"Barack Obama's Had a Pretty Damn Good Presidency" <--- Mother Jones headline

[WilliamPitt]

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/barack-obamas-had-pretty-damn-good-presidency

(snip)

Now, it's true that any serious accounting also has to include Obama's domestic failures—most notably his feckless housing policy and his inability to pass cap-and-trade—but both of those were very heavy political lifts. (On cap-and-trade in particular, I think in retrospect that it was just flatly never going to happen no matter what Obama did.) There's also his weak record on judicial appointments. So could Obama have done better? Was there a more effective way to deal with an unprecedentedly obstructive Republican Party? On reflection, I doubt it. During Obama's first two years, Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate for only 14 weeks. This means that Obama needed two or three Republican votes for every bill, and if he had taken the blustering, partisan attitude that a lot of liberals wanted, he never would had gotten them. Republican obstructionism would have been even more hardened than it was with his more conciliatory attitude. So as annoying as Obama's "most reasonable man in the room" act was to the progressive base, it was probably his best strategy.

I was never an Obamamaniac. Actual politicians are never as good as the versions that star in the reality TV shows that we laughingly call presidential campaigns these days, and Obama was bound to be hemmed in by all the same dynamics that hem in every president. So I don't judge Obama against a standard that expected him to single-handedly lead a progressive revolution. His national security policy has been disappointing but hardly a disgrace. It's just a continuation of the mainstream national security policy that both parties have endorsed for decades with only minor differences. His economic policy since late 2009 has been, perhaps, too concerned with long-term deficits at the expense of short-term job creation, but that's been due more to political realities than to bad instincts. Likewise, his general willingness to compromise has been evidence of a pragmatic desire to get things done, not a sign of insufficient dedication to the cause. He's a president, not the Sun King.

Unlike Paul Glastris, I'm not ready to start chiseling Obama's mug on Mount Rushmore. But unless national security is pretty much your sole obsession, I really have a hard time understanding progressives who are disappointed in him. Obama has gotten more done for the progressive cause than Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, JFK, or Harry Truman—and, on balance, nearly as much as LBJ, since he doesn't have any epic disasters to weigh down his successes. For an actual, existing human being, that's pretty damn good.

...the rest at link...and yes, there is A List involved...

[liberal N proud]

1. I am having trouble with the wording there

They speak as if is or soon will no longer President.

It should say IS having Pretty Damn Presidency. I would like think he stands a good chance at 4 more years.

[Frustratedlady]

2. Imagine what he could do if he had the House AND Senate...again

I still believe that he'll win in 2012 and, when it all sifts out in 2017, he will be voted one of the best POTUS in our lifetime, if for no other reason than keeping his "cool" when all around him are calling him names. I find that an incredible attribute.

He has to really screw up to make me turn my back on him.

[hifiguy]

3. Were it not for his reification of the Chimp/Cheney

all-seeing national security state and the failure to prosecute one significant bankster, I would tend to agree. But those are some pretty big "ifs" in my book.