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: