Assessing Obama

 Paul Campos takes a moment to examine some of the criticisms leveled against Obama. The inspiration for this are comments from David Sirota. whom Campos correctly notes is a jackass. Sirota is part of the Troll Left who constituted a certain sector of Toxic Bernie Stans. His criticisms of Obama must be understood in that light. Sirota's argument is that Obama came in with a "huge mandate" and squandered it by being too moderate.

Campos notes that Obama's election itself was a radical act, but the thing about Sirota and other Berners is that they filter everything through the magical filter of socialist class consciousness. Race is a distraction. This is why they thought they could win West Virginia with Sanders instead of Clinton. It's...stupid.

I would note that Obama won primarily because of his opposition to the Iraq war. This is what differentiated him from Hillary Clinton. Clinton had been ambivalent in her support of the war in 2003, whereas Obama was unequivocally opposed. That won him the nomination. He was winning when the economy hit the shitter, and that largely padded his margins and helped get him the 60 seat Senate majority to pass ACA. ACA was a Big Fucked Deal, but to someone like Sirota it's insufficient, because he's a jackass.

If Sirota's argument was that Obama didn't do enough to get us out of Iraq quickly, I think there is some merit to that, but Obama DID basically end American combat in Iraq, even if it "took too long."  Here's the proof.

Of course, Obama also "killed bin Laden" and he did drone stuff that allowed Leftists to attack him for not being sufficiently pacifistic. Not that Obama ran as a pacifist so much as a "don't fight stupid wars."

The collapse of the economy in the fall of 2008 was not inherently tied to Obama's mandate. We still had no idea how bad it was in October and early November, aside from "BAD." Certainly, John McCain was not an ideal candidate to run in a cratering economy for the incumbent party, but Obama did not run on a detailed economic platform. If his mandate was tied to a repudiation of Bush's foreign policy and general dissatisfaction with Republican economic policies, that's not the same as Biden's extensive social spending platform. 

Historically speaking, Obama will be viewed pretty favorably because of the man who preceded him and succeeded him. Rightly or wrongly, Reagan benefits from being wedged between Carter and Bush 41. Basic competency distinguishes Obama from Bush 43 and basic human decency (and competency) distinguishes him from Trump. In an era of polarization - and the racial freakout Campos describes - Obama's accomplishments don't measure up objectively to FDR or LBJ's, but they represent a reasonable interlude between very bad presidencies.

He's not going to challenge the Lincoln/Washington/FDR triumvirate, but he will be seen as a Good to Very Good president.