The Phoenix Network:
 
 
About  |  Advertise
Adult  |  Moonsigns  |  Band Guide  |  Blogs  |  In Pictures
 
Media -- Dont Quote Me  |  News Features  |  Talking Politics  |  This Just In
Nominate-best-2010

Has Obama peaked? Yes, he has

Yes, he made history. Unfortunately, it’s all downhill from there.
By STEVEN STARK  |  November 12, 2009

0911_obamaeter_main

Has Obama peaked?: No, he hasn't. By David S. Bernstein.

SlideshowHighlights from Obama's first year. 

To listen to some pundits, Barack Obama's public image began taking a serious beating when the off-year election returns came in a week ago. Or maybe it was the undeserved Nobel Prize, his approach to the war in Afghanistan, or when he revved up his pursuit of national health-care reform.

But the pundits, as usual, are wrong. In reality, Obama peaked the night he was elected.

That astonishing evening was both a blessing and a curse for our 44th president. As the first African-American elected to the Oval Office, Obama made the history books in indelible fashion, generating an uplifting sense of national pride and renewal along the way.

That alone is more than many presidents accomplish in a lifetime. But that achievement— if that's what you want to call it — came a very long year ago, before he was even president. The 10 months since he took the oath of office have been a letdown, even to most of his supporters.

Obama still doesn't seem to grasp that the collective Election Night reverie is over, and that now we are waiting for him to lead us in real time. Sure, a little bit of hubris was probably inevitable, but it led Obama to conclude, despite what he said back then, that the historic election had been about him. When in the end, as always, it was about us.

That night began to reveal an unfortunate truth: having reached a pinnacle on the day he was elected, Obama's popularity and relationship with the American people had nowhere to go but down. That's a difficult adjustment to make, and is reminiscent of the apocryphal story about the obsessed fan and her friends who worshipped and followed the Rolling Stones. One night, the fan finally got to spend the evening with Mick Jagger. After she emerged from the hotel the next morning, her friends asked her how it went.

"Well," she said, "he was alright. But he's no Mick Jagger."

Something similar was bound to happen with Obama. Some figures grow during their time in the presidency; others diminish. Obama's path was pre-ordained: unless he was able to achieve significant political victories immediately, he was destined to become — at least for a while — the incredible shrinking president.

It hasn't helped matters that Obama is the first president to serve in the post-Internet age. For a while, the mainstream media — what little of it is left, anyway — gave Obama a virtual free ride. Even as they have become more skeptical, however, they've been drowned out by the increasingly loud faithful on both sides who reflexively praise or trash him.

Who knows what to believe or how to figure out equilibrium anymore? The press used to be a check on presidents, but no longer. In the current Balkanized media environment, it's possible for Obama to read glowing reports from the adulatory left about his performance — regardless of how badly he screws up — while automatically discrediting the opposition press. As a logical result of this situation, he's become both overconfident and unable to figure out what the vast middle of the electorate really wants. In a nutshell, that's the quandary Obama has faced to this point — though he doesn't seem to know it.

1  |  2  |  3  |   next >
Related: Jim nauseam, Has Obama peaked? No, he hasn't, Bringing the party to the people, More more >
  Topics: News Features , Barack Obama, Barack Obama, Elections and Voting,  More more >
  • Share:
  • Share this entry with Facebook
  • Share this entry with Digg
  • Share this entry with Delicious
  • RSS feed
  • Email this article to a friend
  • Print this article
1 Comments / Add Comment

Dan Benbow

This article gets exactly one thing right -  the magic of the 2008 campaign can never regained – but misdiagnoses the reason for this (the gulf between the grandiose promises of a campaign and the nitty gritty details and compromises of governing) and the rest is nothing but speculation, distortion, or armchair psychiatry.  

 

Obama has had a rocky road, but he has still accomplished a great deal, the most of any Democratic president since LBJ at this point in his term, as evidenced in the article below:

 

http://kotorimagazine.com/feature-the-times-they-are-a-changin/obamas_accomplishments.html

How can one make such a big claim that Obama has “lost” Main Street while providing no data?  In fact, Obama’s approvals have been in the low 50s, twenty points higher than Bush and about what he got in the election, which is not at all bad considering the state of the economy.  As John Judis has pointed out,

http://www.tnr.com/article/job-one

Reagan struggled for the same reason early in his presidency,

and can anyone really project with any certainty that a politician of Obama’s caliber won’t bring his poll numbers back up? How many presidencies are really “over” after nine months?  

Re:  “solid majorities” of Americans being against healthcare reform, this is a false assertion.  According to pollster.com, 46.2% disapprove, 44.2% approve – hardly a mandate either way.   

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/jobapproval-presobama-health.php

And when one drills down into that 46.2%, they’ll find a large number whose disapproval is based on a false “belief” in any number of the myths propagated by the insurance companies and their servants in the GOP, such as “death panels,” “subsidized abortions,” a “government takeover,” etc.   

In addition:

-The writer claims that Obama’s supporters won’t brook dissent “regardless of how bad he screws up” while providing not so much as a single concrete example of a "major screw-up” 

 

-The writer claims that Obama doesn’t “know” or “grasp” what he’s doing, that he has “miscalculated what a president actually does,” and has no interest in governing, as if a journalist knows more about the game than a man who took out the Clinton machine and became the first black president at the age of 47, winning a landslide that included states like North Carolina, Virginia, and Indiana, that the Democrats hadn't won in decades.

-The writer accuses Obama of failing to lead while ignoring the facts that again, he has accomplished a lot in a short time (generally a solid measure of leadership skills), he has people like Biden and Rahm E. who are constantly kvetching with Congress, and the writer has no knowledge whatever of Obama’s frequency of contact with members of Congress or the pressures he's applying behind closed doors

-The writer claims that Obama has failed to bring down the divisiveness in this country when any politico can see clearly that the divisiveness stems from the right and vested economic interests that don’t want to have their oxes gored…these same people were just as set on destroying Clinton 

Last, it's absurd to claim that Obama and Bush are "mirror images" of eachother simply because Obama is not governing by public opinion polls.  We've tried "direct democracy" in California and it hasn't worked out so well.  More to the point, Obama is radically different from Bush in his background, his temperament, his communication skills, his honesty, his knowledge of history and respect for the office he holds and the importance of the decisions he makes, the fact that he won a clear and clean election, and most importantly, the values that inform his decisions. 

Eric Holder, the nation's first black attorney general, is worlds different than John Ashcroft or Alberto Gonzales. Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic justice, is worlds different than W's right-wing white male court picks. W gave the rich massive tax windfalls; Obama increased taxes on the rich in his budget, backed another increase on the rich to fund healthcare, and has aggressively pursued offshore tax cheats. In his budget and the stimulus bill Obama pushed through the biggest boosts in social services spending we've had in over four decades. He extended healthcare to four million children that didn't have it because W had vetoed more generous coverage. Bush stonewalled on climate change and had the worst EPA since Reagan; by contrast, Obama has staffed his EPA with qualified professionals dedicated to reversing Bush's policies and putting the first climate change legislation the US has ever had in motion (it has passed the House already.)

Obama is a sea change from W on family planning, missile defense, defending the right to choose and all women's issues, respect for science and reason, college aid funding, consumer protection, net neutrality, gay rights, voting rights, medical marijuana and immigration enforcement, Cuba policy, warm relations with the rest of the world, among many other areas.

The Phoenix can do a lot better than this.

 

 

Posted: November 13 2009 at 10:52 AM
HTML Prohibited
Add Comment

Today's Event Picks
ARTICLES BY STEVEN STARK
Share this entry with Delicious
  •   HAS OBAMA PEAKED? YES, HE HAS  |  November 12, 2009
    To listen to some pundits, Barack Obama's public image began taking a serious beating when the off-year election returns came in a week ago. Or maybe it was the undeserved Nobel Prize, his approach to the war in Afghanistan, or when he revved up his pursuit of national health-care reform.
  •   MEN PLUS MONEY EQUALS MESS  |  May 14, 2009
    Since Iceland is something of the epicenter of the global financial crisis — its government being the first to essentially go belly up — it's probably not surprising that the Icelanders have come up with the most novel and interesting theory as to what caused the meltdown. And they may be right.
  •   ARLEN THE FAMILY  |  May 11, 2009
    So, Arlen Specter is now a Democrat. That's old news.
  •   SPARE CHANGE?  |  April 28, 2009
    A tension lies at the heart of the Obama presidency. After 100 days in office, the public still seems uncertain how to interpret the historic nature of the election last November.
  •   COURTHOUSE MARRIAGE  |  April 21, 2009
    While political analysts understandably regard elections and politicians as the key forces of social change, nongovernmental forces are the ones that most often actually influence and transform our culture.

 See all articles by: STEVEN STARK

MOST POPULAR
RSS Feed of for the most popular articles
 Most Viewed   Most Emailed 



  |  Sign In  |  Register
 
thePhoenix.com:
Phoenix Media/Communications Group:
TODAY'S FEATURED ADVERTISERS
Copyright © 2010 The Phoenix Media/Communications Group