If Obama cannot succeed, knowing full well what kinds of problems he was walking into ( and we, knowing about his lack of experience voting him into office ) and with as much support and goodwill from the American and International public, I will be surprised.

But much in the same way it drove me absolutely batshit to have Bush supporters remain vague on what " victory " means or how to measure general competency, I do not want to make that same mistake with Obama.

Tomorrow, it ALL becomes his problem. One that he campagined on fixing. One that I'll very rarely even want to say " Well, you can blame Bush for Obama not being able to succeed on that front." BULLSHIT. We all knew what Bush did. We voted for the guy who said he'd be the best guy to fix it. We got our wish. Obama got his too.

So, as an exercise, I would like to hear a bunch of specific individual stats that our country is currently dealing with. Economic / budget numbers, job / employment numbers, immigration stats, education stats, etc. As much as you can possibly call important-to-you. Everything and anything counts.

Heck, if someone wants to try and use this formula to claim Bush is a huge success, have at it.

Then I would like to see the minimum number by which that stat would have to improve before you'd call it a success. And for how long would it have to be maintained?

I like the idea of having an actual scorecard. I also, in about 4 years, will have little tolerance for excuses why any stats were not achieved. We knew that it was going to be hard to begin with. Obama, come tomorrow, will probably learn about a few things he DIDN'T know about.

Anyone else can use whatever measure they wish to call his Presidency a success or not. This is my way to try and do it.

But as always, it goes quite a bit better if I solicit help.

Expectations for Obama are already so high that he is bound to be considered a failure if he doesn't fix everything quickly. And he can't. Look for people - led by Republicans - to be moaning and complaining about him by summer if the economy isn't fixed by then, which it won't be. Some Republicans are already calling it the "Obama Recession" before he even takes office!!!

You can't measure Obama's success or failure by numbers. The real question is, is he doing the right things? Is he making good decisions, appointing the right people?

Franklin Roosevelt never beat the Great Depression with any of his programs, really - only the onset of World War II really kicked us out of the Depression. So in one sense, his New Deal was a failure in the short-term, circa. 1939. However, looking back over the years, we see that FDR was a successful president during the Depression. His programs gave the country hope and faith in Democracy and capitalism at a time when the country could have veered off into fascism. And the long-term benefits in things like our infrastructure (roads, bridges, WPA projects) have been staggering, not to mention his visionary programs like Social Security, unemployment insurance, etc. FDR opened the door for things like government control of our financial system and regulation of financial markets. All of these things paid off later on.

So FDR did the right things - usually, not always - and provided leadership at a crucial time in the 1930s. I expect Obama to do the same, whether our country's problems can be solved quickly or not.

For me the measuring stick on if Obama is successful or not is going to be at the 2 or 3 year mark of his presidency. 2011 and 2012 will be when I personally will be able to gauge whether or not he has been successful. Anytime sooner than that is just really jumping the gun.

I would also like to see a scorecard, but that is not a task that I am upto.

Yeah. I'm not either at the moment. But I want to try and come up with a fair way to evaluate, and really declare what I want BEFORE it happens. Not as he fumbles and make a call then. Nor give him an A for effort. ( Although I think I can see decent intentions, he did campaign on resluts too, you know? ).

I'm totally willing to wait and see. But I douby he'll be called successful just because he TRIED to do things. Take unemployment for example. If that rate is reduced by half and remains there for say, 2 years. Would that be called a success?

What if he reduces the deficit - ANY deficit - by half. Would that be called a success?

I agree thast 2011 and 2012 will be important years to see results. I'm not asking for any of this to happen overnight. But general improvement, over seemingly good tactics, is something I would like to see and be able to measure.

Andrew said " You can't measure Obama's success or failure by numbers." Perhaps not. But I have to think there are finite ways to measure it. Numbers seemed like a good way to me.

Or let's say that we get attacked on Feb 1, 2009. Obama's fault? Seems like it should be. I mean if Bush's supporters can point to much of the foundation of why we got attacked and rest it in Clinton's lap ( even though everyone seems to forget that if Clinton's mistakes were so obvious, why were those vulnerabilities ignored? Or is it that there was simply nothing that COULD have been done even though Bush was aware of them? ) then why does Bush get a free pass on that front? The answer; He doesn't. Nor should Obama.

Obama knows exactly what are policies are and who and why others want to attack us. He should be prepared to deal with that from Day 1. Just like he promised.

My point is that Obama WILL be held to a higher standard than Bush - by me. And talking about this and making a few statements, on the record, seems perfectly reasonable to declare, out loud.

Chickenjuggler: Or let's say that we get attacked on Feb 1, 2009. Obama's fault? Seems like it should be.

Not automatically - of course not.

I mean if Bush's supporters can point to much of the foundation of why we got attacked and rest it in Clinton's lap ( even though everyone seems to forget that if Clinton's mistakes were so obvious, why were those vulnerabilities ignored? Or is it that there was simply nothing that COULD have been done even though Bush was aware of them? ) then why does Bush get a free pass on that front? The answer; He doesn't. Nor should Obama.

Well, if you think (not saying you are) that 9/11 was Clinton's fault and not Bush's, you haven't read Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies" with an objective view.

The reason Bush deserves real blame for 9/11 was because he didn't take terrorism seriously, despite numerous warnings about al Qaeda attacks. Richard Clarke spend months in vain trying to convince the principals in the Bush administration to act against al Qaeda, urgently. A week before 9/11, he famously told a principals meeting to imagine bodies of dead Americans lying in the streets after a major terrorist attack and asking, "What should we have done to stop it? Let's do that now." He had been doing this for months and wasn't taken seriously. The Bush Administration has no excuse for this negligence.

If Bush had taken al Qaeda seriously before 9/11 and had been taking meaningful action but it was too late, because he didn't have enough time, then you could give him credit for trying. But he didn't. Clinton took al Qaeda extremely seriously and tried to combat them but was ineffective. Different situation. He tried and failed. Bush didn't try much at all.

So if Obama ignores threats like Bush did and those threats come true, you can blame him all you want.

Well not to split hairs, but at what point DOES the incumbent President become, if not responsible, then at least accountable for stuff like that?

Knowing what we know now, and lots of other stuff that WE don't know - but Obama should, I hope he's more ready and I hope it shows.

Put it this way, I would have a hard time believing that anyone could be " surprised " by anything right now.

A president is responsible for his own behavior and actions. But he's not God. There are some terrorist attacks, in our free society, that no president could be expected to stop. But, if he was warned repeatedly about a particular threat (even if vague) and did nothing to try to stop it, he SHOULD be held accountable, as Bush wasn't.

If I tell you the driver that the road is icy and you should slow down and you should be careful and you ignore me, saying you are more worried about your gas mileage, then you crash...is that worse than you slowing down and doing your best to be careful and still crashing? I think so.

The president has only limited impact on the economy. In Obama's case, he needs to be judged on what he does that's best for the economy, not on impossible expectations, like "Gee, it's been two years and the stock market should have gone up by now or unemployment should have fallen." Maybe it would take several years for ANY president to bring about the kind of recovery the economy needs. Some circumstances are beyond his control and he shouldn't be unfairly judged for doing the right thing.

Look at Bush and the first recession he faced in 2001. He actually did a few things right. The tax cut rebate checks to spur consumer spending was a good thing that probably made a bad situation better. The problem was, he had a different agenda (permanent tax cuts for the wealthy, deficit be damned) than simply getting out of the recession. His tax cuts in 2003 were irresponsible and bad for the economy overall. And they shouldn't have been "permanent tax cuts" - they should have been cut off once the economy recovered, as long as we were running a federal budget deficit.

IF WE HAVE ANOTHER TERRORIST ATTACK DURING OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY THAN HE WILL FAIL AS A PRESIDENT.

AFTER 9/11 THERE WAS NOT 1 TERRORIST ATTACK CARRIED OUT IN THE US AFTER 9/11. NOT ONE!!! Their were attempts made but they were caught!

Crud this guy hasn't spent ONE minute in office and CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, even Fox are wetting themselves over coverage of this, as Doris Kearns Goodwin put it: "sacred event" tomorrow.
I will be glad to give him every chance in the world, but lets at least let him get in before announcing his sainthood.
The media coverage of this thing is beyond belief.
It is doing nothing but setting the poor sap up for a huge fall.
You would think if the liberal press were a little more intelligent, they would be kind of low keying this thing and let it all come as it will.
I will be anxious to see what he does, but I will agree wholeheartedly with Buns above, NOT ONE FREAKIN ATTACK SINCE 9/11.
Let's see if he can keep that up.

Their were attempts made but they were caught!

But the terrorists that DID succeed were given up on by the president.

What kind of logic is that?


The media coverage of this thing is beyond belief.

The tube has a switch. Turn it off. Don't wreck everyone else's fun.

Dodger, crawl back into your hole you loser. People like you have been giving Bush a pass for 8 years. Time to fess up and admit he's a failure! And you're a failure for supporting the loser.

Yeah, no attacks since the last one that occured ON HIS WATCH!!! Don't forget that. Bush was president on 9/11. He can claim no success while being the president during the worst attack on on our homeland. What a short memory you have.

OBAMA SCORE CARD:

1) Removal of GOP screw in our collective asses.

Done/Not done.

End of score card.


Even if Obama is a God-awful president, but still manages to gets that screw out, he'll be a hero to me.

" Their (sic) were attempts made but they were caught! "

Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with that as long as some more information could be supplied.

#1. I assume you mean terrorists form other countries. Not domestic terrorism. Correct?

#2. Which attempts are you recalling? Specifically.

#3. Who caught them? Specifically.

#4. What happened to those that were caught in post 9/11 attack attempts? Specifically.

My question is how much worse can he be than DUHbya?

Probably not much!

By the same measure, Bill Clinton kept America safe from terrorist attacks on our soil by foreign terrorists during most of his presidency, since from February 1993 there were none on his watch. Strangely, the GOP Bush apologists seem not to accept this line. Could it be...hypocrisy? Yep.

Well all I know is that I'm not comparing Obama to Bush just yet. I may as well compare Obama to Merril Howard Kalin if I'm gonna do that.

It's pretty slobery in the media these last few days. I am hoping and praying for our new President...to make our economy strong again, keep our nation safe, and our people in freedom.
I am hoping never to write about presidental blunders, embarassments, or catostrophic events.
He needs God's wisdom...lots of it.

He needs God's wisdom...lots of it.

No! He does not!!!!

Look what happened with the last president that took advice from God!

Geez!

Listen guys. We all want the same things. Freedom. Security. A bright future for our children. A chance to live out our days in comfort after a lifetime of hard work. The only difference is the means by which we accomplish those goals.

Freedom: Bush's version of freedom is the one that has the U.S. leading the industrialized world in incarceration rates. The Executive branch should also have the freedom to torture, spy and/or hold without bail anyone they see fit.

Security: For those who can afford it, nothing but the best. For those who can't so what.

Children's future: Under Bush, high school drop out rates are higher than they were after Bush I's term.

Retirement: Well all that "pul'itkul kaptal" that the shrub earned after his second "election" he tried to dismantle Social Security... how'd that work out for him again?

Obama...

Freedom: I hope that we will see an end to the FISA warrantless wiretapping. I hope the NSA and other intelligence agencies will stop eavesdropping on U.S. soldiers, which in my opinion is disgusting.

Security: I hope that we invest in real security for the U.S. ports, power system, chemical industry, and a revamped TSA that actually allows for things like unions and common-sense training for employees.

Children's future: I hope the Feds lower interest rates on student loans. I hope they up the G.I. Bill. I hope the Federal government pays to re-train the U.S. workforce for "green" jobs.

Retirement: The line that SS is going to fail is a crock. Greenspan decided to up the SS tax that is taken out of payrolls sometime in the early or mid eighties. The idea was that the next generation would pay their parents retirement. Well the Baby Boomers are going to be the first and hopefully last generation to pay for their parents and their own retirement. So just leave the system as it is.

Vitalogy:
I haven't been in a hole, my guy has been the prez.
YOU however HAVE crawled out of a hole now that YOUR guy is prez.
How was it down there?
Glory to Obama you ain't gots ta pay for nothin no moah.
He's goyin to pay foah everuthin! Now mattah how hawed I woiked under da bush presidency, now ah can afford to live!
Please, go back to your holes and oh by the way, take your $200 million inagauration party with you please?

My measure will be very simple:

1. Do we have our priorities right? If we see an endless stream of dogma related issues consuming the attention, then it's a dodge. FAIL.

2. Will the decline in value received per hour worked stop?

3. Are we a nation of law?

4. Will we cultivate domestic energy sources and exploit them?

5. Does domestic policy improve opportunity for ordinary people?

6. Will the influence of large corporations continue to hobble domestic policy resolutions?

7. Are we respecting our environment?

It's not where we are on those matters so much as the trend. Most of it isn't good. If we resolve those things differently, change the trend, then it's success.

Where we get to, given that resolution is a function of a lot of things not under the control of the President.

The biggest disappointment with Bush was failure to set realistic expectations. When the wrong expectations are set, that ripples through lots of things causing a mess. It's often difficult to water it down to a decision or two, as in this decision caused that. But it is possible to look at them in aggregate and clearly see the expectation for our social burden was set too low or two high, or simply not set at all.

That's what I am most concerned about. The next two years will be about managing our expectations. If successful, that will push through and we will see improvement. We won't know the form, but we will feel the substance.

Dodger, was your post an effort to sound like a black person talking?

I was trying to ignore that...

Buns said -

" Their (sic) were attempts made but they were caught! "

Frankly, I'm inclined to agree with that as long as some more information could be supplied.

#1. I assume you mean terrorists form other countries. Not domestic terrorism. Correct?

#2. Which attempts are you recalling? Specifically.

#3. Who caught them? Specifically.

#4. What happened to those that were caught in post 9/11 attack attempts? Specifically.

That was not an attempt at anything except for the direct transcripts of a woman in Detroit excited about the events today.
I don't know what color she was. Do you?
It is on msnbc's site.

Sure it is.

Bump.

And a timely bump it is.

Well, I'm still quite happy with my answer. It's not been long, but I like the trend.

[looks at magic 8 ball]

"Outlook Positive"

....Bush was president on 9/11.....

But my bet is that The attack didn't happen BECAUSE OF IT.

Would have happened anyway.

Still think all airline passenger should be issued a hospital gown and foam slippers before boarding. your clothes are then placed in a paper bag and stapled closed. the attendants will store them until the plane arrives. then you get your bag and turn in your gown and slippers.

AND NO FLIPPING PASSPORTS FOR U.S.CITIZENS RETURNING FROM CANADA!!!

Compound problems take time to fix. Identifying and separating which components have caused the failure and which ones have failed as a result of other component failure is not always easy.
Clearly, the policies and politics of the Gingrich/Bush era have proven to be the root cause of the failure, but replacing the engine or energy source alone will not always correct the failure of the machine as a whole. This is similar to a piece of electronics that has failed. The power supply (Bush) came crashing down, but slowly. Eventually, the people replaced this component. But the failing power supply did not come undone on it's own. The root of the problem was out in the circuitry of the machine where resistive, capacitive and inductive values were changed to provide higher gain to specific output ports, causing tremendous overheating and failure.
So now that the Republicans have garnered as much wealth as they possibly could, they now play the role of bad loser, playing neighsayer and antagonist to every proposed solution. Meanwhile, they have nothing new in thought or theory. They are now irrelevant.