with his immediate predecessor, is the fact that he was the one who had the largest part in crafting the recovery even BEFORE he became President. Maybe that was what should have happened, but he certainly let the POTUS-elect carry the ball on much of the work before he took the oath.

We certainly can't judge now, that is true. But when historians look back on how extreme the GOP became in this time frame, and what Obama was still able to accomplish, like reducing the deficit, easing tensions with old enemies like Cuba, Iran and Vietnam, in saving the auto industry (which the GOP opposed), and in pushing for expanded LGBTQ rights, he's going to be seen, I believe, in a better than average light.

It is too early to compare Clinton's presidency to any of his predecessors with any level of balance or historical accuracy. Reagan's presidency and Bush's extension are just now able to be judged by the scale of history - and they don't come out as well as we hear.

We need at least 20 years after a Presidency before the impacts of that administration can be judged.

Also, we cannot judge a Presidency without also judging the Congress he/she had to work with.

It will be interesting to see what Obama does on Jan 20 - does he take an extended vacation in Hawaii?

Plan for a charity foundation like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton?

When Reagan left in 1989 it was "exit stage right" and retired to Bel-Air.

Similarly GW Bush left in same manner in 2009 heading for Dallas. But he kept busy on the speech circuit and now keeps busy with global humanitarian duties.

A german, and thus foreign view:

Obama suffered from a political climate where Congress - for a long time - has forgotten to actually try to get out the best for the Country, but instead, at least in some parts have become a dogmatic, self-righteous elite with obscure, unrealistic opinions on how to run public economies. When congress does not understand the difference between critical acclaim to proposals and fundamental Opposition, it is hard to go Forward with good politics.

Biggest failure was probably Guantanamo, and Syria. Generally, the US did a bad Picture in the middle East. I do not say this was entirely Obamas fault, as a lot of the conflicts had the root cause in GWBs Iraq war, but the war in Syria could have required a stronger resolve.

Biggest success was probably Obamacare. Not perfect, but certainly a step Forward.

Another positive step was the Paris Climate summit Agreement, and the US Approach to renewable energy. Still a lot to be desired, but the US are on the verge of waking up.

bmacleod wrote:

It will be interesting to see what Obama does on Jan 20 - does he take an extended vacation in Hawaii?

Plan for a charity foundation like Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton?

When Reagan left in 1989 it was "exit stage right" and retired to Bel-Air.

Similarly GW Bush left in same manner in 2009 heading for Dallas. But he kept busy on the speech circuit and now keeps busy with global humanitarian duties.

Obama has already announced he is staying in Washington, at least until Sasha finishes high school. He is 55 years old and currently has fairly high approval ratings for basically a lame duck president. He will still be involved in political work for a long time (perhaps eventually angling for a Supreme Court appointment?).

Reagan was 78 years old when he left the presidency. GW Bush was incredibly unpopular. That is why they left the limelight after their presidencies.

[quote="rfields5421

Also, we cannot judge a Presidency without also judging the Congress he/she had to work with.[/quote]

And THAT is one of the reasons he'll be judged favorably. The GOP in Congress has become not the "loyal opposition", but looks at the Democrats as "the enemy", who should never be worked with. Another sign of the GOP moving towards Fascism is this trait, where they'd rather used a scorched-earth policy instead of daring to compromise in any way to move the nation forward.

They've offered nothing up on jobs, infrastructure, Zika, the environment-nothing. They've spent their time trying to defund Obamacare and Planned Parenthood, and that seems to be the depth of their "policy initiatives".

Mr. Obama was a good President and did quite well in the face of a disloyal opposition that cared more about how much they hated him than what was best for America. However, he had some flaws.

The first flaw was the way he handled the disloyal opposition. The Constitution gives the President some power and he's also a professor of Constitutional Law. When the Congress started to behave absurdly, he should have been firmer. For example, with the recent SCOTUS issue, what he *should* have done was to declare that by refusing to hear the nominee, the Senate had already given its advice and consent (in writing, no less) which was that they were not going to hear any nominees, meaning that he could appoint whoever he wanted. The Constitution does *NOT* specify that the Senate must hold hearings, only that they must "advise and consent." Of course, that would lead to the GOP suing the President and a Constitutional crisis in which the decision of the correct course of action would lie...on the Supreme Court. If the GOP was going to keep accusing him of being a tyrant and a dictator, at the very least he could have responded by acting the part. But, no. He tried to be reasonable and take the high road and so he got walked all over again and again and again.

The other thing was Iraq, although to some degree this was only partially his problem. We all (should) agree that the 2003 Iraq war was a major cockup and should never have happened. But in the power vacuum left by the fall of Saddam Hussein, ISIS arose. Fact is that Saddam Hussein was astute enough to know the tribal history of Iraq and the fact that democracy would never work in a single lifetime in that nation. The only way to maintain order was with an iron fist.

To turn Iraq into a secular democracy, the change would literally take generations. Bit by bit, town by town, schools would need to be built. Education and healthcare for children would need to be compulsory. There would need to be constant armed soldiers guarding schools and hospitals. It would make the Marshall Plan for Europe look trivial in comparison. But as I see it, such a thing would be the only option. The other option would be to split Iraq into a Kurdistan, a Sunnistan, and a Shiastan. Those might be stable enough to last, although some of them might devolve into theocratic dictatorship very quickly. But a rapid force drawdown simply left a power vacuum and the only (minor) surprise was that it was ISIS and not Al Qaeda that filled the vacuum.

DocLightning wrote:

The other thing was Iraq, although to some degree this was only partially his problem.

I'm pretty much willing to absolve him of pretty much all fault for Iraq. He campaigned on a promise to withdraw from Iraq. Unless McCain was willing to scrub the deal that Bush signed, troops would have been out no matter what by 2011 unless immunity from prosecution would be granted for the soldiers. So no matter who took office in 2009, a deal for troop withdrawal was already in place. He followed through. However, no one would have foreseen a weak Iraqi government with lots of tensions or a fragile neighbor next door whose central government is unable to reach beyond cities, allowing someone else to fill the void.

DocLightning wrote:

For example, with the recent SCOTUS issue, what he *should* have done was to declare that by refusing to hear the nominee, the Senate had already given its advice and consent (in writing, no less) which was that they were not going to hear any nominees, meaning that he could appoint whoever he wanted. The Constitution does *NOT* specify that the Senate must hold hearings, only that they must "advise and consent." Of course, that would lead to the GOP suing the President and a Constitutional crisis in which the decision of the correct course of action would lie...on the Supreme Court.

He played it safe though. He knew that if he appointed someone he would hand the government over to the GOP in the next election. His nominee (a recess appointment) would have only been on the court until January, when the new Congress convenes. So he would have made matters worse. Had this been early on in his 2nd term, it would have been different since all the rage would have been taken off in the mid-term elections AND his replacement would be no more.

When we talk about impact of Presidents - it takes a lot of time for many things to become known. Some examples of the Reagan decisions.

1) From his first tax cut - the defining of a lower floor of people who must pay income tax - the raising of the standard deduction significantly - the elimination of most deductions available to working class tax payers - the result -> the near 47% of people filing income tax returns in 2010 who did not actually pay any federal income tax.

I don't thing Reagan or anyone expected that 47% of the US working population would suffer a reduction in income to the point that they are living near the poverty level. Or the resulting shift of the collection of income taxes to higher tax brackets.

2) Military manpower reductions - The Reagan administration was the first to start implementing much of the 1973 recommendations for restructuring the US military. Part of the 600 ship navy program was to reduce manpower in the US Army and US Air Force by shifting traditional low skill labor intensive functions to civilian contract labor, along with similar shifts in the shore duty component of the US Navy. The 600 ship navy program required removal of almost 250,000 men and women from the uniformed components of the Army and Air Force with an increase of about 125,000 men and women to the uniformed component of the Navy. Though the 600 ship navy proved too costly for the nation to sustain, the manpower reduction and mission shifts continue to this day.

In part those have been shown to be good things. Combat related positions get more training, more people in some roles. The manpower shifts also reduce or eliminate most of the make work duties such as KP, grounds maintenance, etc. But it also results in some problems - a more difficult to manage supply/ logistics train - stoppages of flow of materials into combat zones when civilian contractors cannot / will not face potential enemy fire to deliver the goods.

Much has been made on these forums about the use of former Soviet aircraft such as the AN-124 and in some instances AN-12 - to deliver US military equipment to war zones.

Those are all results of the decisions to convert many/most logistical functions to civilian contractors - first implemented and defined during the Ronald Reagan administration (and continued by all following administrations).

Unremarkable president, took the easy way out of almost every issue. Few accomplishments.

Stayed out of war - Hallelujah for that. So, he is vastly better than GW Bush was.

Worthy of note, Obama spent $10 trillion in debt, unlikely to be paid back, that will momentarily start accruing rather large interest payments. And he did so in good times. This suggests that along the present track, Obama's USA is unsustainable and could become a marginalized country in the future.

I give him a B- / C+.

Flighty wrote:

Unremarkable president, took the easy way out of almost every issue. Few accomplishments.

Stayed out of war - Hallelujah for that. So, he is vastly better than GW Bush was.

Worthy of note, Obama spent $10 trillion in debt, unlikely to be paid back, that will momentarily start accruing rather large interest payments. And he did so in good times. This suggests that along the present track, Obama's USA is unsustainable and could become a marginalized country in the future.

I give him a B- / C+.

Wow, living an alternate reality, eh?

Let's look at this one.

"Unremarkable President": First African-American President. That alone is remarkable.

"Took The Easy Way Out": Really, he tried for almost 4 YEARS to reach over the aisle to the GOP, who rebuffed him at every turn. He didn't take the "easy way out" in negotiating with Cuba, or Iran, or in easing tensions with nations like Vietnam, Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos. Taking the "easy way out" would have to left the status quo in place. He didn't take the easy way out in crafting the Health Care package. Most of the time, he chose the more complex, more difficult path, because it offered the higher chance for reward.

"Few Accomplishments": Where to begin.
-Obamacare
-The drive for LGBTQ rights
-Easing tensions with Iran, Cuba, Vietnam and other nations.
-Bin Laden died on his watch.
-The deficit has been lowered dramatically.
-More than 60 months of positive job growth.
-Crafted the bailouts, popular or not, that saved the banking, housing and auto industries.
-Not one member of his cabinet or his staff have left because of illegal activity. Not one.
-Turned back the page on the use of torture against prisoners.
-Set up the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, which is the agency that helped bring to light the Wells Fargo scam. Interestingly, the GOP wants to get rid of that agency. Wonder why?


"$10 Trillion In Debt...Mostly In Good Times": Yeah, the slow dig-out from the Great Recession was a real rip-roaring time, wasn't it? And his percentage of debt relative to the GDP is still smaller than Reagan's and Bush 41. But again, offset that against the continued job growth, the rising of wages (finally), and the good health of the economy, I'd say that's not as big a deal. Besides, the GOP started this trend, so they really don't care about the debt, unless of course Obama is involved.

"Success is Unsustainable" : I'd say 71 months straight of job growth is pretty freakin' sustainable. What isn't sustainable is supply-side, trickle-down, like we've seen destroy Kansas and Louisiana, and put a host of other GOP-dominates states in fiscal straits. We saw what that kind of policy did to us in 2007/08, didn't we? It's pretty sustainable.

"We could become a marginalized country": You sound like Trump-doom and gloom. You're so frightened of every shadow, that it has knocked any common sense or any sense of backbone out of you. This nation will never dominate the world like it did, say in the 1950's, when we were the sole power on the earth, and we consumed far more than 50% of the world's resources. Our pie of the world's resources has decreased, as other nations have asserted their rights to also share in the bounty of the globe. That doesn't mean the U.S. will be marginalized.

And if you hate things so much, you can always leave.

Before drawing conclusion, I really want to see what Obama's pardons turn out to be.

If he does perhaps the grandest of the speculated possibilities (pardons all non-violent federal drug crimes for individuals), that'll certainly be a paradigm shift in how government handles a particular issue... and IMO, will help cement the good in his legacy.

Hillis wrote:

"Unremarkable President": First African-American President. That alone is remarkable.

"Took The Easy Way Out": Really, he tried for almost 4 YEARS to reach over the aisle to the GOP, who rebuffed him at every turn. He didn't take the "easy way out" in negotiating with Cuba, or Iran, or in easing tensions with nations like Vietnam, Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos. Taking the "easy way out" would have to left the status quo in place. He didn't take the easy way out in crafting the Health Care package. Most of the time, he chose the more complex, more difficult path, because it offered the higher chance for reward.

"Few Accomplishments": Where to begin.
-Obamacare
-The drive for LGBTQ rights
-Easing tensions with Iran, Cuba, Vietnam and other nations.
-Bin Laden died on his watch.
-The deficit has been lowered dramatically.
-More than 60 months of positive job growth.
-Crafted the bailouts, popular or not, that saved the banking, housing and auto industries.
-Not one member of his cabinet or his staff have left because of illegal activity. Not one.
-Turned back the page on the use of torture against prisoners.
-Set up the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, which is the agency that helped bring to light the Wells Fargo scam. Interestingly, the GOP wants to get rid of that agency. Wonder why?


And if you hate things so much, you can always leave.

Amen, brother!!!!

There were things I would have preferred Obama not do, or get Congress' backing with regard to drone war fare, but Congress has completely abdicated their role in the 3 co-equal branches of government because they're cowards. I don't like an imperial Presidency, but the Congress under Bushtard 2, and now Obama, has forced more power into the Executive branch. If one branch abdicates their responsibility, another branch will have to take it!!!!! Why can't people understand that?

einsteinboricua wrote:

However, no one would have foreseen a weak Iraqi government with lots of tensions or a fragile neighbor next door whose central government is unable to reach beyond cities, allowing someone else to fill the void.

You can't be serious. Even Sarah Palin warned about that.