Mid-Term Report Card: How IS that hopey/changey thing workin' out for ya?

[88Comrade2000]

Pretty simple.

1) What has changed? (Bonus points if you can list a change for the better.)

2) Give Obama a letter grade for his performance so far.

3) Feel free to discuss any topics the administration has faced, and give your opinion of how well/poorly they've been handled.

1. Other than his Healthcare plan, nothing really. He has kept many of Bush's policies and expanded on them.

2. I think he gets a C-. He is a weak leader. While I would disagree with alot of what could've been passed; Obama should've been a liberal's wet dream. He and Democrats had supermajorities where they really could've passed anything they wanted. Obama punted to Congress on everything. If he was a strong leader, he could've had a public option. He could've had higher taxes. He could've moved the country closer to the liberals utopia. I would be against that liberal utopia but a strong leader could've gotten that done.

3. I think SHF explained it well on his weaknesses.

I think we should repeal the 22nd admendment- think it's 22nd; and allow no term limits for President. Then Bill Clinton can run in 2012. Yes, Bubba is looking much better as time passes by. Only his lust for Monica gave his enemies something to derail him. If Monicagate never happened; some of the very problems we face today would've been solved. I also believe Hillary Clinton probably should've been president right now. We desperately need a new president but I don't see that happening until Jan. 20th, 2017 and who knows what kind of country this will be then.

[PokerPacker]

that's what we need, 32 straight years of a Clinton or a Bush in the White House.

[Teller]

that's what we need, 32 straight years of a Clinton or a Bush in the White House.

I was thinking 16 years of Bush. That's the definition of epic fail.

But honestly, even I would take Clinton back in a heartbeat, in retrospect.

[PokerPacker]

I'll take Gary Johnson, please

[AsburySkinsFan]

What kind of leader can't accomplish any damned thing with every last vote he needs to push through what he wants to push through? What kind of leader can't pull 2 or 3 votes from the other side? Seriously. If you can say "Wah. We couldn't do anything because we only had 60 members in the senate," you fail. Period.

When those same 60 people are being screamed at during town hall meetings and find their seats targeted like never before, with floods of money pouring in from the Right to oppose them...gee I wonder why he couldn't get 60. As for crossing the isle...puh-leeze....the GOP locked their folks in tighter than a drum which I can only assume meant that McConnell would abandon them like he did Sen. Bunning.

Amen and amen.

Yeah, if only it weren't so sad.

[Bang]

I may be extremely ignorant, and biased, in this case, but why do we hate his presence in the White House? Are we going back to race here?.

there;s no need.

All you have to do is look at the last three terms a Democratic president has held the oval office.

It's not because he's black (although for some that is the case, no matter how much they whine otherwise). .it's because he's a Democrat and the right wing in this country simply can't tolerate it.

You guys hounded Clinton.. Formed special prosecutors to dig into White Water and settled on an on-the-job blowjob as the Big Nasty that you could make stick. A witch hunt, plain and simple.

Same as this.

There simply is not a democrat that the right would not absolutely hate being in there. it wouldn't matter who he is or what he does, as long as he's a Dem, the hatred and vitriol exists and does not stop until he's gone. (and then it simply shifts to the next one.)

it's a shame you all fall for the bull**** so easily.

i think if you didn't, then Republican leaders would not be so willing to shovel it in your mouths every time one of your opponents is elected.

Who knows, they might actually get down to the business of governing instead of the business of wiping out the opposite ideology.

wake up. They don't respect your intelligence. If they did, half their talking points wouldn't exist.

All they want is an angry mob, and you happily provide it no matter what horse**** they feed you.

Rising gas prices? Maybe he should take exception with those prices going sky high.. and seemingly only serves to give oil companies record profits quarter after quarter after quarter.

Oh but it's O's fault. M bad. He';s supposed to be able to make them fix their prices... or not.. that doesn't sound like capitalism to me.. Maybe he can do what Donald plans to do, and go look those OPEC guys in the eye and tell them 'the party's over" , and boy that'll fix them. Oil prices should drop immediately.

Oh wait! Some kid in Qatar stubbed his toe! Crude prices move a little bit, and gas prices go up! There was a storm in the Straits of Hormuz.. Prices must rise to compensate! More excuses get made for the richest ****s on the planet who roll in pools of our money while we try and figure how to cope with rising costs of everything connected with their profits... which just so happens to be everything. (Libyan oil! A joke of an excuse. How far has gas risen since we shot our first cruise missile into Libya? At least a dollar. Now how much oil is actually affected by this war? On the grand scale, not much. But it's enough to make those prices jump, boy, and it's all the durn president's fault!

We buy approximately one half percent of Libya's annual oil output.

0.5%

Now tell me why the prices are so high as a result?

Because they CAN BE. And the ONLY way to stop it is to either

A/ get away from oil, which is steadfastly opposed, or

B/ Crack down and fix the price, which is against the grain of one of our founding principals.

Neither of which would make any president popular. So what is the answer to oil prices that should have been fixed since January 09? Tt must be a fairly simple one if this was all the time given to change it.

Wars happen. You typically don't plan for them. We didn't plan to be in the ones we've been in for the last ten years, but there we are, and it's better to not just cut and run, or so we were told until it was a Democrat in office. I don't like the action in Libya, but not for the reason that we should come home. (I can't think of anyone better to shoot missiles at that Qaddafi.) We tend to leave that region with too many teethmarks on our hands.

the health care "debate" was a farce. there was no 'debate' .. there was one side who steadfastly said no, and did all they could to poison the bill into a dog**** law that does nothing but put more money in the pockets of people who don't need it (except to purchase political influence). I know somewhere people think there was an actual debate,, and there wasn't. They made their followers treat our system as if we were a third world country, yelling and screaming at town halls hardly ever making a lick of sense, comparing everything and anything related to the bill to Nazi Germany.

Birtherism, all the idiocy that is going to start up now over college transcripts,, these are nothing more than badgering techniques.. undermine the president than criticize him for the job he's doing. It's a familiar refrain, saw it during the entire Clinton Presidncy,, we'll see it even more until O wins in 2012 (The Rs haven't got anyone that can win. Trump is making sure the R nominee has to be a nutbird. He's proving that is what the base wants. ) We're going to hear this refrain until at least 2016. (Birthers won't go away satisfied. Want to bet? They'll keep screaming because they don't want proof of anything, they want to scream and get the Dem out of there no matter what. )

And when the next Dem wins office, whenever that is, we'lll see it again over anything they can find, real or not.

the one thing I'd hoped would change did not, and that would be that people would recognize that 50 years of mismanagement and sweeping problems under the rug don't get fixed in 2 years... especially when the richest and most powerful corps in the world fight tooth and nail against fixing anything. Trumpeting that you voted for him means nothing. You never gave him a shot to accomplish anything.

~Bang

[sportjunkie07]

No, you didn't miss it, because nothing happened. He promised that fathers paying child support would get half of the tax credit. Since we provide half of their sustenance (along with everything for ourselves), it only makes sense. As of now, the custodial parent (which is the mother, unless she actually IS an axe murderer) gets the entire deduction. He went through the motion of having it sent to committee, but it's been stalled there for the better part of two years now.

On this note, I probably should go to bed. I don't want to risk my posting privileges. But this infuriates me more than anything going on at the federal level right now. I bring home less than 1/3 of my gross income. And unfortunately, there's no way out of it. If I get a second job, they just take more money, and I have far less time to actually see my kids. If I knew how to start an NPO for fathers in this situation, I would make it my life's work. There is no voice out there. There is no help at the federal level. And I can't get anyone at the state level to even return a phone call. (Though they call my ex back the same day.) With the divorce rate over 50%, this is one of the most pressing silent issues we face right now, IMHO.

if you get the chance, i would like to know what responsibilities you have in your situation (similar to fathers of other split households) and where exactly you feel like you are being shorted.

i am not a parent, but i am interested in how it works. it seems obvious that there is a bias toward the mother and the father tends to get the short end of the stick. also, i know there are a lot of fathers out there in similar situations that would be termed "deabeat dads" for lack of a better word. kudos to you for still supporting your children and i hope you can find a way to make it easier on yourself.

i can tell you that if i was being jipped by governmental rules that made me work so much that i was barely able to see someone i loved, i would be extremely upset.

[ACW]

Not a big fan of Obama.

REALLY hope Gary Johnson becomes Pres.

[mardi gras skin]

there;s no need.

All you have to do is look at the last three terms a Democratic president has held the oval office.

It's not because he's black (although for some that is the case, no matter how much they whine otherwise). .it's because he's a Democrat and the right wing in this country simply can't tolerate it.

Those hateful conservatives!

Bush Sr. and W tolerated as much hatred from the far left as Carter, Clinton, and Obama have from the right. The only president that has gotten a pass since Watergate is Reagan and that was a convergence of winning personality, economic fortune, a truly reviled predecessor, and a convenient arch nemesis in the USSR.

---------- Post added April-28th-2011 at 07:46 AM ----------

As for Obama's grade, I give him a D. Like Bush before him, President Obama is playing out an anaemic, Guilded Age, big business lap dog roll. It's the right time for a Teddy Roosevelt but Obama has been shockingly differential to big business. If he had a backbone, Obama could go down as one of the great presidents because the moment is ripe for a new hero in the White House.

[Corcaigh]

Check the posts from a couple of years ago and by now USA should be a North-Korea-like communist state with Dow at 5,000.

That's a pretty remarkable change he's engineered.

[DRSmith]

Still hoping both praties will change and do what is the best interest of all people not just the privilage few who buy the politicians

[HailGreen28]

I don't get why there was any "expense" to closing Gitmo prison facilities. Just move everybody out, if Congress won't authorize funds to tear them down.

Or did Congress defund wherever the prisoners were supposed to go?

[DRSmith]

I don't get why there was any "expense" to closing Gitmo prison facilities. Just move everybody out, if Congress won't authorize funds to tear them down.

Or did Congress defund wherever the prisoners were supposed to go?

Problem is the whole NIMBY can not move them or try them in the US or people go nuts

[Elessar78]

I don't want to sound condescending, but campaigning and governing are two totally different things. Plus it's not like he's tried to bring radical change: i.e. healthcare.

The main thing to remember is that once these guys get into office, it becomes abundantly clear that things are in place for a reason. Ideologically the may differ from their predecessor but when presented with a situation and options, their decision is going to be same (the Wars, gitmo).

I grade based on leadership and leadership doesn't just tries to appease but picks a direction they believe in and tries to take the group/organization/team there. Sometimes kicking and screaming. So my grade so far is a B or B-minus. He's done an above average job but nothing fantastic yet. He's limited by a lot of circumstances beyond his control.

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

I don't get why there was any "expense" to closing Gitmo prison facilities. Just move everybody out, if Congress won't authorize funds to tear them down.

Or did Congress defund wherever the prisoners were supposed to go?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/177/close-the-guantanamo-bay-detention-center/

President Barack Obama's campaign promise to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center has switched from In the Works to Stalled and back again (and again). All that movement reflects a simple dynamic: Obama really wants to close the center. But Congress really doesn't.

The latest turn of events was the law authorizing defense spending for 2011. In addition to funding the military for the year, members of Congress attached several stipulations about Guantanamo. The law says no funds canbe used to transfer Guantanamo detainees to the United States, and no funds can be used to transfer detainees to the custody of foreign countries, unless specific conditions are met about how the prisoners will be held.

Obama didn't like those provisions and issued a statement deploring them. He said the limitation on transferring prisoners to the U.S. is "a dangerous and unprecedented challenge to critical executive branch authority ... ." Of the new requirements on transferring prisoners to foreign governments, Obama said it could "hinder the conduct of delicate negotiations with foreign countries and therefore the effort to conclude detainee transfers in accord with our national security."

Obama stopped short of saying he would disregard the law, something presidents sometimes do via "signing statements." President George W. Bush issued many signing statements as president that said he would disregard parts of laws passed by Congress that he believed infringed on his executive authority. During the campaign, Obama said he would not "abuse" signing statements.

But nowhere did Obama say he would disregard the new restrictions. Instead, he said he would seek to repeal of the restrictions.

"Despite my strong objection to these provisions, which my Administration has consistently opposed, I have signed this Act because of the importance of authorizing appropriations for, among other things, our military activities in 2011," Obama said in the statement. "Nevertheless, my Administration will work with the Congress to seek repeal of these restrictions, will seek to mitigate their effects, and will oppose any attempt to extend or expand them in the future."

Based on Obama's statement, he clearly still wants unfettered authority to move prisoners out of the Guantanamo Bay facility. And at a press conference at the end of the year, he said it was important to close Guantanamo because it is "probably the number one recruitment tool that is used by these jihadist organizations."

"It is important for us, even as we're going aggressively after the bad guys, to make sure that we're also living up to our values and our ideals and our principles," Obama said at the press conference. "And that's what closing Guantanamo is about -- not because I think that the people who are running Guantanamo are doing a bad job, but rather because it's become a symbol. And I think we can do just as good of a job housing them somewhere else."

Obama may want to close Guantanamo, but legal impediments still stand in the way of him achieving his goal. The meter remains at Stalled.

[Spec138]

I feel bad for Obama. While I don's agree with many of his fiscal positions it's not right for him to have to put up with the R's in congress who have, honestly, acted like children most of his term. I do think he has worked pretty hard lately to move towards the center and I applaud him for that but on results only I'd probably say C- or C.

I don't want Ron Paul and Gary Johnson to both run, they will never get elected that way.

[greenspandan]

1) What has changed? (Bonus points if you can list a change for the better.)

well here is a small smattering of stuff i found ... thousands more things can be found by googling "obama accomplishments". (not that you are actually interested in positive things obama has done, of course)

- eliminated the bigoted DADT military policy.

- Presidential Memorandum extending benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees, and protecting gay and lesbian partners’ visitation/healthcare decision-making rights.

- Dodd-Frank (DF) Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, the biggest financial reform law since the Great Depression.

- cut salaries for 65 bailout executives.

- closed offshore tax safe havens, tax credit loopholes.

- established a credit card bill of rights.

- created new criminal penalties for mortgage fraud.

- sold 1.5 billion shares of Citigroup at a profit.

- G-20 summit produced a $1.1 trillion deal to combat the global financial crisis.

- negotiated deal with Swiss banks to permit US government to gain access to records of tax evaders and criminals.

- expanded loan programs for small businesses.

- Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009.

- North American Wetlands Conservation Act.

- increased funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

- increased funding for national parks and forests.

- Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration (Executive Order).,

- rescued the US auto industry.

- consumer spending, GDP, and growth are all rising steadily.

- enacted largest reform of student aid in 40 years.

- expanded Pell grants for low-income students.

- eliminated abstinence-only sex education funding in budget.

- more than doubled federal spending for research on clean fuels.

- purchased fuel efficient American-made fleet for the federal government.

- ordered 5,000 hybrids for federal fleet.

- wind power growth up 39% due to government stimulus.

- raised fuel economy standards.

- instituted “Cash for Clunkers” to spur auto sales and promote fuel efficiency.

- ended previous practice of having White House aides rewrite scientific and environmental rules, regulations and reports.

- world’s opinion of U.S. has improved sharply under Obama.

- bolstered the military’s ability to speak different languages.

- returned the rights of Americans to visit and assist their families in Cuba.

- U.S. jail population declined for first time in decades.

- got his daughters a puppy.

2) Give Obama a letter grade for his performance so far.

flat C, i guess. very disappointed by a lot of things (gitmo, torture, tribunals, transparency, tax breaks for the rich, giving birthers the time of day, etc) but the other guy would have been wayyy worse (from the perspective of me -- a liberal progressive). have to give him credit, though: he campaigned as a centrist and he has lived up to that, somewhat to my chagrin. i don't think either hard-left liberals like me nor right wingers actually believed him on that point! oh well...

3) Feel free to discuss any topics the administration has faced, and give your opinion of how well/poorly they've been handled.

his handling of the (short-lived) supermajority was pathetic. he squandered his time and energy trying to get one or two republicans to agree with him (which in the end they refused to do anyway), when he could have just quickly rammed a real progressive plan down their throats. the opportunity for an actual modern 1st world healthcare system in America died then and there.

[Thiebear]

B+ based on performance.

C based on the constant campaigning.

A woman in Congress created the credit card bill of rights. President Obama signed it in May of 2009 (4 months in office)?

Not really 'His' establishment as stated above.

[NoVaO]

Y'know, Ish, it'd be a consideration for me. I mean hell, the most "conservative" president in fiscal terms recently was her husband.

This is off topic, but I just wanted to point out, a balanced budget is not really a conservative thing. Liberals don't like big deficits.

Both parties like to spend money, but they spend it on different things. The difference is that Democrats will tax and spend, while Republicans will borrow and spend.

Republicans don't like Keynesian economics, but theory is you have spend during times of recessions. The reason? When there are bad economic times, people tend to stop spending. Business spots investing. Consumers stop buying. This is a consumer driven economy. If the Government doesn't step in and fill that void until the economy improves enough to stand on its own two feet, then you are looking at a much bigger crisis. The idea is to run deficits during the down times, and run surpluses during periods of economic expansion.

This is what the stimulus was formulated to do, but which Republicans criticize Obama for, and is the basis for their "spending liberal" charge. Of course, it did prevent the economy from sinking into a depression, though it could have been put in place more efficiently, and it could have been closer to the size actually. The recession was a $3 trillion hole into our economy and the stimulus wasn't even 900 billion, only a 1/3 of which went to infrastructure. Another 1/3 was for aid to the states, and the other 1/3 was tax cuts.

The stimulus comes off the budget I think sometime next year.

And I'm worried the economy still hasn't gotten to a point where it can sustain massive spending cuts -- see today's GDP figure. What I'd love to see is a long term plan put in place to deal with our deficit, but another short term stimulus. If there is a long term deficit plan in place, people may not be so repulsed at another stimulus in the short term. And not in the form of tax cuts -- this time make it a public works program that deals with our crumbling infrastructure.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I think Obama is ultimately going to be the tranformational president he promised to be. It has not happened fast enough for my liking.

In the end, healthcare reform and the changes to the student loan program are going to be massive long-term changes. I wish he had not cozied up to Wall Street so much during the bailout, but that just seems to be what the Democrat Party does now in a Post Clinton/Rubin world. I wish Gitmo was closed, but I also understand the legal mess that Bush created there. You simply can't try them in civilian courts and there is no place to release them to.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

Easily the most effective and best member of the administration. An absolute homerun, she has done a fantastic job, not only with dealing with foreign leaders but how she has handled employee issues with FSOs and the like at State.

I would actually vote for her in 2012 for POTUS *shudder*

could not agree more and would definitely vote for her in 2012 without a doubt if she ran....I cant think of any Republican I like at the moment, but she would beat him in my book.

Obama: C

Hillary: A

[NoVaO]

As for Obama's grade, I give him a D. Like Bush before him, President Obama is playing out an anaemic, Guilded Age, big business lap dog roll. It's the right time for a Teddy Roosevelt but Obama has been shockingly differential to big business. If he had a backbone, Obama could go down as one of the great presidents because the moment is ripe for a new hero in the White House.

I find your comment strange because you take the conservative line in most discussions. While Obama has been way too friendly to big business -- while at the same time being called a socialist and anti-business in general -- he has nothing on Republicans. I mean, they are trying to kill the Consumer Protection Agency set up by the Financial Reform bill. They have watered down every piece of meaningful legislation that may have actually been a net plus for the middle class and the poor.

And with Republicans now controlling the House, it's about just how anti-consumer, anti-worker, and pro big business will legislation ultimately be. We can't even hope for watered down legislation anymore.

So it surprises me you take this view and hold up Teddy Roosevelt as the type of man we need right now, considering he was one of the most progressive presidents in US history.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Pretty simple.

1) What has changed? (Bonus points if you can list a change for the better.)

2) Give Obama a letter grade for his performance so far.

3) Feel free to discuss any topics the administration has faced, and give your opinion of how well/poorly they've been handled.

1) Health care reform, Wall Street Reform, withdrawal from Iraq, and an economy going up, not down. All those things are significant changes.

2) I'd give him a solid B. He got through a lot of tough legislation, but its not all great legislation. I think it helps, but doesn't do enough, generally speaking.

Edit:

Its amazing to me to read a bunch of our presumed conservatives in the tailgate arguing that he has done nothing in two years, when for two years now Obama has supposedly been leading us down the path to communism or, at the least, socialism. Either he did nothing, or he did something.... right?

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

1)

Its amazing to me to read a bunch of our presumed conservatives in the tailgate arguing that he has done nothing in two years, when for two years now Obama has supposedly been leading us down the path to communism or, at the least, socialism. Either he did nothing, or he did something.... right?

The conservatives in the Tailgate are actually dominated by Libertarians, I think. That's how you get weird things like "conservatives" saying that Obama has sucked up too much to Wall Street or hasn't done "enough."

I bet if you ran a straw poll here among "conservatives," Gary Johnson would win. And he is not going to top 5 percent in any primary.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

The conservatives in the Tailgate are actually dominated by Libertarians' date=' I think. That's how you get weird things like "conservatives" saying that Obama has sucked up too much to Wall Street or hasn't done "enough."[/quote']

I guess, but these are the people complaining that he is done a lot to put government into our lives. Now, he's done "nothing," according to my generalizations of the posts.