From my point of view I think he's great. I think the world in an instant became a little bit more civilized when he entered the White House. From a global view I think he's done pretty much the right things all the way. I just smile every time I realize that Bush and Cheney aren't calling the shots no longer.
And yet nobody seems to care that several aspects of his foreign policy have been, so far, surprisingly similar by most accounts. I'm fairly amazed at how much value is being placed on mere
tone. Bush was thought to smirk, and Obama to smile; they seem more like an excuse to comment on each person's perceived personality than anything else. And somehow we're supposed to believe these projections are serious ways of judging policy?
Oh, sure, I wouldn't dispute that tone and approach plays an important role in diplomacy, but this seems to be the only thing Obama's defenders have been able to latch onto, and as a result many seem to wildly inflate its importance, particularly given that it's oh-so-conveniently unquantifiable.
Policy is still paramount. The fact that Obama's defenders are continually citing things
other than policy in his defense is, to my, very telling, and hints that the entire thing is based in emotion far more than many would care to admit.
When it comes down to the U.S. economy, I don't know. But reading the posts here you make it sound like USA is in much worse shape than the rest of the world and that you blame one guy for not having fixed it yet. You got, what, 50 states? Are you telling me that US is more centralized than countries that aren't federations? It's like blaming Barroso for not fixing the Latvian economy, or the German, or the Polish.
That's the entire point: Obama's enacting all-encompassing federal policies that apply to all states. Montana can't decide
not to opt-in to his proposed healthcare mandates. Pennsylvania can't decide
not to abolish the secret ballot for union votes. And no state can decide not to feel the effects of massive debt and government bailouts, either. Yes, the U.S. is becoming more centralized. That's one of the things people are getting so upset about.
And I don't blame him for "not fixing" it. I blame him for making it worse, and for enacting policies that are demonstrably and obviously a direct contradiction to some of his stated goals. I blame him for either misunderstanding or willfully ignoring simple economic truths in favor of flimsy populist slogans.
Reading all the moaning and bitching in this thread over the fact that he bowed to the Saudi king or whatever, or hasn't attacked North Korea because of two spies (or not) or hasn't turned around the greatest recession in decades makes me wonder: were we, the anti Bush crowd, really this childish when Cheney, I mean Bush, ran things?
Sometimes, sure. You were here: I'm sure you saw even people you agreed with flip out from time to time. It probably seems less pronounced because you, well, kinda agreed with a lot of it.
Regarding the rest: an awful lot has been posted in the thread, and most of it has been informed, straightforward, explained disagreement. Most of the complaints have not been about bowing or handshakes (and calling such things "childish" is a fairly insulting exaggeration, in my opinion), but about policy. The other stuff is par for the course; not terribly important, but every President has to endure it, it seems. It's not a good reason to dismiss the more serious concerns that have been expressed just as often.