Obama: Yes he could?

Obama has been in office for a year. This is traditionally the time where pundits look back over the president's first and often 'easiest' year and give a score card. Obama has started a lot of things but has not been able to move as fast as hoped by many. The idealism of the campaign is rapidly running into the realism of politics and Obama has already been showing that he can be pragmatic, something he needs in tough battles with congress on healthcare and climate change. A good year?

Obama: Yes he could?

Yes because... No because...

The economy could have been worse in another’s hands

Yes, there is still a 10% unemployment rate, but there was no way that Obama could have put an end to unemployment; this was never on the cards. What is instead important to show how well the president is doing is to look at the rate at which people are losing or gain their jobs. People are still losing their jobs in America, but the rate is far slower now than when he took Presidency of America at the turn of 2009. Obama had a hand in doing this by creating jobs in the public sector under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. He implemented this less than a month after his inauguration and it created some 3.5 million jobs. With such quick action and reward, this has been a year where Obama has had a positive reign over America.

Obama: Yes he could?

Yes because... No because...

more Americans feel secure under Obama rule

Whilst Obama might not have delivered what he promised on the health care reforms, he has made a positive impact over the last year on the health of Americans. Thanks to him many more Americans have the security of healthcare insurance, 30 million more in fact [[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8462685.stm]]. He has also changed the law so that insurance companies cannot refuse to cover people when they are sick. This alone has eased the worries of a nation that never used to protect the sick the way we do in Britain. Obama achieved this in one of the most economically and morally destroyed years of our time, this has been a good year for Obama and his legacy.

Obama: Yes he could?

Yes because... No because...

Obama is losing his overall popularity.

Many Presidents lose popularity during their first year. They arrive in office on a tide of good will (often simply because they are different from the previous president) and approval ratings tend to be good because there is little to disapprove of. Only a president's ideological enemies are likely to disapprove at the start, both his allies and independents are likely to give the benefit of the doubt because they have not yet seen what the president will do. All they have to go on is the aspirations of the campaign, and it is difficult not to approve of aspirations. By the end of the first year the president is facing the hard realities, he is finding he has to alienate some voters with the decisions he makes. Unless there is some outside intervention, such as 9/11 or the end of the cold war, there is almost bound to be a decline in popularity.

So Truman's approvals fell from the high 80s to the 40s
Eisenhower has a small dip from the 70's to 60's
Kennedy's stayed roughly level, before falling just into his second year
LBJ and Nixon had a similar slow decline to Ike
Ford's fell from just below 60% to just above 40%
Carter's from almost 70% to the 40s
Reagan from almost 60% to the 40s
H.W. Bush went up due to the ending of the cold war
Clinton from mid 50s to mid 40s
G.W. Bush's went up due to 9/11[[http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-presapp0605-31.html]]

so the real significance is not a decline in popularity - this could yet be reversed but rather that it has fallen quite fast. However Obama's approval ratings are still above 50% so he is still not doing too badly.

Massachusetts was held on to by the Democrats since 1972. But as of the 20th January 2010, a republican party have taken over the once Democrat strong hold. This can only be a sign that voters are not happy with the way Obama is leading the Government. The matter is particularly indicative of the public view on Obama as the loss of the seat means that there are now enough Republicans in the Senate to impede any healthcare reformations that Obama wants to put into place. If Obama can lose the Democrats a seat in Massachusetts, then it is more than possible for all other states to reject the Democrats, figure headed by Obama, in the up and coming November congressional elections.

Obama: Yes he could?

Yes because... No because...

From not so humble beginnings

Die hard Obama fans/aficionado/harbingers/fanatics still exist, however.

Many Obama-ians have not lost hope and believe strongly in the 'Yes, we can' slogan. These people understand the phrase "In time" and the concept of: sacrifice today for a better tomorrow.

They do not ignore Obama's efforts merely because they have not borne fruit(yet). His promises are not empty just a little late(missing his own deadlines but at least he has a plan and good intentions count for a lot)

Obama is on the right track.

When you create a campaign based around major change, improvement and ‘hope’, the public can only be disappointed. Obama was painted as a saint in his election campaign and people all around the world felt the ecstasy of him being voted into power. It was a historic day and the majority of people were delighted, overjoyed and romantic when dreaming of what Obama could achieve. However, Obama is just a man. He inherited two wars, an economic crisis and a public that felt let down by politics. Everyone expected Obama to make a dramatic turnaround. With such high expectations, his first year was never going to be a good one. There is still a 10% rate of unemployment amongst Americans, the wars still continue and the healthcare system has not been reformed yet. People expected great things from Obama, and all they got was a slight improvement.

Obama: Yes he could?

Yes because... No because...

Plain and Simple No

He is pushing bills on the environment and health through the senate and he can get his way through the majority vote , which he has but he does not want a filibuster (unlike Bush who would change laws in the event of a filibuster).

He is a democratic leader; meaning for him voices in the senate count.

A republican won Ted Kennedy's post in a mostly liberal democrat supporting state, so who was running up against him?
some body with less support. This has nothing to do with Obama but a lot to do with the contender, she did not win enough support to take the republican down.

Trillions are a small fraction of the American economy; to spend trillions to save it is better than letting it go on its declining path.

Regulation is better than letting the amplitude of the slump remain high in natural freely competitive business cycle mechanics.

All I can possibly say is look at the elections in Virgina. Look at the elections in New Jersey. And lastly, look at the elections in one of the most liberal states in the US, Massachusetts. The American people have realized their errors in electing this radical president, and his followers seem to still be tranced by his charm during the presidential elections. I stand side by side with Barack Obama in his passion to create jobs, make healthcare more efficient and available, strengthen our ties with our allies, etc. The problem is though, the measures in which he is taking to achieve these goals will harm the US for generations to come. Some money is definitely needed to be redistributed by the government to help get businesses on track and out of the recession, but TRILLIONS??? The US does not have the amount of money to spend that he has already issued to be spent. We took plenty of loans from China, but guess who is going to have to pay China back? My generation! And I'm worried sick of it!

I think each and every one of us can agree that what Obama is trying to achieve could be so beneficial to each and every one of us. He has amazing potential. Not only is he the best public speaker in the world, but the international community loves him. The only problem is he is spending money that we do not have which will come back and bite the US in a generation or two. I believe that if he took his time with his goals instead of trying to rush things so much and so quickly, he would gain much more support and there would be time to go over each and every flaw in each and every bill passed. Americans are more patient than he expects, and quality over quantity is always the best route to take in politics. That is why I vote No, but he sure does have potential...

Obama: Yes he could?

Yes because... No because...

ambivalence

between Gates, Hilary and the senate it would be near impossible for B.Obama to get much of anything done. The man needs to take charge of the reins and stop being diplomatic to the point of being a pushover.

Obama: Yes he could?

Yes because... No because...

If people gave him a chance...

The American people quite frankly are a bunch of imbeciles with regard to their politics. Aside from my scathing opening line, they did not give the man a fair trial. If he had been white, there would have been none of the euphoria that surrounded him. Not everything is to be treated as a 'happy, clappy, all-american event'. They believed Obama could move mountains just because he got the chance at a presidential run-off!

This is not criticising Obama, it's a criticism of the American people. They piled their hopes and dreams onto him in the middle of a financial storm. WHY? If he had been given the same treatment, people wouldn't have raised thier hopes and then been let down when there was no more winning rhetoric and light up smile. Obama is a politician whose job really does concern the 'boring stuff' like tax, health care etc...

Now they don't want him to help poor Americans who can't cover themselves when they get sick?

Yes He Could; If they gave him a chance!

Debates > Obama: Yes he could?