Rate Obama. how good do you think he's been? Write your motivations. here's mine: Obama was elected on promises to bring "change". he'd end wars, bring the troops home, use his charm to maintain peace. He was supposed to be the "anti-Bush". He certainly tried too.. but reality forced him to continue with drones, to continue with the war in afghanistan.. He handled the arabs spring very poorly, support popular uprisings against dictators, but not realising that what would come after could be much worse. The chaos in syria, iraq, and libya could have been prevented if he acted more cautiously. I think he had an idealistic view that people around the world all want democracy. eight years ago Obama was filled with idealism. Today he seems much more tired and pessimistic; the world having proved his assumptions wrong. While he initially handled things terribly, he has grown somewhat wiser. Obama's apparent "anti-bushiness" could be a contributing factor for why Russia and China dared to challenge the US. I suppose no one could've predicted Russia was planning a cold war 2.0, but Obama's handling of it has been satisfactory but not perfect. sanctions and a military build up in eastern europe is the right approach, though it could be stronger still. I definitely think Ukraine should be given aid, including weapons. He's also standing up to China in the sotuh china sea, which is good. He could do more to counter the trade and cyber warfare from both china and russia though. The main fault of Obama is that he didn't anticipate any of this. Indeed he ridiculed Romney about his view that Russia was still an enemy. However, one thing Obama has handled very well is trade deals. TPP and TTIP are great. the pivot to asia was a very smart way to cement US and international trade rules in the world, to counter china's growing influence. sadly, both os those are under attack and might not survive the next presidency. so in summary: If Obama had done what he said he'd do -prematurely bring troops home, withdraw-, I would like him less, but reality forced him to change his plans. his innitial assessment of the international scene was very poor, but atleast he could adapt somewhat when he realised how things worked. Much damage was still done by his mistakes however. My judgement of him is 3/5, i.e. mediocre.
My judgment of Obama will be very different as an American, a Fascist-Technocrat and therefore of the Third Position. It also comes from someone who was a former Liberal and an Obama supporter in '08.(I was indifferent in '12.) A good part of your assessment is mine as well. The President campaigned on the hope and change, withdrawing from the war in Iraq, etc. And the situation on the grounds certainly changed, and I do agree that his handling of the war was quite poor. In hindsight, and with the rise of ISIS, we learn that Bush was correct when he predicted that any drawdown in Iraq would lead to a resurgence of terrorism within the area. This is partly(mostly) Bush's fault to begin with for trying a democracy in a former sectarian state.(There's irony of politicians not listening to themselves, as Joe Biden famously ripped Bush for this. I guess Biden's council wasn't asked in Washington as VP.) But Obama should have seen(and we did see) that the Iraqi government could not handle its responsibilities. Obama wanted out from the get-go, but a real president would have forced Iraq's hand: Either restructure the new agreement, or we stay in preemptively.(What would Iraq honestly do?) Yes, at that point it becomes a formal invasion but that's what it was at any rate. The Iraqis weren't ready, we shouldn't have thrown them into the wolves. Even with the withdrawal, Obama's advisors wanted 10,000 additional troops than what Obama had permitted there. Obama had a tendency not only to skip the meetings but refused to listen to his advisors. The withdrawal wouldn't have been so bad if not for yes, the Arab Spring. This monumental disaster will go down in history as the worst US-planned initiative ever. Yes, worse than the decision to invade Iraq in 2002. Let's recall where it first started: Egypt: Muburak was a long-time US ally(Hillary herself acknowledged that in her Hard Choices book) but the Administration decided that it should support the military-led coup and thus to give voice to the people. Who did "the people" select? The Muslim Brotherhood, radical extremist terrorists. After a year of terrorist rule, the military would once again overthrow the so-called "government". Great job. You'd think Obama would learn from this, but NO. Then Libya. Libya is a hell basket case all on its own. According to the Guardian, it started when the reports came out that Qaddafi was "slaughtering his people". The so-called "Rebels"(The Transitional Council) made it's appeal to Madam Clinton, and so swayed was she by the rebels, that the US organized the Nato-LED resistance, which they termed "leading from behind" since our soldiers technically weren't fighting even though they gave air support and logistical support. Only the so-called slaughter? never actually happened. Even Hillary was upset at being duped. But duped she was, her, Obama and our entire intelligence team apparently. They had put in another bunch of radicals and the civil war is still ongoing in Libya today. 0-fer-2. Can we make it 0-fer-3? Yes WE CAN. Not long after their 'success' in dividing Libya in two, the so-called rebels made their way to Syria. A bunch of foreign fighters went influx into what is now an open chaotic situation. Oh, all we're going to do is send a bunch of wartime battleships and nearly declare an unilateral war for the first time since Iraq! Holy CRAP batman. What gained the respect of the right wing, was how Vladimir Putin took advantage of John Kerry's unsightly paux(proving that the career politician should NOT have been your top diplomat.) and thankfully resolved a situation I thought was going to get us kicked out of the UN security council. Thanks to the Arab Spring, we've got a bunch of "refugees"(as Ban-Ki Moon would adoringly call them) from Syria and elsewhere, flooding the developed world. How will this turn out? Remains to be seen. But as a Eurozone member, you already know that for you, our interference was uncalled for and damaged your continent. For this, I apologize. The circumstances could have(and may end up being) much worse under a president Hillary Clinton. Hillary would have indeed put a so-called no-fly zone in place in Syria.(How lovely, air combat when these lands are already damaged. Soon, Syria itself will be uninhabitable. Which I thought was the whole point.. Oh, nevermind.) And far more importantly, she would have given even more military aid to these groups(Obama hesitated on some of the more lethal weapons.) This is absolutely perfect. In spite of their calls for a "political solution", "calls" don't mean CRAP unless its met with action. And the only action seen in Syria, is making the crisis worse. The Iran Deal was awful, when you compare what we wanted to start with(Absolute confirmation) and what we got(Iran's cronies looking after it.) Between that and the billions in unfrozen assets, Iran sponsor of terrorism still proliferating, and that Iran tested a ballistic missile a few months back. This is a couple of moves away from being a complete disaster. It's already a negotiation fail though, considering that France wanted a 15-year moratorium. Somehow, the president got the crappiest deal and then he blames his stronger allies for his own mishaps. Funny, if it weren't sad. Trump's "right" on that Obama's a crappy negotiator. But we already knew that, far before this deal. Now, the "good"(or what little of it) in Obama's foreign policy. Unlike the Neo-cons, I'm not a "Israeli firster". Which means I'm enthralled with Obama's position towards Israel, putting that warmonger Benjamin Netanyahu where the sun shined. Hillary doesn't share Obama's gusto, which means we'll return to the status quo of being Israel's #1 cheerleader. It'll make the neo-cons very happy, even if its under a democratic platform. But at least for eight years, the US stood up for itself. Ironically, just as Ronald Reagan did. The US cannot be viewed as some punching bag, even by a 'US ally'. Thank you Obama, I'll give you credit where it's deserved. Obama also successfully negotiated the START Treaty, and had it been approved by the US Senate, the goodwill might have given us more time to settle issues. The restart idea was noble, too bad it was abandoned Foreign Policy: F Financial Policy: I'll give Obama some slack here. Financial Policy is mostly dictated by Congress. Which from 2008-2014, meant his incompetent Liberal lackies. Who thought the first thing they should do(or the second thing at the latest) was pass the ACA. The ACA is not a health bill, it only subscribes the various insurance agencies as well as hospice care. No, for all intents and purposes it should be seen as a finance bill. And a TERRIBLE finance bill. The Democrats wanted to try their hand at financial regulation, which unfortunately is only headed by one limited department(the SEC. The Security and Exchanges commission) but I bet even the SEC could have made a bill better than the ACA. Here's how the laughable saga has played out: The Dems had 60 votes to get whatever they wanted. The Dems believed that a Single-payer Health care system(think: Medicaid on steroids.) was the ideal solution. Despite this "wonderful" idea, the Dems decided not to go along with it. Believing Republicans wouldn't go for it. So they came up with an absolutely DUMB idea that still puzzles us: The Individual mandate, and the exchange markets. The mandate and markets was one of two options. The other option, was a Public Option(I endorsed the Public Option. Well, "endorse" is too strong a word. I thought if Dems were going to do this mistake, at least give us a way out.) The Democrats exclusively negotiated with insurance companies in a live Town Hall, pretty much kicking out the Republicans. As soon as this pro-corporate, force everyone to buy health care bill was on the table, Republicans balked. I was a Libertarian at the time I opposed the bill. It went against self-determination principles, and violated the premise of consumer rights. I'm still not sure how this "law" which violates the Commerce Clause was actually viewed as constitutional. Well, I know the official reason of course. But not logically speaking.(Logic and LAW has since not applied since 2009. Don't ask, our Court is now a joke and I want it abolished. Not because of an authoritarian power play. The Court is dead to me.) The "official" reason is that Justice Roberts focused on the penalty aspect of the law. And he SOMEHOW managed to call a penalty a tax.(BTW, thus breaking Obama's pledge of no taxes against those making under $250,000. But who cared? Nobody.) Now, onto the economic aspects of this disaster and keeping it brief: -Health care providers and hospitals were not going to have an increase of supply to deal with demand. We all know this would inevitably lead to shortages and higher costs. -The so-called subsidies could not cover the costs of those who were prematurely sick, or the elderly. That's the whole reason for the retarded mandate in the first place. Compounding this, is that the Court ruled that other States could choose not to participate in the expansion. Smart for them, since they wouldn't have increased expenditures like Ohio has. Unfortunately, not smart for the debacle that is the ACA who needed these States to participate. Now the only way a resident of say Oklahoma can get insurance, is through the private markets. And not everyone can afford private health insurance(or is employed.) Now, if you'll listen to Jolly bean Obama, he'll crow that the uninsured rate has dropped by 7%. And yes, that's true. Unfortunately, the MAIN argument for it wasn't merely reducing uninsured. It was ALSO reducing health care prices! Arguably, those prices increased for a fair percentage of Americans, stayed the same for most of them. And for the vast majority who DIDN'T want it, they now have to pay out of pocket expenses(health insurance costs) they DIDN'T want. Because these Democrats believe that adding a fixed cost to personal income is no big deal, like we're the Fed Reserve. Not. Oh and there's the whole, reducing patients and out of pocket costs thing too, that didn't happen either. But hey, whose counting. I'll move on now. There's the "Cash for Clunkers" embarrassment. There's the Stimulus that didn't do ANYTHING, leading to the "cashless" economy. What would Obama's legacy truly be, if not for the fracking explosion of mid 2014-2015 in Texas and Pennsylvania? It wouldn't be good, after all Obama's best argument for re-election was "Yeah, it's slow but trust us." Trust, not rewarded whatsoever under the Obama "Economy". Grade: F. Domestic Policy: And out of all of the President's MANY screwups, his lasting legacy will be on the one that not even Republicans thought he'd screw up: Domestic Policy. In a TheAtlantic piece with Jeffery Goldberg, Obama admitted that he didn't care about the events going on in the United States. As president, he had "bigger fish" to fry. And he wants to call Trump unstable for the job? Now, there isn't a magical wand that Obama can wave to make problems go away, but being an accountable representative is one way to make sure they aren't worse. And the comments such as "He acted stupidly" did NOT help his cause(or ours), not at all. Playing into and in fact encouraging the media narratives of the incident such as Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, Obama singlehandedly lit fuse a nation that PUT him into power, to do the exact opposite of what he's been doing. When someone yells to incite a riot "Burn this (expletive) down", they don't get charged. But under former attorney Holder and now Lynch, whoever the president doesn't like will be LYNCHED into financial oblivion. Just ask Ferguson who had to undergo a 6.5 million dollar program. This wasn't the first time(Arizona), that Obama used the executive power to coerce a State against its will. Meanwhile, while the BLM thugs were out in full force, somehow Missouri Governor Jay Nixon(a democrat) and Obama did NOT have the National Guard out. A disgrace that ended up showing the worst of the US to the rest of the world. And at the same time, while these criminals looted, stole and while they assault our officers, Obama goes to the UN to complain about "systematic racism", feeding into the notions that the BBC and British opinion and politicians were selling. Things have gotten so bad in this country, that there was a knockout game in 2015! That is, actual targeted racism that was recorded live. Domestic Policy is actually one of the President's top jobs. It's his job to maintain unity in the country. And be it deliberately picking the most divisive snobs for the jobs, or making those same snobish comments himself. Or silently encouraging the violence in this country, there hadn't been a worst president for America EVER. Even Bush kept things together, and many wanted to off his head. Domestic Policy: F. Obama is a failed president. History is going to look at him as a failed president. No matter how many Liberals like the way he talks, or how he dresses up his many failures in excuse land. I hated Bush, and I hate Obama with just as much passion. And I'm pretty sure Hillary is going to step up to the plate to give us more of the same. Enjoy.
That's quite a fair analysis, and close to what would have been mine. Let's just add up the fact that he faced an outright hostile chamber, making it difficult to change anything in the first place. 6/10 - a good-intentionned man, that was a little short on delivery, but still, he delivered. If he wasn't a mulatto, he'd be quite an obscure, MotR President. What makes him appear so positively outside the US is his class and the fact that he succeeded GWB.
