Saturday, April 25, 2009

Grading Obama's First 100 Days

1. Clear/Focused Agenda: D (needs improvement)

2. Economy: C (needs improvement)

3. Management of Financial/Banking Crisis: C- (desperately needs improvement)
(months after taking office, he still hasn't dealt with the toxic asset problem. Also, making bank stress test results public was probably not a very good idea).


4. Energy Plans: B

5. Overall Vision: B

6. Foreign Policy: F
(please start over from scratch before it's too late)

7. Leadership: B+

8. Execution: C- (needs improvement)
(this fiasco regarding torture and releasing memos and pictures...is being mishandled. These are boneheaded moves. As a result, Obama is losing control of his agenda).

9. Communication: B (still has different officials saying different things...needs more synergy).

10. Openness: B

11. Cabinet Choices: D

12. Style: A
(embracing new technologies like youtube.... a generationally transformational President in terms of style).

13. Statesmanship: C+ (perception on World stage is pretty good).

Overall Grade: C

7 comments:

rikyrah said...

AI,

You are rough!

But, I'm feeling you.

Cabinet choices: D?

Wow.

You're more upset than I am.

Foreign Policy?

Hmmmmm.....

Financial/Banking - this is why Fredo and Summers were NOT needed, and a diversity of philsophical opinions IS.

What do you mean by Statesmanship?

Truthiz said...

1. Clear/Focused Agenda: B (needs a bit more fine-tuning)

2. Economy: C (needs more time and more fine-tuning)

3. Management of Financial/Banking Crisis: C (needs more fine-tuning)

4. Energy Plans: B

5. Overall Vision: A

6. Foreign Policy: C (needs more fine-tuning)

7. Leadership: A-

8. Execution: B (You know_ I’m not so sure that the issues of torture and releasing memos and pictures, aren’t playing out, for the most part, according to Obama’s plan(?) Time will certainly tell.

But the man has “played” the mainstream “news” media, and defied “conventional wisdom” of so-called political “experts” leaving them confounded and appearing “Out-of-step” with the majority of the American people SO MANY TIMES that it’s ridicules.

9. Communication: B

10. Openness: B

11. Cabinet Choices: B-

12. Style: A

13. Statesmanship: A (It appears to me that Obama is viewed as a "Class-Act" by most Americans and around the world.

Overall Grade: B

Is there room for "improvement"?

Sure there is. No doubt about it.

But given the magnitude and multitude of problems he's having to tackle AND the fact that he's been in office for only 3 months_I think he's done well and I'm willing to give him more time.

The Angry Independent said...

Just an honest assessment. The man has so much potential that he's wasting... I guess that's what irks me the most. He's under-performing in relation to his potential... that's the reason for the tough grading. And it also has to do with the fact that i'm a progressive at heart...and some of his antics annoy the Hell out of me.

Yes... a D for Cabinet choices. Hillary Clinton accounts for most of that though, lol. Geithner is a close second. If he would have chosen a Modern Progressive for Sec. of State... and if he would have went another direction with his foreign policy, I would give him an A for that category. Geithner is tough to swallow...but I can tolerate him. Hate him... but he's tolerable. On the other hand, I can't stand Hillary Clinton. Watching her is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.

Instead of going the Progressive route...with new Foreign Policy thinking, Obama took an annoying Right Turn and went with Democratic Hardliners... They are essentially Cold War relics and Neo-cons (on the Democratic side). They want to hold on to the Truman Doctrine...and even build on it. In some ways, they are worse than the John Wayne Bush Administration Neo Conservatives. Instead of fundamentally changing the foreign policy direction of the Country, he simply took it back to the Clinton era.... which is not much of a change at all. Clinton was even more of an interventionist than Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Perle.

American imperialism, military intervention, Cowboy diplomacy (on a lesser scale), using the military to project American power around the World, and the U.S. as Global Cop are at the heart of Obama and Clinton's view of the World. So not much has really changed. Yes, there is some difference in style... but not much real, fundamental, substantive change.

At this very moment, Obama and his Clintonite/Brzezinski-ite Foreign Policy team are playing a dangerous game of Brinskmanship in Eastern Europe. There is an intense proxy-war taking place between the U.S. and Russia over Georgia. It has intensified in the last few weeks...and could explode into another conflict sometime in May or June. There's basically a standoff right now.... it's similar to the standoff in Kosovo between NATO and Russia or the Berlin standoff between the U.S. and Soviet Union. Not much of a mention of this in the U.S. media.

Obama also appears to want to move ahead with militarizing Eastern Europe....pushing close to Russia's borders with a strategic Missile system.

They are also feverishly trying to expand NATO... to include Georgia and Ukraine (really illogical and unthinkable propositions). NATO expansion should be halted. Each new entrant = a new defense treaty obligation for the United States. Each new entrant also increases the risk of a war and exposure of U.S. troops....

There's also the problem of Obama licking the boots of Israeli leaders. He subordinates himself to these people, and it's disgusting to watch. Just a couple of days ago he was at a Holocaust event groveling at the feet of Israeli VIP's. You even had the Israeli Foreign Minister bragging a few days ago, basically saying that he had Obama on a leash and he would do whatever they wanted. They could yell "Jump" and Obama would ask "How High".

You have these crazy Israeli leaders planning an attack on Iran right now.... a situation that would drag the U.S. into a war we once again didn't ask for, didn't need, and could avoid. This would derail everything that Obama is trying to do domestically.

Regarding N. Korea...Obama/Clinton continue to push for Six Party talks instead of direct negotiations between the two Countries. The issues between the U.S. and N. Korea are much different from the issues between N. Korea and Japan. And conversely...the issues between N. Korea and Japan and much different from the issues between N. Korea and S. Korea. The disputes are too complicated to lump all together in one framework. A lot of the tension is ethnic, social, economic.... a lot of old hatred & old grudges between neighbors, etc. What is needed is an official end to the Korean war...and eventually a Comprehensive Peace/Non-Aggression Treaty in the region...a process that should be witnessed by all UN member nations. N. Korea should be offered Trade, AID and other incentives to moderate their military Government....open up travel, etc. Once their economy is woven into the global economy, the stakes become higher for them to get their act together and keep it together...because then, the World would have real leverage. Right now...the World has almost zero leverage with N. Korea.

When it comes to Foreign policy, I don't feel that Obama is working in my best interests.... instead he is working for the interests of foreign governments...to the detriment of his own Country.... like too many other U.S. Presidents. He is saying one thing on his Foreign Policy principles, but actually doing something different.

If he was really all about "Change", then fundamentally changing U.S. foreign policy would have been a good place to start.
You can be more Progressive and still provide more than adequate Defense for this Country...in fact, under a more Progressive, less confrontational foreign policy.... our defense would be enhanced.

What is meant by Statesmanship?

It can have different meanings depending on the context....but in this context, it refers to how a Head of State conducts business on the World stage... How they interact with other Heads of State... Being respected by other leaders and people around the World... a Head of State or World Leader who has followership around the globe... someone with style, class, grace. Someone who is diplomatic.... who has good rapport.

A few examples of Great Statesman/women (regardless of politics):

Lady Thatcher
Dwight Eisenhower
JFK
Winston Churchill
Ronald Reagan
George H.W. Bush
Jimmy Carter
FDR
Nicolas Sarkozy
Yitzhak Rabin

The Angry Independent said...

Truth,

A B- for Cabinet choices? Really. hmmm

I wanted to give him more for Statesmanship...but his groveling regarding Israel...and the fact that he didn't get much out of his last trip meant that I had to give him a C. (although no one really expected much out of the G-20).

But time will tell regarding Statesmanship. These grades are a snapshot in time. Things could look much different at the end of 4 years.

His vision could be better too... he's not aggressive enough on Energy and the Economy. There should also be more relief for people drowning in Student loan debt. And I would have liked a different Healthcare vision where the private (for profit) insurers and hospitals would not be left in charge. But I guess a public/private partnership was the most economical and probably the only real option for Obama politically. It's still hard for me to believe that the richest nation on earth can't have a single payer Health system.

Actually getting major Healthcare reform done will be nearly impossible.

emptysuit said...

"D", my list is to long.

rikyrah said...

If that's what you mean by Statesmanship, then I believe The President should get a higher grade.

And, I give Hillpatine better marks than Geithner, only because Hillpatine is a better defender of The President's positions. Geithner was the wrong person, AND, can't defend what he's doing, and gives off the aura of a rotten used car salesman. He and Summers weren't needed.

Roderick said...

Wow, AI I was sure when you flunked Obama for foreign policy that you would refer to how he has handled Cuba and Chavez and his ilk at that conference a week or so ago but not Israel.

The only problem with taking on the Israeli lobby is that Obama would either be impeached or have a fatal accident within 24 hours of any type of policy change that even looked like towing the Israeli line.

I agree with you but since all previous presidents have kissed Israeli butt I don't understand what you expect Obama to do differently.

Geithner and Summers are huge mistakes and when the Democrats lose big in the midterms next year because the economy has not turned the corner either Geithner or both he and Summers are going to get the ax. The sad part is that the Republican Congress which was aided and abbetted with Clinton officials like Summers are responsible for this massive deregulation which has caused too-big-too-fail conglomerates like AIG