Today is President Obama's 100th day in office. Despite the flood of commentary this anniversary invites, the number means little because the world moves according to its own dynamic, unwedded to any calendar.
We should not forget that, although every new American president inherits headaches, President Obama inherited the entire emergency room. The list of perils includes the worst economic crisis in our lifetimes; hot wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; an ongoing confrontation with al Qaeda; rising nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran; a broken Middle East Peace Process; a potential flu pandemic; the lack of effective international policies on energy and climate change; and that scourge of the 21st century -- Barbary Pirates with cell phones.
The administration is called to meet these challenges despite a depleted treasury, an over-stretched military, an impatient American public, and a deeply divided world. Objectively, the president's job is impossible and certainly, success on many fronts will not be evident in the next one hundred or even the first one thousand days of his term. The fair question is whether, under his leadership, we have begun moving in the right direction.
The answer is yes. First, the president has assembled a strong and experienced national security team. Leaders such as Vice President Biden and Secretary of State Clinton will not shy away from hard problems nor refrain from telling the president what he needs to know. Second, Mr. Obama has hit the right notes internationally by extending an open hand to every country, while showing that he is willing to maintain tough policies where required.
Third, he has made good use of his time -- sitting down with neighbors, touching base with allies, reaching out to potential adversaries, and assigning some of our nation's best diplomats to work on the globe's most complicated challenges. Fourth, he has taken steps to restore America's reputation as a leader on the environment and international law.
Finally, he has wisely avoided the trap of offering a bumper sticker slogan to characterize his approach to the world. Mr. Obama knows that success in foreign policy is usually relative, that few victories are permanent, and that lasting gains require a long term effort. In this context, a slogan can easily become a straitjacket, while the flexibility to approach each issue on its own terms is essential. Pragmatism is both a habit of mind and a strategic necessity.
Even admirers of the president, and I am one, must admit that he has had it easy in one respect. By last January, the world was more than ready for a new face in the White House. Thus, the president was well received during his recent overseas trips both because of who he is and because of who he is not. This second advantage will not last. It is also a legitimate question whether the president is trying to do too much, but the truth is that he has had little choice. A firefighter surrounded by flames cannot ignore the heat coming from any point on the compass.
The toughest tests of this presidency, as Mr. Obama well knows, are still to come. Will our disengagement from Iraq proceed smoothly or be accompanied by fresh outbreaks of sectarian violence? Will our newly invigorated effort in Afghanistan make a decisive difference or drag on for years without a clear result? Will our struggle to engage Pakistan effectively ever bear fruit? Will our overtures to Iran strengthen or weaken our hand in dealing with that pivotal country? Will our promise to lead in curbing climate change be embraced or rebuffed by Congress? Will the first glimmers of economic recovery brighten or prove a false dawn, plunging us into a deeper and ever-broadening cycle of misery?
Likely as not, the answers to these questions will land somewhere in the middle. Many problems are not susceptible to solution, but instead must be managed to create new opportunities while limiting harm. Progress comes not dramatically, but gradually. To smooth the way, President Obama hopes to create a new role for America in a world that no longer feels comfortable following the dictates of any one or two countries. His goal is to lecture less without leading less -- to use words and to adopt a tone that will make it easier for others to join us. This makes sense, because with most countries most of the time, persuasion works better than bullying.
The first one hundred days in a presidency are roughly comparable, arithmetically, to the first one hundred yards in a mile race. If we want President Obama to succeed, as patriotic Americans must, we will look for a runner who is proceeding at a brisk but sustainable pace, with energy in reserve, and a sharp eye for what other competitors may be planning. By that measure, our president may not have won anything yet, but he is off to a reassuring start.
The president has begun a journey that is so complex and daunting that to hear those who oppose him use simplistic "tea bag" slogans is so ridiculous. They pretend to have the answers to everything and yet have nothing but just that, tea bags.
Wish they'd put that much energy into helping implement plans to solve ongoing social and financial problems.
of the Obama administration was a media myth. As Jimmy Carter's presidency lasted a full four years or 1461 days April 30, 2009 was his 1561st.
A world leader is different from ordinary people in that when he or she regularly adopts a fallacy, it can be dangerous to us all. If you are not already locked into your ways, please consider and ask President Obama to consider this.
The middle-ground fallacy (aka the golden mean fallacy or the fallacy of moderation) is not a reflection of democratic thinking, it is not inherently reasonable, and it does not inherently produce good results.
For example, our Constitutional rights should not be compromised away even if it is claimed that this will upset people on both the right and the left. The Constitution was already developed as a result of compromises and does not reflect either the unique views of the right or the unique views of the left.
As an illustration, it was a mistake for any person who respects Constiutional rights to have voted to give immunity to the telecoms who assisted the Bush Administration in spying upon all of us as though we were living in the Soviet Union. Even President Obama, while he was in the Senate before the vote was taken, said that this would be wrong.
Adopting or following middle-ground thinking is going to lead to further problems.
The one big problem I've had with Obama was his appointing Ron Kirk 'Mr. free trade highway through Dallas' as Trade Secretary. That's gotten no publicity whatsoever but it's exceptionally important from the point of view of the philosophy of the administration.
I don't understand how anyone thinks we can overcome recession and be the economic stalwart of the world when our manufacturing sector has been decimated by our free trade policies. How can a capitalistic society which prides itself on individual freedoms and protections compete in a global economy with third world and communist countries whose economies thrive because of slave wages, ignoring of humanitarian working conditions and total absence of labor rights?
Cheap socks at WalMart are great and all but if this doesn't change then we'll just keep on being the garbage disposal consumptionists of the world, indebting ourselves to other countries just so we can buy more of their products.
I'd specifically love to hear Ms. Albright's opinion of this since it was the administration she worked for which made all those trade barriers vanish in the mid and late nineties.
I do, on the other hand, agree that more tariffs and especially quality controls are definitely needed.
You say that President Obama has not won anything yet and I would disagree with you a little bit. President Obama has won millions of hearts and minds all over the world. That is a major achievement.
I am sure that this nowadays spirit of traditionally American energy to make past problems, in Latin America and the Middle East especially, just history for good of all us.
PREFACE
Article III, Section1:" No person except a natural born citizen...., shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be elibible to that office , who shall not have attainted to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident of the United States."
The 12th amendment set the same requirements for the office vice-president.
We have a rule book just like in Major League Baseball. However, the Constitution is more important than the rule book for baseball or any other sport.
I'll use the "pine tar incident" in major league ball to make my point. Pine tar could not go up the bat past a certain point. (rule 1.10 (b) Major League rule book)-. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Tar_Incident
some hitters were caught and had to face the cosequences as this Wikipedia article points out.
The Constitution prohibited non-natural born citizens from being president. They can become secretaries of State,US Senators, congressmen. Other countries like Mexico for example don't allow non "natural born" citizens to even hold down a job as firemen and policemen. It's in their constitution. Why do you consider our US rule book silly?
What if the former Secretary of State held views on foreign policy similar to those of Ron Paul, would you still be calling that portion of the Constitution silly?
A three and one half Trillion Dollar budget with deficits to the moon that your grandchildren will have to pay for! And you don't see any major flubs!
Reuters news report notes: "The budget forecasts $1.2 trillion in red ink for fiscal 2010 before falling to $523 billion by 2014." 2014 is five years away, a lifetime in politics during which almost anything can happen. Few voters will remember five years from now who voted in the debt that they will be struggling to pay off.
A Dem., Repub, and Libertarian went out to dinner. The Libertarian, against his normal instincts, allowed the others to talk him into splitting the dinner tab equally. Doing his part to help keep the bill down, the Libertarian ordered the $9.99 dinner special and a sparkling water. The Repub a Scotch, the Dem a vodka. The Repub ordered the $29.99 sirloin, the Dem the $34.99 lobster. Then the Dem and Repub had an after-dinner liqueur at $5.99 each, the Libertarian had a cup of coffee. The check came to over $100 — over $125 with tax and tip.
The waiter brought the check, the Democrat got a call on his cellphone and had to step outside to talk. And the Republican looked at his watch, said he was late for an appointment, excused himself, and hurriedly left.
And so it goes with Congress.
Please allow me to disagree. Afghanistan has endured far more pain than any country, any people, should be asked to endure. Let's try some peace for a change.