How big a failure is Obama's presidency?

This has got to be one of the most scathing analyses of Obama's presidency that I've read.

...And it comes from none other than the CBC, which is an eviiil libural Canadian media outlet!

Lots more at the link. It's really worth a read.

Ah, you've posed a dilemma for the Usual Suspects. Will their I Hate Obama No Matter What trump their characteristic mockery of all things Canadian? Tough call.

You're a hard man.

A hard man is good to find.

When it's all over, I think I would like to read an honest, objective, non-partisan analysis of his presidency (if such is possible), written by someone with no axe to grind or point to prove. At the moment, everything is lost in partisanism, cooked statistics, and the fog of war (as it were).

About as big of a failure as the next book by Margaret Wander Bonanno.

For that you'll need to wait about twenty or thirty years after he leaves office.

It depends by what criteria you judge success, doesn't it?

This.

Scathing?

It says he didn't live up to his promises, sure.

But those promises were to change the stauts quo - and it gives him ample cover by pointing out the obstructionism of the GOP, even as it harps on his naivete to believe that he could achieve bipartisnship.

It criticized what he didn't achieve, not what he did. It says, as is a common refrain, that he wasn't nearly progressive enough.

I think that its realively easy to write his legacy now - he was too ignorant of Washington to enact real change, but that the GOP sold its soul to the Southern racists to ensure his attempts to bring the US to the center (compared to world poltics) on a score of issues instead of the right of center would never work. The party of No won - and now has its own demons to bear for the cost of that victory.

He'll be remembered for being in office when Bin Laden was killed, for moving out of Iraq premarturely (though even I agree in retrospect we should have never been there in the first place, and I was very much a proponnent of removing Saddam), for restoking the fires of the American economy while unprecedently letting the villians who neary destroyed it (and the world) prosper. He'll be remembered for getting the first substantive legislation on health care passed, which will one day be seen as a stepping stone to single payer, because the private market is and always has been broken here. And he'll be remembered as the President who expanded the destruction of the 4th amendment on an unprecedented scale.

Lots of good, lots of bad.

And as the article said, lots of broken promises.

But what politician ever lived up to what he promised?

I have to think we are a little worse off than when he came. Not materially, though some are, the economy itself is doing well enough.

But because the idealists on the left have been overwhelmed by the cynics, and most don't believe in the American people's desire to do the right thing anymore. And the realpolitik on the right embraced the poison of racial hate into their bosom in order to stop the slide into 'socialism', and are struggling now to find some way to distance themselves from it. A struggle they will be fighing likely for decades to come.

Considering the piece is supposedly Canadian, there's some interesting spatial deixis.

Ooo, someone got up on the wrong side of the royalty statement this morning!

Sort of like Reagan. Except for the hardcore faithful, he ain't looking too good these days...

Sloppy writing, or is the author a closet American?

ETA: Checked him out, and he was born in Quebec City, something he's probably trying to live down.

So Wannabe American, then.

A president has to be out of office for awhile before you can really judge that. I don't think much good beyond ACA and killing Bid Laden will be remembered. He's better than W but that's not saying a whole lot. His administration seemed to spend more time pointing fingers to cover up his failures rather than working with the opposition to get things done. Bill Clinton had a congress that shut the government down twice AND tried to impeach him yet he was able to get important legislation passed.

Hopefully 2016 brings us something better because the last two presidents have really sucked.

I don't know where you're looking, but history is casting a fairly positive light on Reagan.

The writer is a Canadian journalist based out of Washington DC.

Whose history? If it's just a case of "He was a much better President than Dubya," I'll give you that.

A politician who promised a bunch of things to get elected but hasn't delivered on everything? That's every politician who's ever run for any public office anywhere. And that's the basis for declaring Obama the worst failure in history?

Here's the only relevant factor to consider when reading these kind of hysterical diatribes - he's black.

I don't agree with everything he's done and I think he's made some big mistakes, but the only explanation for the kind of insane garbage (birtherism) thrown his way and the vitriolic reaction to his presidency by the righties is that - he's black.

After 8 years of seeing the reaction to Obama, I am firmly convinced that I will never see another black president in my lifetime. I don't think I'll ever see a woman president unless Hillary gets in, and I'm not to wild about Bill roaming the White House again.

Holy shit, I agree with Flashlight....no, it's bait, he's tricking me somehow....

Fixed. Welcome to the normal life of a President.

After eight years of reading this type of bullshit I'm convinced that many lefties are ignorant of the history of American government and have a very narrow black and white view of the world.

Definitely. He was the one proclaiming Cosby's innocence yesterday, and now he does this:

http://wordforge.net/index.php?threads/is-garamet-buying-cosbys-plane-ticket-to-france.105215/

Ftfy

On the OP, it's too early to tell, but it's worth noting he did achieve the signature item from his campaign. As for the rest, probably his biggest achievement was exposing the GOP's desperate corruption. I had once believed that Republicans just had different ideas, but weren't opposed to the very notion of functioning government. That question has been clarified.

Do tell - what is it that the left should be aware of that you enlightened conservatives understand?

Let me guess, you probably supported the Duke lacrosse accuser as well and railed against those who dared to question her story as racists, huh? And you slunk away in disgrace as the case was dismissed, the unethical prosecutor disbarred and the Uni ersatz sued for tens of millions, right?

I bet you even went for a ride on the Tawana Brawley bandwagon back in the day.

Is that what you call it?

I think ultimately the Obama Admin. will be considered noticeably worse than the Bush #43 presidency. Because I believe that the Obama Admin. is damaging U.S. credibility overseas and relations with our allies that will damage the U.S. for years to come. Not to mention that Obamacare ultimately comes down to just one more entitlement which will stress the federal budget until it is dispensed with altogether.

Killing Bin Laden? Killing Bin Laden in 2002, 2003 or even 2004 might've meant something.

Killing him in 2011? That's like sacking the quarterback.......five years AFTER the Super Bowl.

Withdrawal from Iraq without leaving substantial forces there (whether the Iraqi govt. agreed or not should've made no difference) was obviously a staggeringly huge mistake.

Likely withdrawal from Afghanistan will probably be the same.

Finally, I think Obama has damaged the American peoples faith in the federal govt. by a degree not seen since Richard Nixon.

Face it, Obama will be remembered by history........for what he IS (first black president) more than for any positive he has done.

That simple disagreement does not equal one being a racist. Most people learn this simple concept by high school but apparently not in your case. Plus a basic knowledge of what Presidents have went through in the past regardless of the make up of congress would help. Are you even old enough to remember Clinton? That Presidency alone should clue you in.

Yeah, Clinton was white, so bringing him up, when Republicans managed to work with him, doesn't exactly bolster your argument that Obama isn't facing a racism based obstruction. Since Obama is more conservative than Clinton, it can be the politics, must be something else.

How is Obama more conservative than Clinton?

Compare the ACA to Clinton's plan. However, it's a matter of degree. They are both centrist moderates. Only one has been labeled as a foreign socialist.

Clinton never could get his remotely near passage despite having massive control over both houses of Congress (more than Obama's party control his first two years IIRC).

I also felt that Clinton was considerably more conservative on foreign policy including the two NATO air campaigns against Serbia.

Not to mention bombing Iraq, Iraq again, Sudan, Afghanistan, Iraq again...and again...and again...and again.....and again......................