Obama: Political Visionary Or Politically Clumsy?

The Atlantic:

As Barack Obama contends for a second term in office, two conflicting narratives of his presidency have emerged. Is he a skillful political player and policy visionary--a chess master who always sees several moves ahead of his opponents (and of the punditocracy)? Or is he politically clumsy and out of his depth--a pawn overwhelmed by events, at the mercy of a second-rate staff and of the Republicans? Here, a longtime analyst of the presidency takes the measure of our 44th president, with a view to history.

Read the whole story: The Atlantic

 

 

Comments

[bmldisp1001]

09:24 AM on 03/08/2012

I liked the article on Obama, but I find this headline particularly revealing. You can be "visionary", OR you can be "clumsy". Why are these made out to be exclusive categories? We spend so much time lauding "visionaries", that we tend to forget that seeing the future is pointless unless we can also do something about it.

http://technologydimensions.blogspot.com/2012/03/do-you-see-what-i-see.html

[john rajah]

08:42 PM on 02/10/2012

This article is VERY IMPORTANT.

It must be sent to all Republicans, Democrats and Independents who love the USA,to be read in its entirety.It evokes thought.

Of course,it'll be like casting pearls before swine for Tea Partiers and the Looney Left,as is apparent by some of the postings here.

[DJleary]

02:03 PM on 02/10/2012

No big mystery. Pretty bloody simply.
Obama was given a chance by a disillusioned nation in 2008. A half black junior senator with a spotty voting record and a Muslim name. Talk about rolling the dice.

CHANGE (remember??) was the simple message.

Guy gets elected and surrounds himself with every old school Wall St hack with a pulse.
SAME is what we got!!
Biggest bait and switch artist in American history!
BO=BS

[Marcospinelli]

02:01 PM on 02/10/2012

Obama's no better (nor is any DLC-controlled Democratic) than Republicans.  He (like all professional Democrats) is just a different stage than Republicans in the life cycle of an American politician.  Like caterpillars and moths/butterflies.  If you'd never seen a chrysalis or cocoon, you wouldn't know that the caterpillar is actually the same creature as the moth/butterfly, spending half its life crawling on and devouring leaves only to pupate and transform itself into a moth/butterfly so that it can fly around and feed off of other plants.  And sweaters.

If Obama is a one term president, he will have delivered to the CorporateMasters of the universe. He'll hand the baton off to Republicans for the fleecing to continue and go on to reap the benefits from his treacherous betrayal of the People, i.e., the same sort of corporate payoffs that presidents since Gerald Ford have enjoyed.

Over the course of US history, corporations have managed to game our political system, and done it so effectively that the two-party system competes to serve corporate interests while defending that service as, "What's good for GM (corporations) is good for America (the People)".

Democrats and Republicans are corporate tools. Like siblings competing for the attention and approval (campaign contributions) of a parent, Republicans and DLC-controlled Democrats try to outdo each other in delivering for their real constituent, BigCorporations. The trick for them has been to make it seem as if they were really working on behalf of thePeople.

If you must continue to delude yourself into thinking Obama's a good guy who never would've started those wars, and who has only the best of intentions but got a bad deal, think of all this as a business plan where the CorporateMasters of the Universe have charted out their plans years in advance and select the politician/personality best able to achieve those plans in 4 year increments. If you want to l!e the country into war for oil and war-profiteering, then GeorgeWBush is your man to front it (with DickCheney, the former SecretaryOfDefense who initiated the privatizing of the military a decade earlier, actually running the operation from the shadows).

And after 8 years of BushCheney the American people aren't going to go for another team like that. They're going to want HOPE and CHANGE, with a persona they can believe in and trust. BarackObama.

The truth is that Obama is no better than BushCheney. Not better, not worse, but the same. His 'most ardent admirers' just like the packaging better. I'm not talking skin color, although that may be a factor for some of them; I'm talking about how a 'D' after the name is a brand they trust believe and trust in, despite the fact that it's the same 'soap' (product).

[Marcospinelli]

01:54 PM on 02/10/2012

Those are the choices?  Visionary or clumsy?

How about just a run-of-the-mill politician, plain old corrupt and self-interested?

Obama’s Guiding Principle: Leave No One Accountable

[PoliSci2008]

02:39 PM on 02/10/2012

There was of list of options: Chess Master/Pawn; Confidant/Arrogant, Cool/Aloof.

But you're straight on the Leave No One Accountable...the culprits of F & F Operation.

[Group 8807]

01:47 PM on 02/10/2012

I'll vote for freedom in November.

Freedom is an intellectual achievement which requires disavowal of collectivism and embrace of individualism.

Obama and the modern liberal advocate collective solutions to individual problems.

ABO 2012

Modern liberalism­, and their current president are actively destroying the American society. Good intentions are not a valid excuse.

State-mandated compassion produces, not love for ones fellow man, but hatred and resentment­.  The breakdown of  'basic civility' and the rise of the welfare state occur concurrently.

We must get off the path Obama has us on and return to our American principles­.

[shyhon]

02:45 PM on 02/10/2012

Beautifully articulated

[AnnfromCA]

01:35 PM on 02/10/2012

He's a weak president.  But like all weak presidents, he's done some things well and some poorly.

[dfranz]

01:21 PM on 02/10/2012

Considering the state of the country when he took office and the mess left him by Bush I am amazed that the President has been able to make as much progress as he did. When you consider the amount of hate coming from the right for this man and the Republican pledge to destroy his administration, I give him a B+. Has he made some mistakes? Yes. I think his fixation on health care and not the economy hurt him early on and he chose retread advisors from the appeasement administration of Bill Clinton which only made him look weak as he tried in vain to find a middle ground with the Republicans. However as we have seen, through all the lies said about him, all the attempts to make the economy stay weak for political gain he maintained a certain level of grace. Now as polls tell us he is seen as the only stable and rational person in the room. His 2nd term will be different from the first. NO longer will he naively think he has partners on the other side. Now he can just focus on good policy and stop trying to mollify the people trying to destroy him.

[PoliSci2008]

02:31 PM on 02/10/2012

Well said eulogy to Obama's First Term, dfranz! I just wish he would have wised-up on his 'naive partnership with the other side' sixteen (16) months into his presidency, "he would have had a better chance of being the figure so many people imagined."

[nothingchanges]

01:11 PM on 02/10/2012

Armchair quarterbacking has become America's favorite pastime. None of us really knows what goes on in the Oval office, or in Congress for that matter.

My only comment is that our elections system is fundamentally flawed.

We don't elect statesmen, we elect fundraisers.

Those who raise the most money............win (not every time, but 98% is statistically speaking an awfully high number)

Most of that money comes from 'corporate special interests".

With that as a background, how can we expect an ethical effective government?

IMPO.........the problem isn't with the man, regardless of party. It's the system, and the system we use to fund our political campaigns is corrupt to it's core.

[PoliSci2008]

11:02 AM on 02/10/2012

This is an excellent article, a must read!

[Prib2009]

12:15 PM on 02/10/2012

Yes it was. I usually don't read long extensive articles like this one, but it was interesting in the way past presidents were compared to Pres. Obama, and the different roadblocks they ran up against, and the way they handled the roadblocks or did away with them when possible.
I also thought it was interesting to read about the internal workings of the people the presidents surrounded themselves with and what influence they had on the presidents' performance. It was also nice to read a non partisan article where we could draw our own conclusions and speculate on how we feel Pres. Obama will go forward in this election.

Go Obama 2012

[PoliSci2008]

01:45 PM on 02/10/2012

I thought it was interesting that he DIDN'T surround himself with enough of the IDEAL, SEASONED democratic politicians (active or retired) to break bread and discussed political strategies, to offer him the foresight and maneuver to better deal with the Republicans.