Is David Maraniss correct?
In any case, [Obama] comes to this term in a new place as a man and as a politician, not only forged by the experience of his mistakes but also more integrated in character. His will to survive is less likely to contradict his will to do good. That’s likely to be evident in how he handles his larger agenda. This doesn’t mean that he will suddenly become the schmoozer, glad-handing or cajoling, that so many pundits urge him to be; or that he will abandon his tendency to compromise with his opponents, especially on budget cuts, even to the point occasionally of exasperating some supporters; or that he will immediately pursue every progressive issue (immigration reform, yes; climate change, probably not yet). It does not mean that those who demonize him as somehow apart and alien will suddenly see that his story, and his instincts, are quintessentially American. It does not ensure success, let alone greatness.
But it does mean that he will act as president with more assuredness, delineate with more clarity, and be more willing to show people who he really is or what he has become in his slow evolution. As the nation’s first African American president, he has consistently paid homage to the civil rights heroes who made his ascent possible, especially Martin Luther King Jr., whose holiday will be observed on the same day as Obama takes his public oath. But he has always been very judicious in expressing his blackness as president, rarely going beyond that evening last January when he channeled Al Green crooning, “I — I’m so in love with you . . . ” It is a complicated endeavor that required time and comfort, but he now seems ready, friends and associates say, to show more of that side of his heritage and personality.
As Obama focused on his second inaugural, experts outside the White House who had been solicited for advice reported that he was more buoyant than they had seen before.
It’s not surprising that Obama is modeling himself in part on FDR circa 1937 and in part on DDE circa 1953. After all, he could be only the second third president since them (and the first Democrat) to serve two full terms without getting impeached.
There is still the small matter of getting through the next 4 years.
yes. The House Republicans would impeach a ham sandwich.
After all, he could be only the second president since them (and the first Democrat) to serve two full terms without getting impeached.
Third. There was Reagan and Shrub.
yes, I guess Bush was president. So easy to forget. First, he definitely didn’t win his first election and he relied on shenanigans to win his second.
Second, he never really seemed like he was actually running the show.
He does sort of seem like the shittiest fluke ever.
Every time I see one of those “Miss me yet?” bumperstickers with his stupid chimp face on it I can’t help but respond “Fuck no” in my head.
“Shittiest fluke ever” should go on his headstone.
Interesting that you see him modeling his Presidency on FDR and DDE–I have observed the same thing.
The Maraniss part is awful.
will probably be very different to his first. The high tide of Republican opposition may already be ebbing. Having overplayed their hand (as usual) the Republicans are desperately trying to fall back to a more defensible position – not quite sure where he will attack from first.
He has already signaled divide and conquer sorties on Gun Control and Immigration. They will try to hold his feet to the budgetary fire, but having lost rounds one and two they have little reason hope round three will be much more successful. They’re best hope is the gerrymandered House and the opportunity to rig the electoral college.
After that it is events, dear boy, events” which could wrong foot him – another recession, a terrorist atrocity, a failed initiative, a scandal involving his administration: But if Benghazi is the best the Republicans can do, they are in for a wretched time.
What do I think?
Maraniss is an over-rated jerk. So no need saying anything about his analysis, which is pretty much psychobabble.
Your sentence BooMan is interesting. Eisenhower unwinding Korea also means Eisenhower ordering the CIA to overthrow Mossadegh and Arbenz and getting the US footprint in Indochina. It means Eisenhower still having to tiptoe around Joe McCarthy. It means a federal reduction-in-force and reductions in aid to states which will produce reductions-in-force there. So what are you foreseeing?
As for the FDR reference, you expect little major legislation. But some major reworking of labor standards. And rising labor unrest that the President cannot use effectively to gain legislation. A focus on the Supreme Court, and a growing international threat. Again, what are you foreseeing?
I agree. My reaction is that I can’t say whether Maraniss is correct or not, because I can’t tell if he’s actually saying anything.
But as long as we’re making predictions, here’s something I’ve been wondering about. Obama will only be 55 at the end of his second term. What does he do then?
I’m just as curious who Joe Biden will be in the next 4 years. Unlike Bush who struggled to keep up with Cheney or Clinton who kept Gore a step behind, Obama going into this term seems inclined to have Joe walk side by side. Makes for interesting thoughts of how Obama will handle a moment where both Joe and Hillary are running…
I’ll make a bold prediction — neither of them will run.
I still don’t really buy into the narrative that Obama was this naive, wide-eyed idealist who was taken by surprise at how divisive and broken Washington is. He passed the Affordable Care Act, for crying out loud. Perhaps he didn’t anticipate just how far the Republicans would go, but he seems to have been operating with a pretty good understanding that they would oppose almost everything he did. The problem is the mainstream media didn’t recognize that, so he made a show of reaching out his hand in the spirit of compromise and getting slapped down every time. Eventually, some people in the media figured out that both sides don’t do it, and now that Obama has won re-election, he is in a completely different situation.
I don’t think he’s Nostradamus. He did get blindsided a few times. But the idea that he was not assured and did not delineate with clarity strikes me as false. He had enough ego to think he could be the nation’s first black president. He has plenty of assurance. He just took care not to rub it in people’s faces too much.
This kind of statistical nonsense sets my teeth on edge. There have only been 9 presidents since Eisenhower. Kennedy died in office, so let’s take him out of the mix. Ford was never elected and essentially lost Nixon’s seat. So now we’re down to seven. Johnson decided not to run for reelection. 4 of the 6 remaining, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, and Bush Jr. were elected to a second term. Nixon was the only one removed from office. Clinton’s presidency was pretty damn successful, despite being impeached for having a mistress.
And as boran2 points out, Republicans have 4 more years to impeach Obama.
So what is the point we’re supposed to take away from this?
Clinton was impeached though, that’s the point. Nixon’s impeachment process was underway, and the Nixon side of it was why Ford didn’t have 2 full terms. I wouldn’t say Johnson “decided” – that’s a pretty mild verb for the dynamics of his not running.
Booman’s comment “only the third president since them (and the first Democrat) to serve two full terms without getting impeached” implies that it is very difficult for a president to successfully serve 2 terms, especially a Democrat. But this is completely misleading.
If you were born on the day Kennedy was inaugurated and you live until Obama leaves office, you’ll have spent half your life with a Republican president and half with a Democrat. The same is true if you were born the day Carter took office. 2/3rds of all incumbents seeking reelection have won. One Democrat and one Republican have been impeached. The only one removed from office was Nixon.
So it’s very likely that any first-term president will win reelection and avoid impeachment. That’s pretty much the opposite of what Booman implied.
Nixon wasn’t impeached, although he would have been if he had not resigned.
Only Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached, and both were acquitted, Clinton more comfortably than Johnson.
I didn’t mean to imply much. I meant to say, explicitly, that Obama would be the first Democrat since FDR to be elected twice without getting impeached. Whether that is hard or easy, it hasn’t been done in 73 years.
How much you want to deduct from Clinton for having been impeached is for you to decide, but his conduct in office was less than exemplary, including on campaign financing.
If Obama can complete his second term without scandal, he will be in some rather elite company. Then you can judge how he stacks up within that elite company.