(01-04-2017 10:55 PM)Pyrizzo Wrote:  

(01-04-2017 08:26 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  By any fair metric he is at best a poor president.

Worst is subjective, but nobody can argue fairly that he was good.

Fit for some unearthly reason thinks he can, but we all know he can't really put forth a good argument.

I would say there is a fine line between an argument and a delusion but with Fit at this point there isn't.

I believe that one must wait at least a term or two to properly evaluate a president out of office. You're more than welcome to comment on their actions at the time they're made, but comparing Obama to the likes of Jackson, Roosevelt, and LBJ is impossible right now, it takes time to put their actions into historical context.

When evaluating presidents, I believe that there are "two presidencies" to look at. There's their legacy in domestic policy (where they're limited by our political system in many ways, though this is changing with how much control the modern president has over a powerful bureaucracy) and in foreign policy (where they can exert considerable influence given the constitution's vague grant of authority and Congress' historical deference. Some presidents are widely praised for both (i.e. Washington), others are seen as mixed bags (i.e. Nixon), others are criticized all around (i.e. Buchanan).

When it comes Obama, I believe that he'll be remembered as a very poor foreign policy president. Time will not be very kind to the Iran deal, and his mismanagement in other regions (i.e. Syria, Libya, Israel, and East Asia) will haunt the US going forward and tarnish a lot goodwill he's built up with current supporters imo. Domestically I think he'll always have some fans on principle, but his inability to work with Congress in eight years has left him as a POTUS with a relatively small legacy outside of Obamacare and a handful of EOs, his long-term influence will almost certainly shrink if Trump is successful in unwinding his two terms. History won't shine favorably on his economic policy if Trump gets it together, he'll be seen as someone who squandered a recovery that should've been much stronger after a deep recession. That leaves him with social policy, where the social conflicts of our time will cloud any minor positives.

Conclusion? He should be ranked in the mid or upper thirties near the second Bush, though enough people out there agree with his political philosophy that he'll be higher than that for a while.

Obama did a great job. Somone should give him a medal.

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/ap/ap_nat...6acae.html

(01-05-2017 12:44 AM)solohawks Wrote:  Obama did a great job. Somone should give him a medal.

http://www.herald-dispatch.com/ap/ap_nat...6acae.html

I'd give him a participation trophy.

(01-05-2017 12:10 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  I believe that one must wait at least a term or two to properly evaluate a president out of office. You're more than welcome to comment on their actions at the time they're made, but comparing Obama to the likes of Jackson, Roosevelt, and LBJ is impossible right now, it takes time to put their actions into historical context.

When evaluating presidents, I believe that there are "two presidencies" to look at. There's their legacy in domestic policy (where they're limited by our political system in many ways, though this is changing with how much control the modern president has over a powerful bureaucracy) and in foreign policy (where they can exert considerable influence given the constitution's vague grant of authority and Congress' historical deference. Some presidents are widely praised for both (i.e. Washington), others are seen as mixed bags (i.e. Nixon), others are criticized all around (i.e. Buchanan).

When it comes Obama, I believe that he'll be remembered as a very poor foreign policy president. Time will not be very kind to the Iran deal, and his mismanagement in other regions (i.e. Syria, Libya, Israel, and East Asia) will haunt the US going forward and tarnish a lot goodwill he's built up with current supporters imo. Domestically I think he'll always have some fans on principle, but his inability to work with Congress in eight years has left him as a POTUS with a relatively small legacy outside of Obamacare and a handful of EOs, his long-term influence will almost certainly shrink if Trump is successful in unwinding his two terms. History won't shine favorably on his economic policy if Trump gets it together, he'll be seen as someone who squandered a recovery that should've been much stronger after a deep recession. That leaves him with social policy, where the social conflicts of our time will cloud any minor positives.

Conclusion? He should be ranked in the mid or upper thirties near the second Bush, though enough people out there agree with his political philosophy that he'll be higher than that for a while.

I find your post very insightful. Actually its the best post in this thread. From an African American male perspective on President Obama, I would not classify him as a great president but I will also not say he is the worst president we ever had. I believe he could of done more for the black community but I also expect and have expected that from every president. But I have changed my way of thinking on that issue and would rather have a president that can make things equal for all and not have a so call "Black Agenda". But that another discussion for another day. I will say that I truly believe that out of all of the U.S. Presidents, Pres. Obama had it the hardest. Let me state that this is my opinion because I know how some of you here are averse to a positive opinion towards him. When he took office he had opposition from day one. Maybe that lead to his inability to work with Congress? I'm not sure. It makes you wonder how things would of been if they did work together. I guess to make it simple, If I were to give him a letter grade, I would give him a C.

(01-05-2017 12:10 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  I believe that one must wait at least a term or two to properly evaluate a president out of office. You're more than welcome to comment on their actions at the time they're made, but comparing Obama to the likes of Jackson, Roosevelt, and LBJ is impossible right now, it takes time to put their actions into historical context.

When evaluating presidents, I believe that there are "two presidencies" to look at. There's their legacy in domestic policy (where they're limited by our political system in many ways, though this is changing with how much control the modern president has over a powerful bureaucracy) and in foreign policy (where they can exert considerable influence given the constitution's vague grant of authority and Congress' historical deference. Some presidents are widely praised for both (i.e. Washington), others are seen as mixed bags (i.e. Nixon), others are criticized all around (i.e. Buchanan).

When it comes Obama, I believe that he'll be remembered as a very poor foreign policy president. Time will not be very kind to the Iran deal, and his mismanagement in other regions (i.e. Syria, Libya, Israel, and East Asia) will haunt the US going forward and tarnish a lot goodwill he's built up with current supporters imo. Domestically I think he'll always have some fans on principle, but his inability to work with Congress in eight years has left him as a POTUS with a relatively small legacy outside of Obamacare and a handful of EOs, his long-term influence will almost certainly shrink if Trump is successful in unwinding his two terms. History won't shine favorably on his economic policy if Trump gets it together, he'll be seen as someone who squandered a recovery that should've been much stronger after a deep recession. That leaves him with social policy, where the social conflicts of our time will cloud any minor positives.

Conclusion? He should be ranked in the mid or upper thirties near the second Bush, though enough people out there agree with his political philosophy that he'll be higher than that for a while.

Given that it's mostly academics that do these sort of rankings, I think he will get ranked far above his actual tenure's accomplishments. I mean, there will be some that rank him high because of his stance on confused mental dudes squatting in women's bathrooms........... that is a minor blip in a 8 year presidency, but academicians tend to overvalue social issue stances.

(01-05-2017 10:09 AM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 12:10 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  I believe that one must wait at least a term or two to properly evaluate a president out of office. You're more than welcome to comment on their actions at the time they're made, but comparing Obama to the likes of Jackson, Roosevelt, and LBJ is impossible right now, it takes time to put their actions into historical context.

When evaluating presidents, I believe that there are "two presidencies" to look at. There's their legacy in domestic policy (where they're limited by our political system in many ways, though this is changing with how much control the modern president has over a powerful bureaucracy) and in foreign policy (where they can exert considerable influence given the constitution's vague grant of authority and Congress' historical deference. Some presidents are widely praised for both (i.e. Washington), others are seen as mixed bags (i.e. Nixon), others are criticized all around (i.e. Buchanan).

When it comes Obama, I believe that he'll be remembered as a very poor foreign policy president. Time will not be very kind to the Iran deal, and his mismanagement in other regions (i.e. Syria, Libya, Israel, and East Asia) will haunt the US going forward and tarnish a lot goodwill he's built up with current supporters imo. Domestically I think he'll always have some fans on principle, but his inability to work with Congress in eight years has left him as a POTUS with a relatively small legacy outside of Obamacare and a handful of EOs, his long-term influence will almost certainly shrink if Trump is successful in unwinding his two terms. History won't shine favorably on his economic policy if Trump gets it together, he'll be seen as someone who squandered a recovery that should've been much stronger after a deep recession. That leaves him with social policy, where the social conflicts of our time will cloud any minor positives.

Conclusion? He should be ranked in the mid or upper thirties near the second Bush, though enough people out there agree with his political philosophy that he'll be higher than that for a while.

I find your post very insightful. Actually its the best post in this thread. From an African American male perspective on President Obama, I would not classify him as a great president but I will also not say he is the worst president we ever had. I believe he could of done more for the black community but I also expect and have expected that from every president. But I have changed my way of thinking on that issue and would rather have a president that can make things equal for all and not have a so call "Black Agenda". But that another discussion for another day. I will say that I truly believe that out of all of the U.S. Presidents, Pres. Obama had it the hardest. Let me state that this is my opinion because I know how some of you here are averse to a positive opinion towards him. When he took office he had opposition from day one. Maybe that lead to his inability to work with Congress? I'm not sure. It makes you wonder how things would of been if they did work together. I guess to make it simple, If I were to give him a letter grade, I would give him a C.

Uhhhh....No. He did have an economic mess to deal with - one that GWB had already began work on thru TARP. However, the dems had filibuster proof majorities in both houses of the legislature at the start of his term. He definitely had a challenge to contend with - that is true. But I think you forget the that several presidents began with significantly more complicated/challenging starts.

• Lincoln: At least a 3rd of the country seceded when he took office thus starting the Civil War
• Roosevelt: Took over from Hoover in the beginning of the Great Depression - a much more challenging economic situation than Obama had to deal with. Need I also mention WWII?
• Washington: First president of a brand new country that had to figure out how to run and manage a country.
• A. Johnson: Had to deal with how to put the country back together after the Civil War (which he screwed up btw)
• Madison: Washington burned to the ground and the British almost conquered the U.S. in the War of 1812
• Truman: First president who had to contend with the USSR in a new and scary era of world history with nuclear war looming in the background.
  

(01-05-2017 10:48 AM)miko33 Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 10:09 AM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 12:10 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  I believe that one must wait at least a term or two to properly evaluate a president out of office. You're more than welcome to comment on their actions at the time they're made, but comparing Obama to the likes of Jackson, Roosevelt, and LBJ is impossible right now, it takes time to put their actions into historical context.

When evaluating presidents, I believe that there are "two presidencies" to look at. There's their legacy in domestic policy (where they're limited by our political system in many ways, though this is changing with how much control the modern president has over a powerful bureaucracy) and in foreign policy (where they can exert considerable influence given the constitution's vague grant of authority and Congress' historical deference. Some presidents are widely praised for both (i.e. Washington), others are seen as mixed bags (i.e. Nixon), others are criticized all around (i.e. Buchanan).

When it comes Obama, I believe that he'll be remembered as a very poor foreign policy president. Time will not be very kind to the Iran deal, and his mismanagement in other regions (i.e. Syria, Libya, Israel, and East Asia) will haunt the US going forward and tarnish a lot goodwill he's built up with current supporters imo. Domestically I think he'll always have some fans on principle, but his inability to work with Congress in eight years has left him as a POTUS with a relatively small legacy outside of Obamacare and a handful of EOs, his long-term influence will almost certainly shrink if Trump is successful in unwinding his two terms. History won't shine favorably on his economic policy if Trump gets it together, he'll be seen as someone who squandered a recovery that should've been much stronger after a deep recession. That leaves him with social policy, where the social conflicts of our time will cloud any minor positives.

Conclusion? He should be ranked in the mid or upper thirties near the second Bush, though enough people out there agree with his political philosophy that he'll be higher than that for a while.

I find your post very insightful. Actually its the best post in this thread. From an African American male perspective on President Obama, I would not classify him as a great president but I will also not say he is the worst president we ever had. I believe he could of done more for the black community but I also expect and have expected that from every president. But I have changed my way of thinking on that issue and would rather have a president that can make things equal for all and not have a so call "Black Agenda". But that another discussion for another day. I will say that I truly believe that out of all of the U.S. Presidents, Pres. Obama had it the hardest. Let me state that this is my opinion because I know how some of you here are averse to a positive opinion towards him. When he took office he had opposition from day one. Maybe that lead to his inability to work with Congress? I'm not sure. It makes you wonder how things would of been if they did work together. I guess to make it simple, If I were to give him a letter grade, I would give him a C.

Uhhhh....No. He did have an economic mess to deal with - one that GWB had already began work on thru TARP. However, the dems had filibuster proof majorities in both houses of the legislature at the start of his term. He definitely had a challenge to contend with - that is true. But I think you forget the that several presidents began with significantly more complicated/challenging starts.

• Lincoln: At least a 3rd of the country seceded when he took office thus starting the Civil War
• Roosevelt: Took over from Hoover in the beginning of the Great Depression - a much more challenging economic situation than Obama had to deal with. Need I also mention WWII?
• Washington: First president of a brand new country that had to figure out how to run and manage a country.
• A. Johnson: Had to deal with how to put the country back together after the Civil War (which he screwed up btw)
• Madison: Washington burned to the ground and the British almost conquered the U.S. in the War of 1812
• Truman: First president who had to contend with the USSR in a new and scary era of world history with nuclear war looming in the background.
  

You are right. I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification.

Just got word my premiums are going up another $100 a month (up to a record-breaking $700).

That's not what you said would happen, Mr. President.

Oh, and I didn't get to keep my doctor, either.

Sent from my XT1565 using CSNbbs mobile app

This sums it up for me which is sad...

When he took office, I was frankly terrified (I think I used that very word on here) that, particularly with the democrat supermajority that he had in both houses of congress, he would push through the agenda that he ran on and we as a country would be ruined. I saw his whole campaign as America is the greatest nation on earth, so help me transform it into something else.

Fortunately, in practice he turned out to be unable to lead even a supermajority of his own party very far down the road to ruin, apparently because he is too big of a pompous, arrogant, condescending, narcissistic a-hole to be able to get people to work with him. He had never actually done anything of significance before (he'd been things, but never done things) and that inability to get things done showed badly.

On the domestic side, I am eternally grateful for that inability. On the foreign relations side, where I actually thought I might be okay with his approach, going in, that inability has been very detrimental. There's virtually no place in the world where we are better off than we were eight years ago, and the Middle East is a hot mess.

I'm still on the fence about Trump. The good Trump could be fantastic, the bad Trump could be disastrous, and I don't know which one we will get.

Can someone clearly define what makes a president good, bad, and the worst ever, then back up their opinion with data? Crime, health, and economic data don't paint that negative of a picture, although they don't paint that positive of one either.

I'd say that he was mediocre, and that his presidency will be defined by the climate of obstructionism in Washington. Not much was accomplished.

Bottom half.

Sent from my XT1565 using CSNbbs mobile app

Oblunder was so bad that Trump was able to win solely on the fact that Killary was promising the people 4 more years of Oblunder and that didn't suit well with America. He is a disaster that thankfully will ride off into the sunset and if decides to remain in the spotlight because he's a narcissist no one but his sycophants will listen. He has no more power and even though he does a great job with the teleprompter he is terrible without it.

I waited 8 long, long years for this dip to leave office (and I never cried about it or protested) and now he'll be gone in 13 days. Hallelujah!

Our relations with every country on the planet have worsened under Obama ... with the exceptions of Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran.

It's a fool's errand to try to evaluate now. It does make for some good shallow rivalry talk though.

(01-06-2017 08:17 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  Can someone clearly define what makes a president good, bad, and the worst ever, then back up their opinion with data? Crime, health, and economic data don't paint that negative of a picture, although they don't paint that positive of one either.

I'd say that he was mediocre, and that his presidency will be defined by the climate of obstructionism in Washington. Not much was accomplished.

The first two years of his presidency he had huge majorities in both houses. He held the senate for the first four years.

He was given a blank check when he came into office of nearly a trillion dollars. Every thing he accomplished came at the price of doubling our national debt.

The obstructionism of the other party was not his problem. He was his own problem.

The sequester was a perfect example. The GOP offered to let him make all the decisions as to what got cut but he, thinking only of his legacy, did not want to make hard choices.

(01-07-2017 01:39 AM)Bull_Is_Back Wrote:  The sequester was a perfect example. The GOP offered to let him make all the decisions as to what got cut but he, thinking only of his legacy, did not want to make hard choices.

No, because then he couldn't blame somebody else.

(01-05-2017 10:09 AM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(01-05-2017 12:10 AM)Love and Honor Wrote:  I believe that one must wait at least a term or two to properly evaluate a president out of office. You're more than welcome to comment on their actions at the time they're made, but comparing Obama to the likes of Jackson, Roosevelt, and LBJ is impossible right now, it takes time to put their actions into historical context.

When evaluating presidents, I believe that there are "two presidencies" to look at. There's their legacy in domestic policy (where they're limited by our political system in many ways, though this is changing with how much control the modern president has over a powerful bureaucracy) and in foreign policy (where they can exert considerable influence given the constitution's vague grant of authority and Congress' historical deference. Some presidents are widely praised for both (i.e. Washington), others are seen as mixed bags (i.e. Nixon), others are criticized all around (i.e. Buchanan).

When it comes Obama, I believe that he'll be remembered as a very poor foreign policy president. Time will not be very kind to the Iran deal, and his mismanagement in other regions (i.e. Syria, Libya, Israel, and East Asia) will haunt the US going forward and tarnish a lot goodwill he's built up with current supporters imo. Domestically I think he'll always have some fans on principle, but his inability to work with Congress in eight years has left him as a POTUS with a relatively small legacy outside of Obamacare and a handful of EOs, his long-term influence will almost certainly shrink if Trump is successful in unwinding his two terms. History won't shine favorably on his economic policy if Trump gets it together, he'll be seen as someone who squandered a recovery that should've been much stronger after a deep recession. That leaves him with social policy, where the social conflicts of our time will cloud any minor positives.

Conclusion? He should be ranked in the mid or upper thirties near the second Bush, though enough people out there agree with his political philosophy that he'll be higher than that for a while.

I find your post very insightful. Actually its the best post in this thread. From an African American male perspective on President Obama, I would not classify him as a great president but I will also not say he is the worst president we ever had. I believe he could of done more for the black community but I also expect and have expected that from every president. But I have changed my way of thinking on that issue and would rather have a president that can make things equal for all and not have a so call "Black Agenda". But that another discussion for another day. I will say that I truly believe that out of all of the U.S. Presidents, Pres. Obama had it the hardest. Let me state that this is my opinion because I know how some of you here are averse to a positive opinion towards him. When he took office he had opposition from day one. Maybe that lead to his inability to work with Congress? I'm not sure. It makes you wonder how things would of been if they did work together. I guess to make it simple, If I were to give him a letter grade, I would give him a C.

He had super majorities is both houses of Congress when he 1st took office.

He screwed up almost from day one when he publicly stated to the effect: "that he didn't need any help from the Republicans in congress - that they could ride in the back of the bus." Doesn't sound much like he was after "working together" at that point.

The fact is, he had never held a leadership position prior to winning the Presidency where it is your job to get folks pulling in the same direction you want to lead them. He's not the first person thrown into a leadership position before they are quite ready for it, some figure it out and can turn into excellent leaders, others fail and Obama falls into that camp. Frankly, given that I didn't like his policies, I'm glad he turned out to be a crappy leader.

He is quite the orator which is good for winning elections, but turned out to be sh!tty at actually "leading" those in his charge to actually get things done. Particularly, he wasn't even good at getting the Democrats in both houses of Congress to pull in the direction he wanted them to go, but I don't think he particularly tried all that hard even with those in his own party. After a time - he decided to do what he wanted with a "telephone and pen" in the form of executive orders. The problem with that is, as we will soon see, since they aren't law - they can be "undone" with the stroke of a pen.

In short - he just wasn't up to the task of the office.........because he never learned how to be a leader.