RSS Feed MenuTime magazine may think U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is 2009’s “Person of the Year,” but Time is wrong: 2009 was dominated by Barack Obama, even though it wasn’t a great year for him.
Obama’s human frailties surfaced. Words, not deeds, are his forte.
Critics and fans tended to agree that, so far, his presidency is one of great intentions (if not great expectations). He’s good at saying what he’d like to do, but has difficulty doing (or being able to do) very much.
Cheerleaders confuse rhetoric with results.
Obama is the most accessible president in recent times. He’s everywhere and omnipresent, seemingly hurtling around the world, bowing (if not scraping) to royalty and apologizing for America’s perceived errors, be they real or imaginary.
In some ways he’s more popular abroad than at home. Europeans, while liking him, were not susceptible to his charisma when he flew the Atlantic to lobby for Chicago getting the 2016 Olympic Games. No dice. Rio de Janeiro got them. A first ballot defeat for Obama and Chicago.
A mixed triumph was winning the Nobel Peace Prize for doing little but saying a lot. More Great Expectations. The prize tended to open American eyes and was mildly embarrassing even for his fans. Finally, Copenhagen and climate change was a fiasco that resulted in nothing.
Obama’s grandiose plans to reform health insurance have been compromised into spin over substance and will overlap into 2010. There are concerns about whether advertently or inadvertently he seeks to bring socialized medicine to a nation that for years has been indoctrinated against anything smacking of socialism.
Obama’s bailouts while promising to cut taxes for 95% of Americans still ring in electorate ears. The country’s debt will eventually and inevitably deflate the currency in order to cope with a debt running into double digit trillions.
One of Obama’s more effective election campaign promises was to close the Guantanamo Bay detention centre. That, too, had to be delayed. The more one wrestled with the question of detainees, the clearer it became (to some) that the ideal place for detaining “illegal” Taliban and al Qaida fighters was . . . Gitmo.
As if to replicate his predecessor, George Bush in Iraq, Obama has made Afghanistan “his” war – even though when he adopted it, it wasn’t the catastrophe it now seems. The “surge” in Iraq worked for Bush, so Obama is reluctantly trying it in Afghanistan where success is more tenuous.
As the most popular president of recent times when he was elected, Obama’s job approval rating has plunged to 42% (Rasmussen) or 47% (Gallup) – the lowest ebb of any present in the same time frame. This isn’t fatal, but it is a concern – especially with mid-term elections coming up in 2010 and Sarah Palin “surging” as the only Republican with a solid base of admirers (and a solid base of Republican critics).
Palin’s book (Going Rogue) is now said to have sold one million, indicating that three million sales is a realistic target. Since quitting as Alaska’s governor to revitalize her tainted image. Palin has so far succeeded without a false step. Her likeability factor is higher than any other political aspirant.
So pressure is on both Obama and Palin – he to start implementing noble intentions, she to defuse the Republican establishment’s horror at her popularity.
An interesting year ahead.
CentristNYer // Dec 22, 2009 at 12:11 pm
I don’t understand this line of thinking that Obama has “difficulty doing much.”
He got through an ENORMOUS stimulus package and is very close to signing a bill for major health care reform, something that nine other presidents failed to do. He’s put into place a plan for Afghanistan, has started to dismantle Guantanamo, and has radically shifted perceptions of the U.S. around the world.
You can argue with the merits of any of these accomplishments, but to dismiss him as ineffective is just ridiculous on the face of it.
As for Palin, it’s easy to jack up your likability numbers when you’re just ridin’ a bus, doin’ photo ops and signin’ books and winkin’. But just let her step outside her role as book writin’ celebrity mom and her numbers will collapse faster than franco’s arguments.
1fingerwillie // Dec 22, 2009 at 5:41 pm
Peter, the fact you think his three big achievements (stimulus, healthcare, and Afghanistan) will turn out to be failures does not mean : “[Obama] has difficulty doing (or being able to do) very much”. He is doing a lot. Argue that what he is doing is wrong…don’t slip into tired Republican talking points and claim he is all flash and no substance.
Also, there is a typo in your piece. I think you meant to say Bush’s bailouts (The TARP was a Bush administration policy).
1fw
JeninCT // Dec 23, 2009 at 6:47 am
Afghanistan has always been a quagmire, it’s just now become Obama’s quagmire. And yes, I agree that Obama’s done alot, but most of what he’s done is just sign off on Pelosi/Reid spending bills.
I disagree about his level of accessability. Yes, he is everywhere, but no one can ask him and honest question and get a simple yes or no answer. We keep hearing the same tired speech over and over again with different subjects, names and dates inserted. He’s become unwatchable.
Obama has everything to lose in 2010 and Palin has nothing left to lose. That’s the difference and that’s why Palin has so much power and appeal, from her humble facebook page.
mlindroo // Dec 23, 2009 at 7:29 am
> Since quitting as Alaska’s governor to revitalize her tainted image.
> Palin has so far succeeded without a false step.
> Her likeability factor is higher than any other political aspirant.
Where is the evidence?
Palin’s favorability averages remain fairly low and she is currently only at 42% according to http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-palin.php
That’s two points better than her polls ratings from August but still not very good.
E.g. Mike Huckabee [ http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-huckabee.php ] and Barack Obama [http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/fav-obama.php] are considerably more popular.
MARCU$
aDude // Dec 23, 2009 at 10:33 am
I find myself disagreeing with the basic premise of this article. 2010 is an important year, but not a make or break year. It is analogous to Ronald Reagan in 1982. In fact the parallels are striking.
You might remember that Reagan’s approval numbers were also in the sub-50 range. He was also trying to deal with an economic mess handed to him by the previous administration. The cure involved high unemployment (hitting 10.8%, even higher than now), and going into the 1982 elections unemployment was on the rise.
Sure enough, in the 1982 elections the Republicans lost seats in Congress. But the loss was not as great as it might have been in the Senate because 1982 involved the Senate class of 1976, which was a very good year for the Democrats in the post-Watergate era. So the defending Democrats tended to be weaker, and the defending Republicans were stronger.
By 1984, the economy was clearly on the rise, unemployment was down, and Reagan won 49 states.
2010 involves the Senate class of 2004, which was a good year for Republicans. While some Democrats are facing very tough reelection challenges (Reid, Dodd), there are also Republicans seats being vacated in states that went for Obama in 2008 (Ohio, New Hampshire). Unlike 1982, where the economy was still sliding on election day, in 2010 the economy will clearly be on the upswing. The Democrats will still lose about 20 seats in the House, but they could actually pick up a seat or two in the Senate. Remember, the world of November 2010 will not be the world of December 2009.
As for current polls, I’m reminded of the old Dennis Miller line – “According to Gallup, if the election were held today 95% of Americans would be surprised since they thought the election wasn’t supposed to happen until November”.
Just as the Democrats crashed and burned in 1984 assuming the country would just reject Reagan, Republicans cannot go into 2010 and 2012 assuming the country would just reject Obama. Only a broad based, narrowly focused Conservative vision, clearly and cogently articulated, has a chance.
And as for Palin, the only important question in 2010 will be if she gets Sean Hannity’s time slot.
Joe In NH // Dec 23, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Very good analysis by aDude. If people think things are getting better the Democrats do well in 2010 and 2012. If things still look scary then the GOP makes big gains. Forget about the polls….who doesn’t think that they will change dramatically if the economy is looking good in six months? Six months ago Obama was riding high and he will again if people get back to work.