What Obama deserves credit for and doesnt

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

It is far too early to render final judgment on the Obama presidency. All the chatter about his “legacy” overlooks two obvious realities. The significance of President Obama will depend heavily on events that have not yet happened (for starters, the fate of the Iranian nuclear deal) and comparisons, for better or worse, with his successor. Still, it’s possible to make some tentative observations.

As I’ve written before, the administration’s greatest achievement was, in its first year, stabilizing a collapsing economy and arguably avoiding a second Great Depression. Even now, only eight years after the event, many people forget the crash’s horrific nature. Unemployment was increasing by roughly 700,000 to 800,000 job losses a month. No one knew when the downward spiral would stop.

In this turbulence, Obama was a model of calm and confidence. The policies he embraced — various economic stimulus packages, support for the Federal Reserve, the rescue of the auto industry, the shoring up of the banking system — were what the economy needed, though they were not perfect in every detail. Although the subsequent recovery was disappointing, it’s not clear that anyone else would have accomplished more.

If Obama had done nothing else, rescuing the economy would ensure a successful presidency. But he did do other things, and we shouldn’t forget the historic significance of having an African American as the nation’s leader.

Still, his broader record is mixed. I think he will get credit for Obamacare, regardless of how Donald Trump and the Republicans modify it. The argument will be made, accurately I think, that the expansion of insurance coverage to roughly 20 million Americans would never have occurred if Obama hadn’t put it at the top of his agenda.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-obama-deserves-credit-for--and-doesnt/2017/01/15/c097f910-d9ae-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.976185479472&wpisrc=nl_rainbow&wpmm=1

[True Dough]

1. I agree with the op/ed author

in it that it will take years to judge some aspects of Obama's presidency. That's true, more or less, of every president. Unfortunately the advances made through executive orders are vulnerable to reversal by Drumpf.

And I'll give the author some leeway in asserting that Obama felt his words and speeches carried more power than they actually did. Personally, I found Obama inspirational, but he didn't, despite his best efforts, persuade many Republicans to see issues his way.

That leads me to the to this paragraph at the end of the opinion column:

The question historians need to ask is whether Obama contributed to this dysfunctional system or was victimized by it. He was unable to construct a working relationship with congressional Republicans. Was this because, as the White House has contended, Republicans had been unmovable from partisan positions? Or was Obama complicit, because his own partisan constraints left little maneuvering room? Maybe both.

That blame lies largely with the Republicans. Obama was willing to negotiate, to compromise. He demonstrated that repeatedly during his presidency. Hell, he named Republican-supporter James Comey as head of the FBI. Some argue that was foolish, but it points to Obama seeking common ground via some give and take.

The Republicans, however, essentially yielded nothing in return. To suggest that Obama shoulders some of the blame for that obstruction is patently unfair, IMO.