"Obama's Brilliant First Year"

By January, he will have accomplished more than any first-year president since Franklin Roosevelt.By Jacob WeisbergPosted Saturday, About one thing, left and right seem to agree these days: Obama hasn’t done anything yet. Maureen Dowd and Dick Cheney have found common ground in scoffing at the president’s “dithering.” Newsweek recently ran a sympathetic cover story titled, “Yes He Can (But He Sure Hasn’t Yet).” The sarcasm brigade thinks it’s finally found an Achilles’ heel in his lack of accomplishments. “When you look at my record, it’s very clear what I’ve done so far and that is nothing. Nada. Almost one year and nothing to show for it,” Obama stand-in Fred Armisen recently riffed on Saturday Night Live. “It’s chow time,” Jon Stewart asserts, for a president who hasn’t followed through on his promises.
This conventional wisdom about Obama’s first year isn’t just premature—it’s sure to be flipped on its head by the anniversary of his inauguration on Jan. 20. If, as seems increasingly likely, Obama wins passage of a health care reform a bill by that date, he will deliver his first State of the Union address having accomplished more than any other postwar American president at a comparable point in his presidency. This isn’t an ideological point or one that depends on agreement with his policies. It’s a neutral assessment of his emerging record—how many big, transformational things Obama is likely to have made happen in his first 12 months in office.

The case for Obama’s successful freshman year rests above all on the health care legislation now awaiting action in the Senate. Democrats have been trying to pass national health insurance for 60 years. Past presidents who tried to make it happen and failed include Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Through the summer, Obama caught flak for letting Congress lead the process, as opposed to setting out his own proposal. Now his political strategy is being vindicated. The bill he signs may be flawed in any number of ways—weak on cost control, too tied to the employer-based system, and inadequate in terms of consumer choice. But given the vastness of the enterprise and the political obstacles, passing an imperfect behemoth and improving it later is probably the only way to succeed where his predecessors failed.
We are so submerged in the details of this debate—whether the bill will include a “public option,” limit coverage for abortion, or tax Botox—that it’s easy to lose sight of the magnitude of the impending change. For the federal government to take responsibility for health coverage will be a transformation of the American social contract and the single biggest change in government’s role since the New Deal. If Obama governs for four or eight years and accomplishes nothing else, he may be judged the most consequential domestic president since LBJ. He will also undermine the view that Ronald Reagan permanently reversed a 50-year tide of American liberalism.

Obama’s claim to a fertile first year doesn’t rest on health care alone. There’s mounting evidence that the $787 billion economic stimulus he signed in February—combined with the bank bailout package—prevented an economic depression. Should the stimulus have been larger? Should it have been more weighted to short-term spending, as opposed to long-term tax cuts? Would a second round be a good idea? Pundits and policymakers will argue these questions for years to come. But few mainstream economists seriously dispute that Obama’s decisive action prevented a much deeper downturn and restored economic growth in the third quarter. The New York Times recently quoted Mark Zandi, who was one of candidate John McCain’s economic advisers, on this point: “The stimulus is doing what it was supposed to do—it is contributing to ending the recession,” he said. “In my view, without the stimulus, G.D.P would still be negative and unemployment would be firmly over 11 percent.”
When it comes to foreign policy, Obama’s accomplishment has been less tangible but hardly less significant: He has put America on a new footing with the rest of the world. In a series of foreign trips and speeches, which critics deride as trips and speeches, he replaced George W. Bush’s unilateral, moralistic militarism with an approach that is multilateral, pragmatic, and conciliatory. Obama has already significantly reoriented policy toward Iran, China, Russia, Iraq, Israel, and the Islamic world. Next week, after a much-disparaged period of review, he will announce a new strategy in Afghanistan. No, the results do not yet merit his Nobel Peace Prize. But not since Reagan has a new president so swiftly and determinedly remodeled America’s global role.
Obama has wisely deferred some smaller, politically hazardous battles over issues such as closing Guantanamo, ending “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” and fighting the expansion of Israel’s West Bank settlements. Instead, he has saved his fire for his most urgent priorities—preventing a depression, remaking America’s global image, and winning universal health insurance. Chow time indeed, if you ask me.

http://slate.com/ID/2236708/

Yeah…

lets not forget about banning books.

Yea so far Obama-0

What happened to pulling troops from Iraq and Afghanistan? Probably one of the biggest issues of the whole election where he played a card that was total BS that he knew he couldnt follow through on and the public ate it up.

didnt he just address the nation saying he is sending another 34,000+ troops over there over the next 3 months?

yes… yes he did

Yep, kind of pulled a 180 on the people that voted for him.

ehhh… and the several thousand that voted for him more than once.:vlad

and just because he’s black as well, the people that voted for him tend not to read into politics much, nor do they serve in the military, nor do they hold jobs. So why wouldnt they vote for obama

:ninja:number1…

I agree for the most part but I wouldnt have used just the race card but more of the welfare type crowd in general

hand in hand…

Yea just trying to be politically correct. I saw plenty of scum bag low life white people when I worked at the hospital and I am sure alot of them voted for this lying sack of shit in office

politically correct is being ignorant imo

gotta be or ur labeled a racist. freedom of speech isnt so free anymore.

Yea I agree with this, basically anybody that is down on their luck and looking for a handout would be a fool not to vote for Obama. Why work for it when somebody will just hand it to you?

well there are a lot of southerners that are poor that did not vote for obama, i assure you

ahhh aint nothing like a good old boy and their one track point of view. cant say they are wrong in this instance though…:ohnoes

I didnt vote for him and I am currently unemployed with no health insurance and in school. I find my own way to pay for shit as should these other low life’s that procreate just to get a “paycheck”

Because thats the way America has become. Why do it the hard, honest way, when someone will just hand it to you, and all you have to do is take it. Its just the way this country has become of the years. Im starting to realize why other countries dont like us… :lol