Was Obama too green when he came into office?

[tavernier]

And by green, I mean inexperienced.

I attended a convention a couple of years before the election that swept him into office, and although he was a rising star, my main thought was that he just didn't have the long time experience of say, LBJ, who knew how to schmooze and threaten and finesse his opponents. That comes from a lifetime of political experience.

Sometimes brains and heart and courage just aren't enough (and Obama is blessed with all of these). Sometimes you have to be an old Wizard, with many learned tricks up your sleeve.

I have to admit that I have wondered how Johnson would have handled this congress?

[frazzled]

1. I think he was too

black.

[tavernier]

5. Oh, trust me,

I clearly see the racism. I've been surprised and appalled at how blatant it has been. I guess I'm saying that even without that, Obama was climbing a steep mountain without the years of experience he could/should have had.

[ebbie15644]

2. Maybe Bill Maher was

inadvertently referring to this same thought when he did the segment on "Ageism" and suggesting Jerry Brown as a candidate.

[Basic LA]

35. Maybe so!

I hadn't thought of that but it makes sense.

[Cleita]

3. I thought so too, but no one listens to me.

However, I admire how he has handled all the shit thrown at him with grace and dignity.

[tavernier]

9. Ginger Rodger's once commented

that Fred Astaire was fabulous on the dance floor, but seldom mentioned her, although she did the same routine backwards and in high heels. That's what women have had to be up against for years.

I don't know if this is the proper analogy, but Obama had to do all the same tricky steps, and do it all while being... (GULP!) Black!!!

[Rhiannon12866]

46. I have to agree.

My thought, over and over, has been that this president has the temperament for the job. He's remained calm and collected when most people could not.

[joshcryer]

4. Yes, without a doubt.

[jaysunb]

6. Politics and politicians are 180 degree different from

the era you mentioned. Many of the great bills and programs of that time were passed in a bipartisan fashion that was considered good for the country. All that changed in 1980.....

More importantly, racism, pure and simple is the cause President Obama has had programs that would have benefited all Americans blocked and his accomplishments minimized.

[tavernier]

10. Politics has always been an ugly sport.

Some say its actually not as physically bloody as it once was.

Johnson was a politician who made an art form of studying his opponents and knowing where and who to hit politically to get the things he desired.

[Yo_Mama]

7. People wanted someone not in the political establishment

Voters have been trying to reject politics as usual. They did not want someone who was well incorporated into the status quo.

If Obama had had, say, gubernatorial experience before taking the office, it might well have helped him. But in a large part, he won the office because he is uncommonly honest for a politician and because he WAS new blood. Those were the qualities that deeply appealed to voters.

I do think there is a particular skill set involved in legislative wrangling. But I don't think President Obama did too badly on that score early on in his administration either.

The times are tough and you can't discount the influence that has on policy.

[Awknid]

54. He reminds me of Jimmy Carter

I remember Jimmy had similar innocence and they tore him to shreds too. Obama, like Jimmy, is too good for them!

[Aerows]

8. Yes

Unequivocally.

[Wellstone ruled]

11. Wow!!!

No!!! A leader surrounds him or her self with trusted advisers. Here in lies the problem Mr. Obama had from the get go. Chief of staff was his weakest choice. From there lies many choices of personnel that did not serve him well. Remember,he had major debts to the big Banks for his funding and that set in motion a cascading effect once his chief of staff pissed off most of the people on the Hill. The press jump on this like stink on shit baby. End of story. The rest was and is damage control. Biden did not do his job either,but,what do expect from a third way Democrat that owes his ass to Jamie Dimon and Loyd Blankfind. If one thinks Mr. Obama wasn't up to the task,explain the Chump in Chief we had to put up with. A guy with a maybe 100 I.Q.. Duh!!!

[Retrograde]

20. GWB had a very experienced puppetmaster

Cheney - and Poppy Bush were around DC to learn where a lot of bodies were buried

[kentuck]

12. I do wish he had gathered the best progressive minds around him before he was ever sworn in...

And that he had a strategy developed about what needed to be done and had convinced the people that he did indeed have a mandate after the disaster that was Bush Jr...

[KoKo]

16. Brought into Power and Run by the "Center for American Progress" & Memories of Vietnam

Plus: "Other Powers" like "The Nation" and "New America Foundation."

He's been run by them and others since. He's had little "independent" thought in his mind.

He is subject to interpretation by whichever "Think Tank" is in vogue in his Adminstration from the Center Right & Right Think Tanks who he picks as his Advisers.

He's a very clever fellow. An "Artful Dodger."

It remains to be seen...his legacy. I'm not ready to go with your view. But...who knows what's ahead.

[TwilightGardener]

13. On Inauguration Day, 2009, the GOP Congress pledged to oppose him on everything

and make him fail. When has that ever happened at the start of a Presidency? His problem wasn't/isn't inexperience dealing with Congress. His problem is that while he is superficially very friendly and sociable out of necessity, his ultimate nature is solitary and insular--not a glad-handler, not a happy warrior, not a very good manipulator. That limits his influence on Congressional dealings. Although I don't think his issues are all that bad, and he will be seen as successful in the future.

[kentuck]

15. I think he will be seen in the top echelon of Presidents...

when all is weighed and recorded.

[a kennedy]

23. Ditto

✌️👍👷

[Stardust]

21. ^^^^!!!

[Logical]

49. But he still tried to compromise with them!! Make any sense to you? nt

[KoKo]

14. I think he was...but, the "Powers that Be" who Chose him...found him

their "Dream Candidate."

So...there's that.

[JohnnyLib2]

17. I think it's a big factor.

Having not "done battle" with hostile and entrenched political and institutional forces......

He certainly gets high marks for dealing with them and much more, but in an inexperienced way.

Does anyone see much comparison with any other president in modern times?

[Algernon Moncrieff]

18. He had a very constructive relationship with many Senate Republicans

I think he figured that would carry over into the White House. He'd be able to call up folks like Tom Coburn, have a few beers, and make deals.

[kelliekat44]

19. No. The nation was too mean. Obama is didn't get where he is by being green. Still don't want to

give him credit for his maturity and intelligence. He wasn't too green. He's human. He's decent. We all see the world as we are. He was hopeful, sincere, eager, optimistic, as were his supporters. The side with the most money and power was fearful, hateful, hurtful, pessimistic, and angry. They never gave him a chance.

[tavernier]

22. Yes, he could have delegated from the best

but that also takes experience.

My choice was Hillary (stone me now) because I thought she would have been wiser and more experienced with her council.

But I liked Obama's youth and honest good will, and wished that it would sweep the cynical public.

But I forgot about Fox News and the NRA and the Koch brothers and their ilk.

So, sadlly, i don't really feel like a room without a roof anymore.

[badtoworse]

24. Yes. He had no experience as an executive going in.

Being an executive is no different than any other job. It takes time and experience to get good at it and Obama had never held an executive position before becoming president. Obama is more of a consensus type of guy. In my opinion, they make crappy executives.

[tavernier]

25. So what do we learn from this?

Do we want new blood? Or a seasoned and cynical leader?

I think I'm somewhere in between. So...

??????

[badtoworse]

32. I think there are a couple of take aways

First of all, experience does matter. It's great to espouse a progressive agenda, but does it make sense to vote for someone who lacks the experience to make it happen? If I had to choose between effective leadership of an agenda I didn't agree with and no leadership of an agenda I wanted, I would probably take the effective leader. The leader will accomplish things and it's likely that some of those things will be good. The unqualified leader will likely flounder and accomplish little or nothing.

You learn with age. If you've voted and followed the political process over decades, you develop a sense of what's bullshit and what isn't. You also become sensitized to being manipulated by politicians on both sides and you develop your own point of view, Most importantly, I think you develop a sense of who can get something accomplished; who's full of shit and you vote acordingly. I also think you develop an understanding of how important it is that you actually do vote.

I think new blood is needed on both sides. Boehner, McConnell, Reid and Pelosi could get anything done prior to this election. Why would anyone believe they'll be more effective now?

[rug]

26. No. Six years later he's still buying the bipartisanship bullshit.

[Zorra]

27. He seems to be completely lacking in street smarts and understanding of

liberal ideology.

Either that or he just hates liberals, and fucked us all over on purpose.

[JI7]

28. it's not Obama

[Historic NY]

29. Perhaps a tad too trusting of the old rotting white guys...

that have not scruples.

[AtomicKitten]

30. He served three terms in the Illinois State Senate

from 1997 to 2004 at which time he was elected to the US Senate. He was not a political neophyte; he just doesn't practice bullyboy/scorched earth politics like, say, the Clintons. Keith Olbermann pegged Hillary correctly when he said she ran against Obama as if she were the Republican and he was the Democrat.

[Old Nick]

31. No, he was an academic

And he still is. Same with Warren, which is why I'm not rooting for her in '16.

[MrMickeysMom]

34. Nick… some academics have real world experience...

So, don't count them all out, okay? You may, in fact, be right about the two you mentioned, but I'm trying to tell you that there are plenty in state and local government who HAVE that experience post academia and they are a hybrid to be sought out.

[Niko]

33. You speak as if he hasn't accomplished a single thing

The facts are Obama has accomplished more than most presidents have, despite the opposition he's had to face with.

So no, he wasn't "too green". Imagine if he actually had the people who are supposed to be on his side supporting him just how much more he could get done.

[lovemydog]

38. 'Imagine if he actually had the people

who are supposed to be on his side supporting him just how much more he could get done.'

So true. Welcome to DU Niko. Have fun!

[CJCRANE]

36. No.

I disagree with many of Obama's policies...but I'm not sure there's anyone out there on the political scene who could've done a better job.

The thing that befuddles me is that there this perception that the President can solve all national and international problems on his own.

One man can't stand up to Congress, the media and the entrenched lobbies at home and abroad, even if he wanted to.

The reality is that it is not up to him, it is up to us.

That's why I don't accept the media narrative, even when the Democrats and the President go along along with it.

They don't have much choice, they live in that bubble.

We don't. We're the only ones who can point out the truth or give alternate views and perspectives, because they're not going to do it for us.

They think their job is to persuade us what to think to make us more malleable to implement policies that benefit them.

Our job is to ignore the media BS and remind politicians that they work for us, not the other way round.

[karynnj]

41. I agree completely

You have articulated the difficulty that any Democratic President will face if they attempt to pass even mildly progressive legislation.

It is important to accept what you wrote - both intellectually and emotionally and consider how we can change that reality. Otherwise, 2016 will be the quest for the Democratic messiah, who as President will be able to make everything better again.

Obama may not be perfect, but in terms of intellect, charisma, and ability to find solutions, he is equal to any Democratic President we have had since FDR. The forces against him were greater than the forces against any of his predecessors. This is not just that he has faced racism, but he has faced a sharp partisan divide where people do not just disagree, but declare the other side evil - making any compromise pretty difficult. Part of this is that, though we have easy access to more primary source information on anything, we have more disinformation than ever. What most people would have called "facts" are now given equal weight with anything that anyone - with whatever credentials claims. (At the risk of being elitist, maybe the fact that our news used to be filtered by the newspapers, radio and TV hosts might have at least winnowed out the extreme. The question is how do we use the wealth of information available to create a better understanding - rather than fuel CT on either side.)

What is really scary is that the Koch Brothers, who have John Birch Society roots may - because of their money - have more influence than even the President. It is odd to remember that at one point, the John Birch Society was so discredited that saying - even accurately and provably - that someone running for office had a member was "hardball" politics!

[lovemydog]

37. No.

He has done a fantastic job considering the opposition not only from republicans, but also from democrats.

[MH1]

39. I think so, which is why I hope Elizabeth Warren defers this time.

Although, if she runs I will wholeheartedly support her, probably more wholeheartedly than any other likely candidate that's been mentioned. I just wish she had more seasoning first, and I do think Obama would have handled Congress better if he'd spent more time there before becoming President.

[karynnj]

40. Not to take anything away from LBJ, he had about 69 Democrats

Only on the civil rights bill did he have a daunting challenge. Reading a recent book by Todd S. Purdum, An Idea Whose Time Has, is the story of how the civil rights movement, the Kennedy and Johnson administrations and the Congress passed the civil rights act, noted that tallies of votes in some papers were R, DN, DS - with the Democrats split between north and South. There were 18 segregationist Democrats, so they needed Republican votes.

Johnson did not face anything like the mindset of even McConnell who publicly said that he would block anything. Look back at ACA. Remember that Baucus purposely had a subgroup that included Hatch, Snowe and another Republican - all of whom had SPONSORED bills that were not far from the ACA in the past. They did not seriously help on anything.

The pressure to vote no was likely extremely intense. In committee, Snowe voted for passing the bill out of committee saying she did not want to be on the wrong side of history. Then when there were votes on the floor of the Senate, she voted with every other Republican AGAINST the bill. This shift is a BIG deal. Had Snowe followed her committee inclination, it would have been possible to have the bill follow a normal procedure - with Snowe becoming the 60th vote even after Scott Brown won. All those minor fixes could have been made and it would have passed both Houses. At minimum it would have taken away the Republican argument that we "cheated" and "rammed it through under reconciliation" which was never true, but reflected their view that if Brown won - the bill was dead. Snowe, then did not run for re-election and spoke of the partisan nature of the Senate in explaining why not.

I really hope that Snowe at some point writes of her experiences in those turbulent years. She was the Republican, who was willing to negotiate for her vote on things like the budget and she led on some of the jobs bills that started in the Small Business Committee where she was the ranking member. She had a safe seat and her popularity meant she likely could not be primaried. However, the constant hatred from her own party had to really hurt.

Getting back to your question, Obama had more experience with Congress and more ties to Senators when he came to office than his predecessors, GWB (no experience), Bill Clinton (no experience), Ronald Reagan (no experience)Jimmy Carter (no experience), and Eisenhower (no experience). The list with more experience includes LBJ, GHWB (who was a Congressman for one term before losing and was VP for 8 years), Nixon (8 years as VP, previously in Congress) Gerald Ford (speaker of the House - up there with LBJ in experience) and Kennedy.

While all the experiences of a President are important, I don't think looking at these two groups that you can argue that it was experience with Congress that was the best predictor of success of a President. Not to mention, Obama's task of passing health care in the 2009 Senate likely had less room for error than LBJ's passing the Civil rights bill.

[tavernier]

42. Johnson would have eaten McConnell

and spit out turtle shells.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

43. Ain't that the truth. Can you imagine FDR with McConnell?

That would have been a thing of beauty.

[Cleita]

47. Turtle soup.

[undeterred]

44. No but he was too black

for a lot of people.

[Vinca]

45. I don't think so. He's a very smart man and a compassionate person.

If he had gotten an iota of cooperation from the right instead of total obstructionism, this wouldn't even be a suggestion. Apparently some think not spending his free time golfing with Mitch McConnell is a bad thing. I think it's a sane thing.

[Logical]

48. Seemed Gullible to me. Tried compromise too long. He forgot the GOP.....

hated him and would not compromise no matter what.

[bhikkhu]

50. I don't think its a job anyone can adequately prepare for

capability and adaptability is much more important than experience, and I think he has shown both, impressively. I hope things go so well in the next 50 years or so that he won't be considered one of the best presidents ever, but I suspect otherwise.

[Chemisse]

51. Yes he was. And it was most pronounced

during that first year when he was letting the Republicans toy with him as he tried to negotiate with them.

I was so angry with him that whole time for being so naive. But he learned his lesson (eventually!).

There were probably a lot of other manifestations of his inexperience that went on behind the scenes.

There is something to be said for putting someone in the White House who has some DC street smarts.

[unblock]

52. they all are. every last one of them.

i don't think anything, certainly not modern campaigning, can properly prepare anyone for the office.

the ones who are genuinely the best, most capable presidents are the ones who learn and adapt on the job.

the ones who *seem* the most impressive are simply the ones who face politically easier challenges and/or less political opposition.

fdr, for instance, had it easy in a sense; the country faced a big challenge in the aftermath of the great contraction; but politically, he had free license to try just about anything in terms of fiscal policy, and huge, unparalleled support on congress.

obama, by contrast, has faced an enormous challenge given the nearly unprecedented opposition from republicans and the media. frankly, what he has achieved in the face of that is impressive, in arguably more impressive than what fdr was able to achieve.

[Turbineguy]

53. Not something we did not know when we voted for him.

Intellect and being a fast learner is what's important.

[riqster]

55. Yes, but honestly, I don't think it mattered as much as I thought it would.

Had Obama been treated like other Presidents, he'd have had a different term.

Biggest indicator of inexperience: trying repeatedly to deal with the GOP. An experienced DC pol would have quit trying a lot sooner and fought back harder.

But given the racist onslaught, that may not have worked for our President.