Obama is, at worst, the second-best president America has had for 30 years.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

I think few liberals would deny that Obama is, at worst, the second-best president America has had for 30 years, and arguably the best for nearly sixty (although I emphatically wouldn't argue that).

I am in no way a fan of the man - I think he's messianic, not particularly liberal, and uses gravitas as a subsitute for substance - but while I don't think he's done anywhere near as much good as he easily could have done, he unquestionably hasn't done nearly as much harm as a) most of the recent past presidents or b) many of the likely future presidents.

There is a great deal of disappointment in Obama on the left at present. I think the cause of this lies far less in the fact that he underdelivered than that he overpromised.

Obama was elected largely on the strength of posters of him staring farsightedly into the distance promising "Hope" and "Change". Anyone who believes in these things has only themselves to blame, frankly - what Obama has delivered is "more of the better sort of the same", which is all any potential future president is likely to deliver either.

If you're supporting a primary challenge to Obama, *don't* expect it to produce the long-sought-after liberal messiah - it wasn't Clinton, it wasn't Obama, it wouldn't have been Gore or Kerry if they'd won, and it's vanishingly unlikely that it will be the next Democratic presidential candidate either.

If you think that "similar, but a little better" is worth working for, you may well be right, but *don't* expect anyone who gets elected to be spectacularly better than all of their predecessors. It is not implausible that life in America in 2040 will be much better than today, but if it is then it will be as a result of slow incremental change, not of a single transformative individual.

[HockeyMom]

1. Clinton and Carter

Maybe 3rd?

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. It's 30 years since Carter

OK, 29 years, 10 months since he left office altogether. But 30 years ago, he'd already lost the election.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

4. 30 years was meant to exclude Carter. N.T.

[Little Star]

5. Yep, I agree, 3rd.

Clinton and Carter both could have done much better. But President Obama does come in third imho.

[lutefisk]

9. Well, at least he beats Poppy... but then we're only halfway through first term...

Over the past 60 years, I don't think he'd be in the top 5.

[AndrewP]

6. That's where I'm at as well

Clinton
Carter
Obama


or

Clinton
Obama
w/o Jimmy C.

[HuckleB]

12. He tops Clinton big time.

He's accomplished far more than Clinton, especially when it comes to progressive progress.

[yurbud]

2. Obama's K-12 education policy is likely to do actual harm and is identical

to what the GOP wants--privatization of our public schools.

[lutefisk]

14. He beat the GOP at its own game with his education policy.

Appointing Arne Duncan and then giving him so much power really put Obama's judgment and motivations into question, for me. Of course I don't wish for a McCain/Palin White House, but what a disappointment.

[yurbud]

15. as a college instructor with a wife who is an elementary special ed teacher, this felt like a

personal betrayal.

My wife spends literally thousands of dollars of her own money on materials for her classes.

Because of budget cuts, two weeks before school started, they combined her existing class with another one (her grade 4-6 class merged with K-3) and she was transferred to do special ed kindergarten at another school.

She was just coming off maternity leave and the extra prep for teaching a new grade level pushed her over the edge--she had to take a disability leave. She also heard that the teacher at her old school couldn't get the new bigger class under control.

The really sad thing is the chaos caused by budget cuts will be used by ''reformers'' like Arne Duncan as a stick to beat public schools with and claim they need to be privatized.

[EFerrari]

7. The last 30 years have been nothing to write home about, sorry. n/t

[tularetom]

The bar is pretty damn low

Whether or not you include Carter.

So I'd say Obama is without question the best president in the last 30 years.

But he still has a lot of room to improve.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

10. I would certainly disagree with the "without question".

That Obama has done a better job than Clinton did is by no means an absurd position, but I don't think that describing it as "beyond question" is warranted.

[Chulanowa]

16. He has a lot of room for improvement, and plenty of time to do it.

[Demeter]

8. Setting the bar too low.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

11. An analysis that speaks for the need for a parliamentary form of government and a weaker executive.

If Carter, Clinton, and Obama is the best the two party system can produce perhaps it is time to institute a system that can remove and replace executives more easily.

[HuckleB]

13. He tops Clinton.

One could argue in regard to Carter, but they both faced so much that was outside their control, that it's difficult. Further, Obama and Carter made mistakes in the same areas, just in different ways.

[upi402]

17. shitty fuckin 30 years then! n/t

[TBF]

18. "Last 30 years" huh? Why am I seeing that in so many threads tonight. nt

[donco6]

19. Maybe we can put that on a plaque and send it to him.

I'm sure he'll be thrilled.

[Raine]

20. 30 years??? That sure is setting a low standard

to measure Obama against. :yoiks:

[nevergiveup]

21. The man has finished his second year and we are comparing .

him to past presidents who served either 4 or 8 years? This is beyond silly.