President Obama's First Two Years in Office
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-04-21/president-obamas-first-two-years-office
President Barack Obama passes staff from the White House Military Office as he jogs along the Colonnade of the White House following an event that ran late, March 1, 2011. The military personnel and their families were lined up to take departure pictures with the President in the Oval Office.
Official White House photo by Pete Souza.
Few presidents have faced the expectations that confronted Barack Obama in 2009. Voters sent him to the White House largely based on his vow to change the way Washington works. The realities of governing soon overshadowed ambitious promises made on the campaign trail. His major achievements – landmark health care legislation, a successful stimulus package, and two Supreme Court confirmations – came at a high price. A crushing defeat for Democrats in the midterm elections has already taken a toll on the rest of his agenda. Diane and her guests discuss President Obama’s first two years in office and what he must do to win a second term.
Guests
James Thurber
professor and director of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies at American University; author of a forthcoming book, "Obama in Office: The First Two Years."
Susan Page
Washington bureau chief for USA Today.
Ron Elving
Washington editor for NPR.
Ross Douthat
columnist, The New York Times.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
I'll never forget the day President Obama stepped away from the podium (ostensibly to meet his wife) and left former President Bill Clinton to explain the agreement to extend the Bush era tax cuts for the wealthy, for about 20 minutes. The first person I thought of was Rev. Jeremiah Wright who explained Obama's character and occupation (politician) to us so well after Obama denounced him. My intuition tells me that Obama has more empathy for the People than Wright gave him credit for, and that he had hit his emotional and moral limit in being able to explain his failure to oppose what he knew was a wrong policy. But then a billion dollars in re-election funding must come from the corporate elite, and so Obama must bend to that immediate need. Clinton's amorality was nothing but a handy prop in the service of Bi-partisan Oligarchy. No former official is more false and corrupt than Clinton, and no Democrat president ever betrayed his constituency so thoroughly. I am doubtful now if Obama could be re-elected with even the largest war chest. I look for a third party candidate to out-poll him. The danger is that we could get an incompetent fascist mouthpiece as our next leader. T-partiers are there now because the electorate is confused by oligarch talking points and urged to hate the very people who have the solution.
When you look at the Democrats in Charlotte, NC next summer, notice all the security, the repressive measures taken to avoid hearing dissent. By then Obama will wish Jimmy Carter had consented to be his sub in opposing those insane tax cuts.
December 10th, 2010- check it out.
His speach a week ago about the budget is a prime example of what we elected him for - but people always forget. We (I) voted for him partially because we believed his promise to run another kind of washington.
When he comes back from the bargaining table, and neither side is happy, he comes back to us and calls it a victory. Isn't that the point?
He is a truly pragmatic and intelligent president. It's a given that macro-economics is a religion, not a science. So perhaps the only way to judge him without bias is to ignore the economics, in which case I think he's made an even stronger case for himself.
And then there is the PATRIOT Act.
It was renewed under D control of Congress and signed (quietly) by Obama shortly after health care (so called) passed.
Obama has failed to show leadership on the important issues. And caving in on tax cuts and, well that is just too much.
States secret privilege
Extraordinary rendition
Patriot Act
Lobbyists
Earmarks
Iraq
Guantanamo
No-bid contracts
On-line public comment period on bills
Negotiate health care reform on C-Span
No insurance mandate
Cut government spending
....
Obama is a professional candidate. He is best at running for office nothing more. It has worked like a charm up until now. This is the first time the man has a record to deal with. It is no accident he has started his campaign early he is out of his element of actually doing the job of governing.
1. President Obama was not supported by the Democratic majority that he initially had and, thus, was not initially successful. The president isn't a king and if Congress isn't going to work with him, he can't be too successful.
2. Obama mistakenly thought that his opposition was interested in good governing and could be bargined with. Instead, the Republican party was united in opposition to anything he proposed and often moved the goal post if he got too close to it.
3. The right wing has been masterful in framing the issues and the progressives ineffectual in that.
One promise President Obama did not keep was to the Armenian American constituency he went out of his way to court. Four days before the election he released his second statement promising to call the Armenian Genocide of 1915 a Genocide and not only did he not use the word Genocide, but he went above and beyond in forcing the government of Armenia into a peace agreement with Turkey that was for the sole benefit of Turkey. Armenian-Americans, especially the democrats feel very betrayed and although this is a relatively small issue considering we're up against promises broken on immigration, civil rights like the Patriot Act and the closing of GITMO; this small act, using the word Genocide, would have locked the Armenians, Democrat and Republican into voting for him again in 2012 and for Armenian support for democrats for many many years to come.
I personally think that President Obama would have an uphill battle this coming 2012 election. In my opinion, the President’s seems to always compromise in such a way, that the Democrats always receive the short end of the stick. It’s not that I dislike his ability to compromise, but I personally feel that he has not shown any ability to stand up and fight for any specific democratic ideal – and this is coming from someone who loves the President. Because of this, I believe that a lot of young people who initially supported the President would not be as enthused and may just sit out this coming election.
If he loss this coming election, it would not be because the Republicans have a better message or idea, but it would be because the Republican supporters are more energized.
Would someone please address the failure to sufficiently discipline Wall Street and investment banks largely responsible for the world financial crisis.
Why has no one addressed this major failing? How do you change the culture of Washington by bringing in advisers whose success was made in this financial community and its culture?
Sanford Jacobs, retired financial journalist, appalled at where our country has gone
What kind of "leader" is it who did not make the democrats (who were totally in charge of both houses of congress) present a budget for 2011 back in Oct. when it was due. That was their job, and it was a leader's job to at least loudly vocalize the need for congress to do its job.
yes, I know the answer is politics!
Fool me once...never again. I'm 61yo and have followed national and world events with interest since I was young. Started out as a conservative republican and after gaining some experience of life would say I might call myself a progressive socialist. I liked what Obama had to say during the campaign but he immediately started governing as a Bush regressive. He will never get my vote again no matter what he says. I have watched what he does not what he says.
every talking head says that he not working from the center - who's center ? each one believes that where they stand is the center . Please ask your guest to describe there concept of the center
It doesn't matter who's in the White House, at the end of the day, they're all just puppets for Corporate lobbyist.
I voted for Obama, but during his campaign, I did not buy the lofty rhetoric. His cadence of voice reminded me of a preacher, and I always wondered HOW this hope and change would be achieved. I'm still not sure if he really ever believed it himself, and he is paying a high price for that high platform. It was unrealistic, but it helped him get elected.
But it is politics, and there was never any doubt in my mind that he is an intelligent man that has skill and potential.
Now that he has come back down to earth, many are dissappointed. But really, we can't believe everything we hear during an election. Obama is not done yet, and hopefully he will gain strength against the Republicans and surround himself with good advisers instead of capitulating to business.
Obama is the first modern President not to enjoy a "Honeymoon."
It's easy to forget the vituperative campaign of the far right when Obama was elected. The Republicans were so shocked by losing power that they determined that they'd rather have the country go into depression rather than support Obama. This meant that everything that Obama tried to accomplish was a battle. For example, if he had been able to do the Health Care in 6 months instead of 18 months he could have worked on other objectives.
The noisy minority was able to dominate the discussion so that there was not a recognition of what was accomplished.
Obama has disappointed me in many actions but I can think of no one who could do a better job.
I wanted to make a few comments on this discussion with President Obama's first 2 years as President. I think he has managed to accomplish quite a lot in his time in office. Despite "promises broken" from his campaign(which any polititian coming into office is accused of). He came in to a difficult situation with the huge deficit, wars, collapse of the economy, raising heathcare costs, etc. He has done the best he can so far. He is NOT a magician with a wand he can wave, mutter an incantation and "make everything better". He is a man who is part of a 3 prong government. He's the Executive part. The Congress is the legislative and the Supreme Court is the Judicial. I think many people forget that the government is set up that way, so no one branch has too much power! He is a pragmatic person who realises that compromise is what gets things done. Unfortunately, the other side in Congress doesn't seem to share this idea.
Another liberal lovefest for Obama from Diane. She is as predictable and biased as Rush Limbaugh.
No politician is more corrupt than Bill Clinton? Really? Where were you during the Bush/Cheney years? The mess Obama inherited goes back to the greed of the Bush/Cheney years and the rich whose only purpose is to control the media so that they not only get to keep their ridiculous tax cuts under Bush, but get even further cuts.
Our country is no longer a democracy but a "plutocracy" where the rich are in control. Just watch how the news gets it spin. As for special security at Obama's appearances, as a black president, he has been more threatened than any other President. Bush did not allow dissent at his appearances and anyone packing a gun would have been spirited away. Not so at Obama functions.
I feel this president has done a substantively GREAT job given the historically unprecedented number and seriousness of the problems. I feel he will be facing even greater challenges these next two years.
This was a really good discussion--especially the last 10 minutes. The key debate when we talk about the Obama legacy (or currency) is whether he has a messaging problem or a governing problem.
My take is that he's got a bit of both. His biggest problem has been giving in on negotiations before they start, and expecting the other side will do the same thing. He identified that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh would try to control his message, but the White House hasn't done a really good job of simplifying and countering the misinformation campaign against his policies.
I recognized before voting for him that he's not King of the USA and he's not Ralph Nader. A lot of liberals are upset that he hasn't been able to implement the most liberal policies possible. I hope they realize the choice we have in 2012 and come back around. The erosion of liberal support is a threat to re-election.
I think he will skate to re-election because his presidency has shown a big contrast to the previous one: The Obama Administration has been extremely competent and there has been a lack of corruption scandals.
When I hear polling results, I keep thinking of the difficulties of sampling in other forms of analysis. To get a large enough sample to ensure a reasonable degree accuracy, you will affect the factor you are trying to measure. Or if you run an experiment and control for possible factors you aren't interested in, your results will be more precise, but less representative of the real - very messy - world.
The results of polls depend on both who responds to them, and how much overlap there is. Jones may turn down all such inquiries , while Smith may be happy to give an opinion whenever asked. This is in addition to the deliberate attempt to influence opinion with push polls, along with the inadvertent slanting due to the choice of words. Loud voices may have an exaggerated influence here. Angry (or lonely) people may answer more surveys than the disengaged (or very busy).
Is anyone studying this? How many people are aware of such factors? How can we make results more representative?
Yep, Dee Patterson, Clinton is the most corrupt because he understood the costs of his selfish acts. Daddy Bush takes second place because he's almost as smart as Clinton. (Notice how they promote disaster capitalism together.) Bush's son is both an idiot and a sadist (Nero) and so his handlers were responsible for this nation's 8 worst years. Ronald Reagan (A demented shell and corporate shill) was more incompetent than the Shrub. Bill Clinton was as irresponsible with our future as with his penis. He couldn't help himself once he tasted power. He just started humping for the wealthy class. Just think about Robert Rubin as one example. Letting AFDC be gutted with no substitute was heartless and is predictive of what is ahead on Entitlements.
I was discussing the mobilization of repression in Charlotte, not President Obama's death threats from unrepentant racists. He may even skip the convention if he withdraws like LBJ. I am one of those who may be injured, killed or unjustly jailed for attempting to peacefully redress my grievances at the 2012 Democratic Convention. It is no use waving a sign in a cage at the airport surrounded by sharp shooters.
Obama is about to feebly address oil speculation. He just moved our cowardly terrorist bombing from unmanned drones to Libya. Is Charlotte next? His failure to bring the culprits of the Meltdown to justice or to investigate 9/11 stick out like two sore thumbs. He's a proven supporter of the Oligarchy because he has certainly never questioned his marching orders. Obama's evil is as banal as littering. He doesn't critique the plutonomy.
BTW- I wanna see Donald Trump's birth certificate.
mchaun
For the most part all I heard was excuse making why nothing was Obamas fault, last time I checked I am entitled to have an opinion and am welcome here to post it. Sounds to me by your tone you are a bit full of yourself and apparently have become what you claim to hate. Monte is my name so your just going to have to deal with it.
There are several points missing from your discussion today.
Obama was elected because he in large part represented the noveau, up-and-coming, youth-relating, multi-cultural American. He did not represent the rural, independent American who has kept many of the patriotic values throughout the centuries. Neither is a bad thing. We are a changing more pluralistic country, yet deeply rooted in the American value system is a longing of independence from anything big and controlling, rather that is national health care or national education reform. There has been a series of mistakes that Obama and his team failed to recognize that could have saved his administration from the tough fight they face in the elections ahead.
Mistake number 1
The health care issue is a “national" concern, representing Democrats and Republican platforms alike. Both parties needed to have drafted and written the health care bill…together. Instead, in lightening speed, having a legislature and presidency of the same party momentarily, the Democrats threw together a bill that is bound to end in long and costly legislation. Binding the nation down to more debt, increasing dependency on larger government. Americans have an independent nature which dictates more choice, not less.
Mistake Number 2
Obama has given the public the appearance and allure of attempting to solve American problems through growing the government. However, to solve these multi-facet problems by having the government fix more problems-- by spending huge federal sums and to create more government programs will, in the long term haunt us, as we have less, not more money to function and thrive.
Many see Obama more as a philosophical spinner, than a doer. Why, because he has failed to understanding a fundamental concept that when parties work together to attack and solve national problems, the government is simply more affective. All parties are needed.
Just wanted to respond to a couple posts:
Grady said- “No former official is more false and corrupt than Clinton”.
No former official? Ever? Anywhere? Really?
Do you make these statements just to give everyone notice that nothing else you say likely has any merit either?
Totally agree with Bob Moran’s and Lee Black’s posts:
Also agree with "qsoundrich" that Obama has “messaging problem”. He is constantly out shouted by the radical right (like Fox) who pretend that they represent “the center”.
One problem I anticipated from day 1, is that when the country is going through upheaval it’s human nature to subconsciously associate the person they see on TV daily with the problems, especially because Obama seems to attend so many public functions.
As an admirer of Lincoln, he set out from day 1 to work with both parties. Unfortunately the party of “no” would have none of it, which makes it real difficult to govern effectively. It’s a miracle he has accomplished what he has, considering the degree of antagonism, abuse of filibuster, etc. he has encountered.
I’ve got issues with Obama, but am real confident that American situation would be worse under any GOP leader.
Will
Appreciate your frustration, but if you consider yourself a “progressive socialist” I doubt your going to find any member from GOP to your liking- (then again I see a GOP candidate today wants to legalize marijuana).
The extraordinary abuse of the filibuster so now in first time in history it takes over 60% to even debate an issue in senate, I don’t think is appreciated by many. W played by different rules (including often with little respect to laws or constitution) and made no attempt to work in bipartisan manner. It seems the rules have changed. Unless something can be done about the need for first time to get a 60% majority, then Obama has to continue to “compromise” with- “the dark side of the force”.
successful stimulus package
Huh? Somebody's been drinking the purple kool aid.