This article orginally ran on RelevantMagazine.com
It’s been one year since Aretha Franklin belted out “My Country ‘tis of Thee” and America’s first Black President raised his hand to swear an oath to faithfully execute the duties of our highest public office. Barack Obama ran on the promises of change, hope, and progress. As the reviews of his first twelve months pour in, there seems to be a consensus of opinion:
Yes, he can ... in some ways, on some issues, some of the time.
Commentators all across the political spectrum are conflicted over the President’s first term so far, and the reviews are consistently mixed. While Obama’s charisma and family-man persona continue to warm America’s hearts, his policies and tactics have everyone questioning whether or not the (formerly) nearly-Messianic figure has the dexterity to really change anything. As political analyst Charles Krauthammer reflected, “A year ago, Obama was the most charismatic politician on earth. Today the thrill is gone, the doubts growing—even among erstwhile believers.”
Even some of Obama’s most devoted supporters are beginning to lose that loving feeling. Progressives think that during the last year the President became too detached and wasn’t tough enough. Liberal commentator Arianna Huffington (creator of The Huffington Post) recently asked, “How did the candidate who told a stadium of supporters in Denver that 'the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result' become the president who has surrounded himself with the same old players trying the same old politics, expecting a different result?”
Huffington and much of the political left feel like Obama has reverted back to the Washington ways he swore off during the campaign, failing to fulfill many of his aggressive promises. According to an analysis by the non-partisan web site Politifact.com, Obama fulfilled only 91 of his 502 campaign promises. They rate 14 promises as “broken” and another 87 as “stalled.”
Conservatives, on the other hand, point their eager fingers at Obama’s policies rather than his approach. They say Obama’s downfall has been his substance, not his style.
To adequately assess Obama’s presidency, his agenda must be broken down into parts. Taking public opinion and political analysis into consideration, here’s how things have shaped up so far:
Economy: Obama’s economic policies include massive bailouts and government interventions. The President accomplished far less in saving jobs that he’d hoped and the unemployment rate is abysmal. 54 percent of Americans disapprove of his economic policy, an opinion probably influenced by the 62 percent disapproval rating on our skyrocketing budget deficit. On the flip side, many experts say the economy is stabilizing. Here’s to hoping. Grade: D
Foreign Policy: Obama’s highest public opinion marks come in his handling of foreign policy, partly due to the competence of Obama’s State Department. According to a CNN poll, 51 percents of Americans approve of his foreign policy and 53 percent approve of his handling of the Iraq War. His decision to order a troop surge in Afghanistan was unpopular among Democrats, but most Americans believe it was the right thing to do. Obama’s ability to pressure North Korea has surprised many, and only a few countries—such as Russia, China, and Israel—have been able to resist the charm of Obama and his foreign policy team. Here the President has only received significant criticism his trade strategy and his decision not to meet with the Dalai Lama in August. Grade: A -
Healthcare: Healthcare has been ground zero for Obama’s domestic team in 2009. Few people doubt that our healthcare system needs reforming, but most Americans agree that current proposals are not the way to go. In our current economic situation, Americans are looking for solid reform that will provide greater coverage for poor Americans but won’t bankrupt our grandchildren. Unfortunately, no amount of slick speeches (29 and counting) can convince them otherwise. 59 percent of Americans currently disapprove of so-called “Obamacare.” Grade: D -
Environment: With little notice, the President has spent his first year reversing often-criticized Bush environmental policies. He’s increased gas mileage standards, established 2.1 million new acres of protected wilderness, and announced new smog standards. His more public efforts have been less successful. The folks in Copenhagen weren’t persuaded by Obama’s appearance, and the only domestic effort to cut carbon emissions considered by Congress was cap-and-trade. This perceived intrusion into American businesses doesn’t poll well with Americans. The bill was approved by the U.S. House, but will likely never see the light of day in the Senate. Grade: C
Terrorism: The big question looming over post-9/11 Presidents is, “Are we safer under the current administration than the last?” A recent poll by the San Francisco Chronicle shows 62% of Americans say “no.” We’ve had two notable terror attempts on American soil in the last year: one successful attempt by an American soldier and one not-so-successful attempt by a Muslim with explosives stuffed down his pants. At the same time, Obama fulfilled his promise to take steps to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay and put an end to torture practices such as waterboarding. Some experts believe these steps will make us safer in the long run. Grade: C +
Social Issues: The President’s been reluctant to wage war over social issues thus far. Thus, he’s being judged based more on what he hasn’t done as much as what he has. On the one hand, he has failed to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, which pleases social conservatives. On the other, Obama promised to pursue a common ground agenda to reduce abortions through supporting adoptions, increasing funding for unwed mothers and promoting comprehensive sexual education with an abstinence emphasis. He’s failed to do any of those things. He did, however, repeal the Mexico City Policy, a decision that will undoubtedly result in more abortions not less. The one blip on the social radar was the recent hate-crimes bill, but beyond that, there’s little to write home about. Grade: C -
There is both good and bad news for the Administration at this stage of the game. The bad news is that Obama has a long way to go to win the hearts of those he governs. A January 2010 CNN poll shows that nearly half of Americans say Obama’s presidency has been a failure so far. A recent Gallup poll indicates that Americans are less sure that Obama will be able to accomplish his goals in almost every area. According to the study, “Two-thirds of Americans now say the country is more deeply divided on major issues facing the country than it has been in the past several years.”
The good news is that he still has three years to go, and luckily, Presidents are judged on terms not months. As David Greenberg argues in this month’s The Atlantic, it is a myth that great presidents always leave their mark in the first year. John F. Kennedy’s first year was considered a failure, and Abraham Lincoln ended his first year with unbelievable debt having achieved little. Even though FDR has become a model president for first-year progress, not all of his goals were accomplished immediately. It took a couple of years to pass Social Security and the Wagner Act, and it was not until the war that FDR was able to help end the Depression.
Obama needs to rethink his policies and his strategy, there is little doubt about that. But our Founders knew what they were doing when they gave Presidents four-year terms. If Obama came to Washington to change America for the better, he’s got three more years to prove it. Right now, we’re unconvinced.

Read Charles Krauthammer's analysis in National Review.
![]()
Read Arianna Huffington's analysis on The Huffington Post.
Adam Shields said:
I would disagree with some of your grading and conclusions but I agree with the basic issue of the fact that it has been mixed. As a democrat I am disappointed with some of the results. And democrats need to take much of the blame. But I also want a stronger, smarter Republican party. Health care is a good example, suddenly Republicans are protesting the cutting of Medicare and Medicaid. That isn't a serious complaint or policy proposal, but an attempt to just be obstructionist. My guess is that in a couple years unless there are some changes by people on both sides we will be even more locked up and not making changes on serious issues that are needed and in areas that we can really agree on.
Posted: January 20, 2010
Travis Mamone said:
Overall, I'd give Obama either a B- or C+. Compared to the last guy, I think Obama doing things much better. However, he's not the political messiah that many voters (including myself) thought he would be.
He kinda lost me with the abortion issue (I personally haven't seen any effort made to reduce the number of abortions, like he said he would), and the whole bank bailout thing. However, I'm far from a "tea bagger."
Posted: January 20, 2010
Travis Mamone said:
Oops! My comment got cut off.
Anyway, I'm far from being a "tea bagger." I don't think Obama is a part of any socialist conspiracy to destroy America, or whatever. However, I've learned to have a healthy sense of skepticism towards politics, no matter who's in office.
Posted: January 20, 2010
Katie said:
Where is his grade for education reform? :-)
Posted: January 20, 2010
Bill Beahan said:
F
Epic Fail
He has almost totally violated his oath of office by his ignoring the COnstitution.
Posted: January 21, 2010
Mike said:
Agree with some of your grading, but not Gitmo. I love the way you put it: “fulfilled his promise to take steps.” Classic. One year ago (exactly), Pres Obama signed an executive order to “provide the process whereby Guantanamo will be closed no later than one year from now.”
In addition, who cares if it is closed? The real problem with Gitmo is that people are sitting around for years without their day in court (or tribunal). All the Obama admin is doing is promising to close Gitmo, and then transferring them to a new prison facility in northern Illinois for them if it ever does in fact close. So in other words, the detainees get to languish in a newer facility without a trial for several more years. But hey, if it makes Europe love us and as long as “experts” say this is going to make us safer, I’m down with it.
Environment: he should get an F for trying to (see grade) up our economy with this cap and trade scam and for being complicit in Copenhagen's "show me the money" conference, a truly disgraceful display of excess and waste by the environmentalist elite caste. I heard there were some killer parties, though. Will Smith was there, too.
On foreign policy, I guess a B. Hillary is doing a decent job at the State Department. The admin hasn't done anything of substance (which is not a criticism, because it's only been a year), and no great mistakes either, save bad judgment in handling the Middle East by overplaying the “we aren’t beholden to Israel” card and appearing to snub Netanyahu, which resulted in a substantial percentage of Israelis across the political spectrum with negative opinions about Obama or seeing him as naïve, too pro-Palestinian etc. Although that certainly doesn’t doom chances for the US to effectively broker a peace process in the near future, it’s created unnecessary problems that could have been avoided with a little more forethought.
He should be given a further bump down to C-minus for his "apology" tour, which was little more than a continuation of the “we hate George Bush” campaign. This kind of pseudo-groveling doesn’t make for a strong image and a strong image is necessary for any effective foreign policy.
On national security/terrorism, he is weak, D plus, but that's no big surprise. We all knew he was going to treat terrorists like common criminals. Btw, did they wait 30 hours before reading the underwear bomber his rights? If so, sounds like a Miranda violation to me. Here comes the motion to suppress . . .
On abortion, Pres Obama has done what any liberal would do once getting in power. His budget for 2010 dropped all abstinence-until-marriage funds from the federal budget. He immediately funded pro-abortion groups with taxpayer dollars. Not sure about Sotomoyer, but you got to believe that she is going to toe the line on Roe v. Wade. And his talk at Planned Parenthood about including "reproductive health" i.e. including access to abortion, in Obama-care was quite strong. Of course, that plan just got a body blow from Scott Brown 41.
Posted: January 22, 2010
Jonathan Merritt said:
Mike,
You make some good points here. In fact, I think his railing and blaming on George W. Bush feels tired and desperate. Most Americans are mentally beyond the Bush era. We aren't thinking about Bush; we are thinking about all the problems we have RIGHT NOW.
Jm
Posted: January 22, 2010
Dave said:
Jonathan,
Interesting assessment. I want to point out in your last comment that it's not true that ALL the problems we have right now are Obama's. Whenever a new president comes in, after about a year, everything is blamed on that person, regardless of the party. As a conservative democrat, I am disappointed in Obama as many are. But let me tell you what...the biggest issue is our Congress. We have a Congress that won't work with each other. When Bush was in office, the GOP had full control. And the GOP wouldn't work with the Democrats. Well the Dems are doing just the same thing since they've been in control. We have a very broken political system where most politicians are more interested in getting re-elected (any many hiding thieir skeletons in the closet) rather than working for the people of America. I've been very irritated at the Dems for not really working with the GOP on healthcare, so that reasonable action can take place...this is just an example.
So my point is, yes, the country has become disillusioned with Obama, and hopefully he can pull things together to get this country on a better course than it is today. I think he, like many politicians, promised too much, and with a broken Congress that won't work together, it's too hard to get the traction he needs.
Posted: January 24, 2010
Mike Little said:
Dave, I like your comments. The role of Congress in this mess is mostly overlooked. However, I've changed my opinion on Obama completely. He is completely different than the person portrayed when he ran... and I rather him not pull everything together.
I don't want the country to fail. On the contrary, I want it to thrive. At the same time, I don't want to see Obama's policies succeed in the least.
Bill Clinton was smart after 1994. He moved center, passed welfare reform and regained his footing. From what I have seen, President Obama will have no such compromise. Wednesday's speech will show us all a lot about what the next year holds.
Honestly, I'd love to replace EVERYONE in congress. Just hit reset and put all new people in the Senate and House.
Posted: January 25, 2010
Justin said:
How is a nut who set his underwear on fire on a plane a knock at Obama's national security credentials? I am not taking a shot at you, James, because this is how it appears a lot of Americans think (and I don't even know that you subscribe to this view, or simply reproducing that view point here.) I got into a car wreck Saturday, I didn't feel safe there either but I don't feel less safe because of Obama's Homeland Security, I feel less safe when people run red lights. Personally, I don't feel it is the president's responsibility to make me feel safe or warm my heart, his Constitutional oath is to faithfully protect the Constitution, not me.
Some interesting perspectives in the comments...
They probably wouldn't need to read the underwear bomber his Miranda Rights, they only need to do that if they plan on using his statement to the police in court. All the evidence to convict is there. The spirit of that comment is to the point that for some criminals, we should dispense with due process. II don't understand this mindset. Should we also dispense with legal procedures for murderers and child molesters?
Posted: January 26, 2010
Jonathan Merritt said:
Justin,
To answer your first question, it is and it isn't. On the one hand, the President himself has nothing to do with the process that keeps a person like that from accomplishing a terrorist attack. At the same time, it is generally recognized that a President's appointments (beginning with Secy. Napolitano) and a President's policies have a trickle down effect. As they say, the buck has to stop somewhere. While he may not have had any direct influence on this situation, for various reasons, the buck stops with Obama's Homeland Security Dept, NSA, and ultimately the President himself. Whether or not that is fair is another issue, but it is the criterion upon which he will be judged on national security.
Jm
Posted: January 26, 2010
Mike said:
Justin,
If the Obama admin wants to treat terrorists as common criminals, a sea change from the prior admin, they have to take responsibility for what comes. They very much HAD to read underwear bomber his rights because he was in a custodial situation and an investigator who does otherwise (with some narrow exceptions) is violating the law. Period.
As I see it, the Obama admin is that they want to have it both ways. We got valuable intelligence, they say, but we also took the high road and read him his rights "so the terrorists won't win."
I've been involved with and read hundreds of criminal investigations, I can tell you that investigators spend a heck of a lot more time than "50 minutes" investigating routine criminal allegations like theft or drugs, so for the Obama admin to seriously tell us that they got all the intelligence they needed (without even utilizing the high-value interrogation group that apparently none of his people knew about) is preposterous, and part of why he gets such a poor grade in my book on national security matters. If this is a sign of things to come, it's not good.
You wrote that "The spirit of [my] comment is to the point that for some criminals, we should dispense with due process."
The whole point is that terrorists should not be equated with criminals, and no, they should not receive Due Process. Not any process, not a free for all, but certainly not Due Process. The Geneva Conventions distinguish between rights afforded illegal enemy combatants, which are less, and prisoners of war, which are more. The same reasoning can apply to differentiating between criminal law and the law of war when it comes to how we treat a group of people comitted to killing us as a way of life.
At the end of the day, Pres. Obama has at least three more years to convince Americans that this was the right strategy to take.
Posted: January 28, 2010