Judge Obama on performance alone - from the WSJ
 

With the noon sun high over the U.S. Capitol, Barack Obama yesterday took the oath of office to become president of the United States. On one level, it was a simple matter of political process -- the symbolic transfer of power. Yet words alone cannot convey its meaning.

Read the rest here: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123249791178500439.html

Though a few days old, I think this article is well written and brings up a very valid point. The middle portion where Mr. Williams talks of holding a president responsible for his screw ups no matter the color of his skin is very important and well said.

Anyone else read this? Thoughts?

I would think that this goes without saying.

I don't see why anyone would hold him less accountable because of it.

I tend to think this is going to be like any other Presidency - some of his supporters will overlook his faults, and they'll applaud every move he makes as a necessary measure. Some of his detractors will be looking for mistakes and ready to jump on any of his policies that fail. The rest of us will react to each of his decisions, and try to judge him based on the whole of those decision.

I mean, I see that race is always an issue in society, and that he'll get more scrutiny (on both sides) because of his race...but I don't think he'll experience less "accountability" because of his race.

Agreed. This was clear from our last president...as of January 22% of people thought he was doing a good job. Surprising! On the other hand, someone (I want to say Rush Limbaugh?) said on TV that he wanted Obama to fail. This is nothing new.

I find it interesting that many of those who didn't vote for Obama think that we all approve of him because of his skin color. Sorry, no. In the last five days, Obama has been doing a great job fulfilling his campaign promises - he has already suspended operations in Guantanamo Bay and signed an executive order to shut it down within a year. He's also cancelled the act that kept federal funding from any organization that offered literature on abortion.

I think that many of the acts he has done (suspending Guantanamo operations, freezing aide pay) would have been done no matter who was elected, and were fairly non-controversial moves. I wasn't a fan of his platforms during the election (obviously, since I didn't vote for him), but I'm willing to take a step back to see what he does, not over his first few days, but over the next few months and next 4 years. I'll withhold judgment on him as a President for the time being, as I think too much is made of the first 100 days stuff.

Yeah. I get so tired of people accusing me of voting for him and approving of him because of his skin color. That's SUCH a tired way of thinking.

I disagree. How many other presidents have frozen pay in their first 100 days, to use just one example? And some people DO find these things that he has done to be fairly controversial.

No president in recent history has taken office in such horrid economic conditions while funding a dual-front war. Clearly, some belt tightening was to be expected. I imagine McCain would have done the same. We're all familiar with FDR's first 100 days and the sweeping economic reforms that came about, so I won't bore anyone with the details; suffice it to say that none of the other presidents have had to take such a drastic step in their first weeks in office.

As far as Gitmo, that was also to be expected. Perhaps McCain would have waited a little bit longer, but still.

The people who find Obama's recent moves to be surprising or controversial must have had their heads in the sand for the past year or so.

You read some of our minds.

Since McCain isn't in office, you can't really say what he would have done.

Interesting to hear the viewpoints in this thread. Just kind of solidifies things for me.

Exactly my thoughts.

I agree that his moves haven't been unexpected. They can't sit there and grill CEOs about what cuts/freezes they are making without making some themselves. These are belt tightening times.

I am disappointed that he has changed his words on lobbyists. His first statements were that there would be no lobbyists hired into his administration and they were talking on Meet the Press today that he has backpedaled on that. I'm not totally anti-lobbyists because I think they are necessary to some extent. Our own umbrella organizations have lobbyists working to try to get donations for housing to be tax deductible. I think many go too far and have too much power and control though.

I'm a little tired of the 100 days evaluation period. I'm concerned that it pushes them to try to make sweeping changes immediately and I'm not sure that's it always good to "rush" into things that way. But, it has become a measure. At this point, he can really only deal with things that are executive orders because it takes Congress forever to pass just about everything.

And a random thought not attached to this thread, really... I probably become most frustrated with the way the House and Senate throw extra, unrelated items onto some bills to either get something else passed or to kill a bill. That practice seems shady to me and can give opponents in elections too much fodder for attacks.

Me too. It's a little on the silly side.

Those people would have a 98% chance of being right about you voting for him (assuming you're black).

How did you come to that conclusion?

I mean besides obvious racists, I don't automatically assume that someone white voted for McCain because he was white. So I fail to see why people automatically assume that black people voted for Obama because he's black. Implicit in such statements is the notion that black people aren't intelligent enough to discern whether someone has the capability to run this country, and they only care about skin color. :rolleyes:

I came to that conclusion because you said that people assume you voted for obama because of your skin color... that statement only makes sense if you're black.
I never said that I think you voted for him because he's black, simply that 98% of black people DID vote for him. Race was certainly an important factor in this decision- I will cite that Kerry only received 88% of the vote.
You can say that race wasn't a contributing factor to Obama's high totals in 2008 but I will wholeheartedly disagree. I think that his race helped him more than it hurt him.

PhiGam is just being PhiGam. There is no valid or reliable method of quantifying this.

Voting patterns are largely based on familiarity. It's also why many people blindly vote along party lines with little knowledge of actual platforms (not to mention the history of the political parties).

There are whites who voted for McCain because he was white. Some of them outright stated it and others hid it behind false claims of Obama being a terrorist and whatever other falsehoods. If many of these individuals had an understanding of politics and voted because of conservative or Republican platforms, the race effect would be less evident.

Similarly, there are blacks (and nonblacks) who voted for Obama because he's black. These are blacks (and nonblacks) who knew nothing of him other than he's black. It's not the same thing as what some of us did, which is know about his platform, and vote for him because of it---while acknowledge the historical relevance of a black POTUS.

In previous elections, race and gender mattered in a more abstract sense because they weren't reasons for voting someone. All the candidates were white male.

This is a good point and part of what makes this election fascinating.

You're mixing words now.

Your conclusion does not logically follow your premise.

remember too that is 98% of an approx. 12% population.

I think his age and his being in touch with younger voters, regardless of their color, is what gave him his edge also...don't forget that.

There were people out there who feared a McCain presidency due to his advanced age and to what lurked behind should something had happemed to him, if he had made office.

PhiGam, remember as well that in the past, blacks tend to vote overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate regardless of whom it is. This indicates that the Dems usually represent their interests as a whole (as much as you can lump any group together, that is) and so the support for Obama would have likely been almost as high regardless of his skin color.

It's much more correct to say that Democrats purport to represent minority interests more so than Republicans, as whether Democratic support has really been all that beneficial for minorities since the Civil Rights Movement is definitely an open question.

A 10% increase, if it really did go from 88% to 98%, is likely statistically significant given the immense population size.

Probably the same reason DamonSeid holds Donovan McNabb less accountable.

You really just want to pick a fight with me today, don't you.

Glad I read ahead. This is more accurate.

Gotcha. Thanks for the info :) That is definitely more correct.

I think that the emphasis on the first 100 days is important with this new administration. The past few presidents have come to office in a time of relative prosperity and stability, so it really wasn't as important what they did in those first three months. There's a real sense of urgency to stop this economic mess (I'm just going to call it a depression from now on), and I think it must be done quickly. Bush I, II, or Clinton did not have that sort of pressure on them; Reagan only did for his second term.

Well, compared to Republican support, it has been beneficial.

I'd prefer to actually see the comparison performed before I assented to this.

I hope you aren't serious.

Bumper sticker logic...
 

To be honest, the man won the vote and he has been inaugurated. This is all water under the bridge. How can we all let it go and move on to solve some major issues occurring in this country, like jobs...

So what if some voted one way or another for whatever reason when they got into the voting booth? Who cares, really? If there was a major discrepancy, believe me, Obama would NOT be inaugurated as president... In fact, he has shown to support ethics more than anything else and to play by the book. Would McSame done the same thing? Would Billary? :eek: So the reality is, the one who's holding the pen forms the opinions into laws...

Or the Golden Rule, the one with the gold, rules... Or there is no Justice, only just us... Or no Christ, no peace... Know Christ, know peace... ;)

Huh?

I hope he is.

There is nothing wrong with more objectively putting the Republican and Democratic parties side-by-side and seeing what has been accomplished that benefits blacks.

If more people did this, there would be much less party loyalty and much more politicians sweating to keep the votes of their constituencies.

If you think this hasn't already been done over and over again, you clearly have been living with your head in the sand. I'm kind of puzzled that you actually suggest this as if it is a novel, ground-breaking idea.

Neither party is going to be EXACTLY what ANYONE wants...black, white, whatever. However, in picking the lesser of the two evils, most blacks feel that the Democratic party meets their needs much better.

You do realize that this statement isn't the same thing as saying that Democrats have done "more" for blacks, right? Perception not always being reality, and all that.

Maybe they have, maybe they haven't (it really depends on the time period you're referring to, the different factions of the parties, etc.)...but it's a bit of a leap to simply assume that it's the case, or to state as such without laying out the reasons for that decision.

ETA: If you look back through your arguments, is it possible you're the one with your head in the sand? Just wondering.

It hasn't.

Correct.

Finding a "lesser of the two evils" isn't worthy of party loyalty. If the Dem party is also an "evil" then blacks need to call the Dems to task. And they haven't.

Right and perception is conducive to selective observation, which is why the worth of the Democratic party has not been more objectively assessed.

What's the point of all of this re-analysis of history?

A comment was made about why black voters vote Democrat - the discussion kind of took off from there.

1. history is always relevant
2. history repeats itself
3. polling and data collection agencies haven't released all of the data on this election
4. The relationship between race and Bipartisan politics didn't begin or end with this election.

All of these are why political scientists and sociologists are still writing editorial pieces and articles about various aspects of this election.