• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Grade Obama so far!

How do you grade Obama's presidency so far


  • Total voters
    81
As many of you know, on Opera, Obma Graded his performance a "B+", and said had he passed his health care, he would have given himself higher...



I think the dood is on crack. :lol:



What grade would you give him thus far? :mrgreen:



Oh and discuss specifically why you arrived at said grade.

He has completely failed on his promised and turned around his policies. That alone deserves an F.
He is also just the same **** as the previous administration, only slight changes.
 
I would say C if not a B, because despite misgivings I have, not much has occurred in only several months to dislike him. I'm reluctant to grade the man highly for economics, in fact, I'm skeptical of his policies and their effect in actually pulling the economy up. Foreign policy wise, he still has time to run a course, but it is running out. I do not think that he will be able to convince Russia or China of anything meaningful with sanctions, so I think he will be forced to decide between attack and living with a nuclear Iran if he does not want ineffective sanctions. Afghanistan is up in the air. He promises to uphold No Child Left Behind with support for tweaks, wants some sort of merit pay system (two things I am certainly not against), and is seemingly willing to cast aside some issues for the sake of keeping the primacy of more important issues to him. I'm completely uncertain about health care reform, so I do not even pretend to be able to provide an opinion about it.

Much has yet to happen.

I'm not one to expect or desire radical changes on everything. Firstly, I know campaign rhetoric is campaign rhetoric, and not necessarily reasonable when reality hits. I was never a believer in "hope and change", and that is not cynicism.
 
Last edited:
I'm not assigning anything
You placed the blame for current US unpopularity squarely on Obama when you said:

Iran and N. Korea are increasingly becomming dangerous, international polling is even worse towards the U.S. than under the Bush or Clinton administrations, etc.



I fully understand that those dictatorships were problems, what I am assigning to him is blame for softening up our admittedly weak response even further, to potentially catastrophic levels.

I don't believe Obama softened our response at all, he simply opened the door to strategic possibilities that the Bush Admin wouldn't even consider. Bush's strategy was comprised of tough threats he could not back up. He threatened sanctions, though the previous 20 years of sanctions effectively immunized the Iranian government from US political influence. He threatened military action, though any such action would create an international disaster and destabilize the region to a degree not seen in modern history.

Any progress that has been made in the previous years (concerning North Korea or Iran) has come not through sanctions or military action, but through the claimed "weak" policies of diplomacy and multilateral negotiations. However, all of this being said, I am a believer in "speak nicely, but carry a big stick."


Further than that, N.Korea is a failing of the 50's,
Except that their first nuclear test occurred in 2006.
and Iran is Jimmy Carter's baby, the big problem IS that Obama is returning to the political tactics that allowed those cancers to be born initially.
That is just blatantly false. If any one person can be blamed for the Iran that exists today, it is Dwight Eisenhower for signing off on a covert military operation in an attempt to build a friendly Iranian nation. Jimmy Carter's offering of asylum to the American-created dictator was simply the straw that broke the camel's back and allowed the Islamic Republic of Iran to rise.

Further back than Bush, Clinton had some nuclear flubs with his "nuclear energy" concessions, but it is more than that, N.Korea should have been stamped out during the Korean conflict.
Certainly, that was easier said than done. However, on both points we find ourselves in agreement.
Never said that did I? I am blaming NATO for the failure, however, any decision that Obama makes is now his responsibility. I elaborated above. Inheritance is NOT an excuse, how he handles it is his responsibility, and will be judged accordingly, on his handling of the inheritance he gets a solid D.
Grading Obama on his handling of Afghanistan before his policies are even enacted is sort of like grading a student on how much they study for the upcoming test. However, that is the question posed in the OP, so your answer is understandable.

NATO cannot hold all the blame. Bush could have sent more troops to Afghanistan at any point in the last 4 years as the war started to get nasty. Though again, we may find some agreement. NATO has exercised much of the control since assuming command of the expanded ISAF, a move with corresponds with the increased violence in the region.

Endless war is not an option, however neither is leaving a power vacuum in a powderkeg like the middle east, anything short of accomplishing solid goals is unacceptable.
Agreed. Which is why I give Obama points for finally setting solid goals.

This is incorrect, the president's influence is twofold, he may suggest policy and sign bills, congress sets monetary policy, which is why they possess the "power of the purse". You falsely assign blame to an act in 2k, the housing crisis dates back to the 70's with the creation of Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac, it was exacerbated by years of willfull ignorance of the shortfalls in these programs, further so by 1990's strongarm tactics to force risky lending, and finally profiteering by companies looking to cash in on the situation.

Well, I guess we can trace back the blame to our founding fathers if we wished (should have written something in the constitution, damnit!). Truly, though, I believe the mess in the financial sector was to muddled and complex for anyone to have noticed, except those who stood to gain from the mess itself. For this reason, I tend to avoid assigning blame on anything but greed.
 
He has completely failed on his promised and turned around his policies. That alone deserves an F.
He is also just the same **** as the previous administration, only slight changes.

Such is the nature of this 1.5 party system we find ourselves voting for.
 
I give him an F for the following reasons (reprinted from my post in the basement)

1.Makes Bush look like a thrifty spender.
2.Constantly claiming success on obvious failures.
3.Playing the politics of fear card that he bemoaned during the campaign.
4.Does not make his policy proposals clear,people end up more confused than anything.
5.Loves to appoint tax cheats.
6.Constantly talking out both sides of his mouth on issues.
7.Wants Crap n Tax.
8.Wants Health Scare.
9.Hasn't met a World leader he won't bow to.
10.'Baghdad' Bob Gibbs.
 
He looks at least twice as badass as any other president in memory

Doesn't look badass to me.


ObamaUrkel.jpg
 
international polling is worse? where?
I don't have the data currently, going off of third party sources to be honest. However these things can be seen in the dressing down some countries are giving us, China being the most embarrasing one.



true enough that we are sending more troops.
I agree with a surge, but not if there is poor ground coordination(not Obama's fault, this is a NATO failing).




i realize the president doesn't issue monetary policy. but the unabashed spending by bush and congress helped put us in this position.
There is absolutely no excuse for the Bush adm. signing off on the original bailouts, that was a completely wasteful experiment that was predicted by many to fail, however if we are being objective, the Democrat controlled congress did pass it through, but we had a second round of this crap also passed by a Democrat held congress and signed off on by Obama, so both Bush and Obama get an F for that particular economic brain fart.
 
You placed the blame for current US unpopularity squarely on Obama when you said:
Right, I blame him for the current handling of it, I may have misunderstood your original response. I fully acknowledge that he didn't start the problems, however he is using proven useless tactics to deal with the present situation.







I don't believe Obama softened our response at all, he simply opened the door to strategic possibilities that the Bush Admin wouldn't even consider.
Diplomacy? That's the only thing I can gather as a different strategy, but this is where we get to the original point, diplomacy has been proven to have unintended consequences with these two particular dictatorships.
Bush's strategy was comprised of tough threats he could not back up. He threatened sanctions, though the previous 20 years of sanctions effectively immunized the Iranian government from US political influence.
Right, the sanctions(negative consequence diplomacy) did not work, so yes, Bush did in fact drop the ball on that one, but I don't even see an attempt to use forceful language from this adm.
He threatened military action, though any such action would create an international disaster and destabilize the region to a degree not seen in modern history.
Destabilization was a possibility, this is true and a very real hangover effect from the artificial withdrawal of the earlier conflict from last century, however I think we all must concede that something must happen in that region and hopefully someone will figure it out fast before it becomes a military situation, so far Obama's answers have been lacking.




Except that their first nuclear test occurred in 2006.
This is true, and I don't know how we or the international community let that happen, but the setup came from past mistakes.

That is just blatantly false. If any one person can be blamed for the Iran that exists today, it is Dwight Eisenhower for signing off on a covert military operation in an attempt to build a friendly Iranian nation. Jimmy Carter's offering of asylum to the American-created dictator was simply the straw that broke the camel's back and allowed the Islamic Republic of Iran to rise.
Carter's mistake allowed for the standing government of the time to be deposed, while they were a human rights nightmare, they were far less dangerous to the rest of the region than the current standing government.




Grading Obama on his handling of Afghanistan before his policies are even enacted is sort of like grading a student on how much they study for the upcoming test. However, that is the question posed in the OP, so your answer is understandable.
Fair enough.

NATO cannot hold all the blame. Bush could have sent more troops to Afghanistan at any point in the last 4 years as the war started to get nasty.
Our troop levels were not well thought out, fully agree, however, and this was also a Bush admn. mistake was to defer central command to NATO, my buddies who came back from that theater were all pretty much of the same opinion to that effect.





Well, I guess we can trace back the blame to our founding fathers if we wished (should have written something in the constitution, damnit!). Truly, though, I believe the mess in the financial sector was to muddled and complex for anyone to have noticed, except those who stood to gain from the mess itself. For this reason, I tend to avoid assigning blame on anything but greed.
I think real reform in finance and commerce is a commendable goal, and I will concede that there are some both the private and public sectors will game the system for any monetary gains, I am not so much anti-regulation as I believe in the necessary and proper test for any applications of said rules. For instance, compliance with federal regs. is a nightmare, and so confusing that it can skew economic data to the levels of incomprehension, things need to be simplified to public health/safety protection(within reason), and fraud should be vigilantly prosecuted, basically, good faith business should be the goal, not necessarily the beaurocratic mess the idea of public trust has become.
 
NO
And no vote...:doh
This (Presidency) is not school.
Who the hell are we anyway to be "grading the president".
If we as people were to be "graded" all the time, we would fail, and we have failed..
So what good does this do???
 
I gave grade F.

Most of my points are covered by other posters who also gave an F.

I want to emphasize the overbearing attitude and superiority complex that Obama has. That he infers that it is no tot the American people as a service that he is willing to serve, but as a sense that it is of his noblesse oblige that he deigns to tell us what he will permit us to have and what to do.

Obama is the most narcissistic politician since Theodore Roosevelt, who lacks humor save for a type that includes a schadenfreudistic bent. Any self deprecating humor is coming from the TPOTUS.

His constant campaign mode is tiring, his debasement of the Presidency to nations large and small. His apology tour to Europe, and absolute cluelessnes
on protocol. And his blindness of the power of nations.

The placement of tyrants in positions of unchecked power, establishment of paramilitarian groups that are loyal to him and not to the people or the Constitution.

The acceptance of a medal and renumeration from a foreign power before approval by Congress.

By importing to this country terrorists who under the laws of war do not benefit even under a status of POW status equaliavent to that of a Citizen or a legal resident.

Imposing on the Citizenry a monstrous debt that would shackle untold generations to come. And for such purposes to reward only those people and institutions who brought him to power. And of some of those people and institutions who are foreign have inimicable intent on this country and its people.

Proposing programs that are more pogroms against the weakest members of society, such as government healthcare which ultaimently will require denial of service causing deaths of the elderly and those who care may be deemed to expensive or who's politics are deemed impertantant.

I guess i just had to rant about this.
 
Grade: A-

Pros: Determined to institute a nationalized health care plan with a public option, lifted the stem cell research ban using federal money, proposed pullout of all American troops in Iraq by 2010/2011 on schedule as of last month, supports the Democratic Congress in laying the smack down on shady credit card company/bank practices, foreign policy record immaculate, sympathetic to the scientific community when it comes to global warming and supports their findings by political action, and seems to generally know what he's doing as President of the United States, which is more than I can say for his predecessor.

Cons: Needs to be more liberal on social issues. Don't Ask Don't Tell should have been repealed yesterday. Gay marriage should be instituted on a federal level, overturning any and all statewide Constitution bans on the practice. Would like to see our current National Motto ("In God We Trust") be replaced with the original one ("E Pluribus Unum").
 
Last edited:
Grade: A-

Pros: Determined to institute a nationalized health care plan with a public option, lifted the stem cell research ban using federal money, proposed pullout of all American troops in Iraq by 2010/2011 on schedule as of last month, supports the Democratic Congress in laying the smack down on shady credit card company/bank practices, foreign policy record immaculate, sympathetic to the scientific community when it comes to global warming and supports their findings by political action, and seems to generally know what he's doing as President of the United States, which is more than I can say for his predecessor.

Cons: Needs to be more liberal on social issues. Don't Ask Don't Tell should have been repealed yesterday. Gay marriage should be instituted on a federal level, overturning any and all statewide Constitution bans on the practice. Would like to see our current National Motto ("In God We Trust") be replaced with the original one ("E Pluribus Unum").

What do you think of his stand in Afghanistan? I have mixed feelings.
 
I don't like the short-term mentality that is required to actually give a grade for a first year in office. I didn't begin to really judge Bush's actions until about 2003. So in 2011, I'll probably give out a grade of Obama's performance.

Essentially, he gets an "I" for "incomplete" right now.

The media and pundits, on both sides, gets an "F-" for pandering to sensationalism even more than they did during Bush's tenure. This counrty is headed straight for the ****ter, but it isn't any single politicians fault, nor is it something that can be blamed on one party.

It's the people who are to blame. All of us. We've been turned into goldfish, with 7 second memories unable to hold a cogent thought within our heads for any amount of time.

I'm getting closer and closer to thinking the whole system should just be scrapped and rebuilt.

Now for a musical interlude:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCEeAn6_QJo"]YouTube- Tool - Ænema [uncut version - hq - fullscreen][/ame]

"Some say the end is near.
Some say we'll see Armageddon soon.
I certainly hope we will cause
I sure could use a vacation from this

Stupid ****, silly ****, stupid ****..."


/Super-cynical Tucker
 
Maybe low C to D range. Actually, probably well entrenched in the mid D range. He's a piss poor president who has only proliferated the crap Bush was doing in terms of wars and growing government power. But there is worse (FDR) and if we're going on an absolute scale, there is MUCH worse (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Steve from next door who doesn't clean up after his f'n dog, etc). Well maybe if we consider those guys, he's back in the low C maybe high D range.
 
there is no president in history that gets any better than an A- even regan

Jefferson! But only because I'm biased and he's my personal hero (at least where it pertains to political philosophy).
 
I don't like the short-term mentality that is required to actually give a grade for a first year in office. I didn't begin to really judge Bush's actions until about 2003. So in 2011, I'll probably give out a grade of Obama's performance.

Essentially, he gets an "I" for "incomplete" right now.

The media and pundits, on both sides, gets an "F-" for pandering to sensationalism even more than they did during Bush's tenure. This counrty is headed straight for the ****ter, but it isn't any single politicians fault, nor is it something that can be blamed on one party.

It's the people who are to blame. All of us. We've been turned into goldfish, with 7 second memories unable to hold a cogent thought within our heads for any amount of time.

I'm getting closer and closer to thinking the whole system should just be scrapped and rebuilt.

Now for a musical interlude:

YouTube- Tool - Ænema [uncut version - hq - fullscreen]

"Some say the end is near.
Some say we'll see Armageddon soon.
I certainly hope we will cause
I sure could use a vacation from this

Stupid ****, silly ****, stupid ****..."


/Super-cynical Tucker






Meh, oprah asked, he graded himeslf.... This thread is in that context punchy.... :mrgreen:
 
Imposing on the Citizenry a monstrous debt that would shackle untold generations to come. And for such purposes to reward only those people and institutions who brought him to power. And of some of those people and institutions who are foreign have inimicable intent on this country and its people.

Going by proportions, Obama has made only minor contributions to our existing debt, trillions and all, and only tiny alterations to future deficit projections. The best criticism going in this direction is that he has no plan to reduce U.S. deficits, however, that is an insincere complaint because no president in the last thirty years except Clinton has had such a plan. There is no reason to suddenly make the Obama Administration personally responsible for a hallmark of U.S. policy; that is like blaming a single Cold War president for the entire Cold War. Your other point is too obscure to address.
 
Last edited:
Going by proportions, Obama has made only minor contributions to our existing debt, trillions and all, and only tiny alterations to future deficit projections. The best criticism going in this direction is that he has no plan to reduce U.S. deficits, however, that is an insincere complaint because no president in the last thirty years except Clinton has had such a plan. There is no reason to suddenly make the Obama Administration personally responsible for a hallmark of U.S. policy; that is like blaming a single Cold War president for the entire Cold War.

You have to admit that we had few expectations of Bush in his first year, where he snoozed up until 9/11, then launched us into an unnecessary war.

We have enormous expectations of President Obama.
 
Meh, oprah asked, he graded himeslf.... This thread is in that context punchy.... :mrgreen:

I'm not knocking you specifically, Rev.

I'm knocking Oprah and other members of the media as well as politicians for their manipulative strategies.

I'm also being critical of all of us (including myself) for allowing ourselves to be led by them in the pursuit of the almighty vote/ratings boost.
 
You have to admit that we had few expectations of Bush in his first year, where he snoozed up until 9/11, then launched us into an unnecessary war.

Depends on which war you are referring to. Initially, the War in Afghanistan was conducted reasonably; the Taliban were the material base of Al Queda and as such attacking them for 9/11 was justifiable, and we made use of already existing rebel groups to accomplish the core of our military aims, thereby establishing a greater sense of legitimacy among the Afghans (absent in Iraq) and sparing NATO troops and resources for other projects, such as tracking down Al Queda networks and agents. However, the Iraq War was a massive drain on our resources and energies, completely at cross-purposes with the War on Terror to the point Al Queda actually started exploiting growing anti-Western sentiment in that country to drum up recruits, weaken our military, and undermine our national consciousness.
 
Last edited:
He's clearly a D.

No hope, no change. He's spent us into oblivion and continues to urge Congress to pass Omnibus bills. Heathcare makes no one happy and doesn't address the cost of healthcare with still millions left wanting coverage. He's done little other than spend spend spend and continues to spend. Besides... an F would be the second coming of Lucifer or the Anti-Christ and while Obama's **** can bad, he's not Anti-Christ bad.... yet.
 
He has completely failed on his promised and turned around his policies. That alone deserves an F.
He is also just the same **** as the previous administration, only slight changes.

Our President is not our dictator, some people seem to think that he is.

I will assign no grade to our President, Its beneath the dignity of the office.
I will give the American people a failing grade.
Too many are uneducated.
Too many do not care.
Our political precess requires involvement by intelligent men.
Here, we have a shortage.
Unfortunately, Mr Obama's appear is limited, no fault of his.
And I see no JFK on the horizon.
 
Back
Top Bottom