President Obama is under water in public opinion polls, judged more unfavorably than favorably. He now pops up in Republican campaign ads that link Democratic candidates to his unpopular administration. And a growing list of Democrats would rather he stay away while they are running for office this year.
He’s a political liability to his party. But that may not be the best way to rate Obama’s 19-month tenure in the White House. There’s a nonpartisan, nonideological measure that’s a bit subjective but still renders a valid verdict. Created by Fred Greenstein, professor of politics emeritus at Princeton, it uses six criteria to evaluate the performance of a president. (Emphasis added)
Greenstein has applied it to presidents from Franklin Roosevelt to Bill Clinton—that is, presidents no longer in office. But it’s also fair to use the six criteria to test how a sitting president is doing. Here are the criteria as applied to Obama.
PUBLIC COMMUNICATION. This was Obama’s strength as a candidate, but it’s been a glaring weakness as president. He’s a good explainer but a poor persuader. He doesn’t inspire. He devoted dozens of speeches in 2009 to touting his health care plan, including a nationally televised address to Congress last September. Public support dwindled. The program passed only because of large Democratic majorities in Congress elected in 2008 and likely to disappear in the midterm election in November.
Because presidents can always command an audience, they’re tempted to appear in public too often. Ubiquity undermines the office. The public loses interest, and the effectiveness of the bully pulpit dissolves. Every president since Ronald Reagan has succumbed to this temptation, Obama especially. The worst example: He was interviewed on TV during the halftime of the Duke-Georgetown basketball game last winter.
POLITICAL SKILL.
[SNIP]
The problem for Obama on these six criteria is that he does well when measured by the three less important ones—cognitive style, organizational ability, and emotional intelligence. On the big ones—communication, political skill, vision—he slips. This, better than poll results, explains why his presidency is in so much trouble. (Emphasis added)
Good analysis in this article. Even in the 3 categorie where he supposedly doe well, he scrapes through on emotional intelligence, faltering in public. Cognitive style.. I am not sure that it is all that evident either.
-- Edited by Sanders on Monday 9th of August 2010 10:32:50 PM
__________________
Democracy needs defending - SOS Hillary Clinton, Sept 8, 2010 Democracy is more than just elections - SOS Hillary Clinton, Oct 28, 2010
POLITICAL SKILL. Obama has been a smashing success in putting his stamp on policies and getting them enacted: economic stimulus, health care, financial reform. But that’s only half of what’s required of a president politically. The other half is fostering and husbanding public support—enthusiasm even—for his programs. Obama has failed at this. Rather than gain popular backing for his health care plan, its passage has spawned a movement to repeal it, led by Republicans and Tea Party activists.
This, to me, is the biggest fallacy about Obama. He has passed his party's agenda with a majority of his party in Congress. He is a "smashing success" with his party but it is why Obama doesn't have the public support. Obama is seen as the true "Manchurian candidate." The "One" who would do the party's bidding at any cost...including the majority of the nation's citizens saying NO. And it explains why Hillary didn't have the party-backing...she is her own person with her own ideas. And the lesson she learned was to cow-tow to the party, hence her ridiculous amount of campaigning for him and accepting the SOS position so as to "unify" the party. I still think both were not good moves on her part, but she is party-loyal to a fault. Every candidate has their flaw..this is my beloved Hillary's most glaring.
The American voter is most to blame for this because they got sucked into the media hoopla instead of staying the course. I watched Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story" tonight and it brought up a point the Dems managed to sweep under the rug in November 2008. The Congressional offices were swamped with the voters screaming HELL NO to the bank bailouts...and the Dem-led Congress voted against it. But when Goldman Sachs' guy...excuse me...the Secretary of the Treasury under the Bush adminstration went back to The Hill with all the "end of the nation" scare- tactics, the DEM majority Congress voted for the bailout. They waffled to the "boogey-man" from Sachs in order to save their own jobs in the November elections. It was another rush-job just like the healthcare bill with no accountability and that is why the major officers of these floundering institutions got their millions in bonuses with no reprecussion while the regular folks found themselves out in the streets due to foreclosure.
"Caveat emptor", America. Let the buyer beware. This November, don't let the media again sell you the "golden calf" that isn't worth a penny.
Remember when His Arrogance made the bold, stupid statement about midterm election losses, as happened under Clinton? He dismissed that concern, saying .... the difference between 1994 and 2012 "Is me."
Given that his ratings are dropping like a ton of bricks, and his poor performance, as noted in this article, it seems highly likely that The One has overestimated his own importance. LOL
__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less. ~Susan B. Anthony