Obama's first presidential term: Your expectations?

Email Print posted by charlesf 04/22/2008 08:53:28 AM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
If you like this story, digg it!

Obviously Obama winning the general election is by no means guaranteed. McCain's bound to be a formidable opponent as flawed as we perceive his candidacy to be. (Sorry Hillary supporters, but I consider this nomination wrapped up).

Obama is bound to disappoint the incredibly high expectations people have, much as every newly elected president does in some shape or form.

But what do you expect would be his administration's accomplishments domestically and regarding foreign affairs?

Off the top of my head, I think he'll broker an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty. This will revive negotiations of Israelis and Palestinians and I anticipate some progress, though not a settlement during his first term.  

Any other concrete accomplishments you anticipate? 

< OK Guys - Pennsylvania Prediction Time... | The Belated "Congratulations Cenk" Thread(!) >
 Display:
Obama's first presidential term: Your expectations? | 10 comments (10 topical, 0 hidden)
Here's what I'd like to see (none / 0)

Number 1 - start to throttle down the flow of money to Iraq and to rotate people out of there.

Number 2 - Change the focus of our energy policy away from attempts at stealing resources from others and more toward reducing our use of fossil fuels and intelligently exploring and producing our own reserves.  That means developing every avenenue of alternative sources, solar, wind, water, nuclear as quickly as possible.  It also means establishing a mindset that veers away from wasting gasoline.  Things like 2-ton gas guzzling trucks used to transport a single 200 lb. person 20 miles to work must be seen as wasteful, unpatriotic, and unacceptable.  It's better that everyone begins to curb their consumption than sending young people to kill and die to support a lifestyle that is selfish, immoral and ultimately unsustainable.

Number 3 - put the country back on a sane budget, whatever it takes. 

 

by bfaul on 04/22/2008 09:43:02 AM EST

Bring back justice (none / 0)
I just hope Obama hires some honest lawyers for the Justice Department.  And brings the rule of law back to this country.
Maybe fit Bush and Cheney for some Orange jump suits.

by jdenham on 04/22/2008 09:50:32 AM EST

You're Dreaming (none / 0)
I am a supporter of Mr. Obama and would hate, for my Children, to see him lose to McCain, however I do not expect much to get done in the first 2 years.  As you can see a lot of member of the JackAss party buys into to the republican talking points (FISA and torture anyone) and they are not going to stop just for a Democratic president. And do you really think that Hillary is going to let him get anything done???  We may get Health Care done as long as it is the Clinton-Reid Healthcare Bill.  On the Israeli peace plan you will have the Connecticut for Lieberman party trashing everything he does.
He is going to have to learn how to use the bully-pulpit to brow beat the Democrats that ride his coattails and may even be a much better President after the midterm elections with a few less people with a D after their name in congress.

by atelesco1 on 04/22/2008 10:18:32 AM EST

What I Hope and What is Likely (none / 0)

Well, what I hope he gets done is improvement to the Energy Infrastructure; specifically decentralizing our energy sources from Oil and Coal to a multitude of Renewable sources.

Plus Staging down troops levels to almost nothing (or just nothing) in Iraq.

Most of all I expect competent people apointed to the right positions, not just his Cabnet. That will make a huge difference here.

 What I feel likely is that he will work at the Energy Infrastructure but merely reduce our dependance on forien oil and increase how wide spread and mainstream Renewable energy sources are.

He'll probably keep a Battlion on stand-by in or near Iraq. Likely near the oil wells.

However, he'll likely choose some great people for his cabnet. If Richardson is chosen for DoE, I feel my first expectation will be far more likely.

by Telrich on 04/22/2008 02:00:49 PM EST

The Winner of this Election will have HELL to pay! (none / 0)

The "winner" of this election will have HELL to pay, no matter WHO wins.  Iraq and the Ecomony will go to HELL in a Handbasket.  The IDIOTIC policies of Dubya will ENSURE to that.  The next president will, almost certainly be a ONE-TERMER, and competing for LEAST POLULAR PRESIDENT EVER.

Hoover suffered for the idiocy under Harding and Coolidge.  How can the Late-Apponted, Captain of a SINKING SHIP, a Captain selected ten minutes AFTER the Titanic hits the Iceberg, be any more popular that the Captain that steered the ship INTO IT????  It's a job I wouldn't wish onto my WORST ENEMY.

Iraq is set to BLOW UP in our faces.  28 years of unchallenged Laissez-Faire economics, if they don't lead us into yet another Republican Depression, will lead to a decade of 70s-style STAGFLATION.

FDR, dispite Con DOGMA, actually SAVED the world for Capitalism and Freedom.  Without a NEW FDR, and after 28 years of Right-Wing conditioning, could we pludge ourselves into FULL FASCISM???

by sunsawed on 04/23/2008 01:12:23 AM EST

Not buying it (none / 0)

Lets look a history.

I remember people saying this in 2000.  Its all going to hell, economic collapse and so on.  Four years later shit was almost infinitely worse.  Incumbent wins.

1980.  Hostage crisis.  War looming in the Middle East.  Economic collapse.  Malaise.  1984.  Incumbent wins in a landslide.

1968.  Country in turmoil.  National Guard killing college kids.  War country hates.   1972.  Incumbent wins in a landslide.

And the most inexplicable example.  How many people do you think said what you are saying about 2008 in 1932.  Do you think anyone thought that a president could survive the economic shitstorm that was unleashed on the US at that time?  Incumbent?  Won three more times all in landslides.  And you can't blame the 1936 reelection on the War.  That wasn't even on the horizon (at least in any voters mind.)

In fact, recent one term presidents don't fit this model at all.  1988?  Relatively low turmoil.   One term president.  1976?  Probably the least tumltous year for a presidential election between 1968 and 1980.  One term president.  1964? LBJ, kinda of a one termer in that he could have run again.  1964 was a year of enormous unity and prosperity.  One 1/4 term president. 

1952 is kind of in the middle.  Economic was still recovering from end of WWII and Korea had divided the country (why Truman didn't run after all).  Eisenhower won and got reelected.

Truman is hard to discuss in this context since he was kind of a 1 3/4 term and did not try for another term after but 1948 is definitely on the low end of the spectrum in terms of tumultuous times in this context.

I know it seems like being elected president with storm clouds brewing is a curse but historically its just not.

Maybe the American people are smart enough to distinguish the president who caused the disaster from the one who is trying to fix it. 

by ProfRich on 04/23/2008 02:06:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
more revisionist history (none / 0)
1932-1936: Turnaround in presidential commitment to solving national problems.

1968-1972: Turnaround in presidential commitment to ending the war, and bringing stability to societal upheval.

1980-1984: "Morning In America." "Are you better off today than you were four years ago?" (How old were you at the time? Ten years old? No wonder you don't remember.) 

2000-2004: Two million new jobs created after "9/11 Depression". "Ladies and Gentlemen, we got him."

by KenTX on 04/23/2008 02:22:46 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Damn (none / 0)

How can you miss the point so consistently????
Yeah, they managed to turn things around somewhat and get reelected.

THAT WAS MY POINT, JACKASS!

The year they first got elected it was all doom and gloom.  They took office, did what they did and got reelected.  Yet somehow you seem to read the post and pretend I said the exact opposite.

The most common type of revisionist history is when you analyze peoples actions as if those people know what is going to happen in the future because you do.  No one knew what Reagan was going to do in 1980 or Nixon in 1972 or FDR in 1932.  Which was what I was saying.  And right now no one knows what President Obama will do in 2008. 

Ken, can you actually read? Seriously. 

by ProfRich on 04/23/2008 02:39:30 AM EST

[ Parent ]
the problem is with your writing (none / 0)
"Ken, can you actually read?"

Not your meandering, pointless, babble.

by KenTX on 04/23/2008 02:43:54 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Control group (none / 0)

Everybody seems to understand just fine.

But I understand your Republican reflex to blame everyone else for your own shortcomings. 

by ProfRich on 04/23/2008 09:40:29 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Obama's first presidential term: Your expectations? | 10 comments (10 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: