I think he's generally right -- it is way too early to pass judgement on Obama, 
though I think the mistakes are real. Still, he's got a point that Democrats 
start out ambitious which makes this an institutional problem for them, which 
isn't necessarily an indicator of future performance.

I think we'll learn a lot more on Tuesday...

-- Ernie P.

P.S. DRB, I know you despise Klein, but I do think he is more rational than 
most leftists :-)


> Of the past seven Presidents, the two Bushes rank at the top in popularity 
> after one year, while Obama and Bill Clinton rank at the bottom, with Jimmy 
> Carter close by. There is a reason for that. Democrats come to office eager 
> to govern the heck out of the country

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1942832,00.html

Obama's 'Mistakes': Way Too Early to Judge

By Joe Klein
Over the past few weeks, Barack Obama has been criticized for the following: He 
didn't go to Berlin for the 20th anniversary of the Wall's coming down. He 
didn't make a forceful enough statement on the 30th anniversary of the U.S. 
diplomats' being taken hostage in Iran. He didn't show sufficient mournfulness, 
at first, when the Fort Hood shootings took place, and he was namby-pamby about 
the possibility that the shootings were an act of jihad. He has spent too 
little time focusing on unemployment. He bowed too deeply before the Japanese 
Emperor. He allowed the Chinese to block the broadcast of his Shanghai 
town-hall meeting. He allowed the Chinese President to bar questions at their 
joint press conference (a moment memorably satirized by Saturday Night Live). 
He didn't come back with any diplomatic victories from Asia. He allowed Khalid 
Sheikh Mohammed and the other 9/11 plotters to be tried in the U.S. 
criminal-justice system rather than by the military. He has dithered too long 
on Afghanistan. He has devoted too much attention to — and given congressional 
Democrats too much control over — health care reform, an issue that is 
peripheral to a majority of Americans.

And all this has led to a dangerous slippage in the polls, it is said, a sense 
that his presidential authority is ebbing. (See who's who in Barack Obama's 
White House.)

As a fully licensed pundit, I have the authority to weigh in here ... but I 
demur. Oh, I could sling opinions about every one of the events cited above — 
some were unfortunate — but it would matter only if I could discern a pattern 
that illuminates Obama's presidency. The most obvious pattern, however, is the 
media's tendency to get overwrought about almost anything. Why, for example, is 
the 20th anniversary of the Berlin Wall demolition so crucial that it requires 
a President's presence? Which recent U.S. President has gotten the Chinese to 
agree to anything big? (In fact, Obama has secured significant diplomatic 
cooperation from the Chinese on North Korea, Afghanistan and Pakistan.) Was his 
deep bow indicative of anything other than his physical fitness? (My 
midsection, sadly, prevents the appearance of obsequiousness in such 
circumstances.)

Stepping back a bit, I do see a metapattern that extends over the 40 years 
since Richard Nixon's Southern strategy began the drift toward more ideological 
political parties: Democrats have tough first years in the presidency. Of the 
past seven Presidents, the two Bushes rank at the top in popularity after one 
year, while Obama and Bill Clinton rank at the bottom, with Jimmy Carter close 
by. There is a reason for that. Democrats come to office eager to govern the 
heck out of the country. They take on impossible issues, like budget-balancing 
and health care reform. They run into roadblocks — from their own unruly ranks 
as well as from Republicans. They get lost in the details. A tax cut is much 
easier to explain than a tax increase. A foreign policy based in bluster — 
railing against an "axis of evil" — is easier to sell than a foreign policy 
based in nuance. Of course, external events count a lot: the ratings of Bushes 
I and II were bolstered, respectively, by the disintegration of the Soviet 
Union and the flattening of the World Trade Center. Reagan's rating — 53% and 
headed south — was dampened by a deepening recession. (See TIME's Person of the 
Year: Barack Obama.)

So it is way too early to make pronouncements on Obama's fate. One pattern that 
can be limned from the recent overseas controversies is that this President has 
a tendency to err in the direction of respect toward other countries. This is a 
witting reaction to the Bush Administration's tendency to diss our allies and 
insult — or invade — our enemies. It is a long game, which will yield results, 
or not, over time. After a first year spent demonstrating a new comity, Obama 
has gained the global credibility to get tough — on Iran, for example — in his 
second year. But the real evaluation of Obama's debut must wait for the results 
of the two biggest problems he's tackling: his decision on Afghanistan and the 
congressional attempt to pass health care reform. And even here, it will be 
difficult to render judgment immediately — as difficult as it was to judge 
Clinton's decision to spend his political capital on deficit reduction in his 
1993 economic plan, a triumph that didn't become apparent for nearly five years.

The one Asian image that resonates with me isn't the bow, but the President 
alone on the Great Wall. That image — the noble loner — is clearly one the 
White House wants to project. But it raises the specter of isolation. Most 
Presidents have a significant other when it comes to policy. Bush Junior had 
Cheney; Clinton had Hillary; Bush the Elder had James Baker; Nixon had 
Kissinger. Obama's conservative critics poke fun at his overweening ego, but I 
suspect that the President's need to find an alter ego, an intellectual equal — 
in addition to the First Lady — who can challenge his decisions and demeanor 
(in private, with the bark off), is the biggest adjustment he has to make now.

See pictures of Barack Obama taken by everyday Americans.

        •
        • 
        • Click to Print
        •
        • Find this article at:
        • http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1942832,00.html
Copyright © 2009 Time Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in 
part without permission is prohibited.
Privacy Policy|Add TIME Headlines to your Site|Contact Us|Customer Service


_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: [email protected]
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/

Reply via email to