Re: "Is Obama's Record Better Than It Looks?"

When discussing the true value of Obama's record since taking office, the question must be asked of those in the conversation: "Where are your expectations?"
There are some people who were uninformed and assumed Obama would turn the United States into a socialist police state. They thus cry wolf every time Obama cites a non-conservative idea of his and complain when he continues a previously conservative-run venture (e.g., the War in Afghanistan) and experiences serious difficulty. There are also some people who wer uninformed to the extent that they believed Obama's presidency would somehow immediately end all their economic and social struggles, just because he represented something other than a conservative white majority. You may have seen such a person here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI&feature=related

My guess is, she still has to pay her mortgage.

Sweeping generalizations aside, there are specific faults of Obama that everybody had been able to point out. Big businesses have been bailed out, but Main Street (that beautiful, coveted, "real-America" main street) still hurts economically. Around Sept. 23rd, unemployment benefits claims rose by 12,000, topping off at around 465,000 (a message from the Labor Department) http://hotair.com/archives/2010/09/23/initial-jobless-claims-still-bouncing-around-a-2010-average/.
By the way, I am certainly not an economics expert and will not attempt to be for this post. But that statistic looks, rather undeniably, less than ideal.
Is it as bad as when "everyone was worried back then," Walt says? http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2010/09/28/credit_where_its_due_is_obama_s_record_better_than_it_looks
No. That's my opinion, at least. We have a President who, for the most part, recognizes the need to adapt certain systems to the flow of global events and the trends of the American system (e.g., broken Healthcare), not one who ignores any opportunity for equal cooperation with other nations and rejects the call for acceptance by the nations' growing minorities (e.g., latinos).
Could anyone please join me in contemplating the sheer political awkwardness and mishandling of the Park 51 Islamic Center controversy if it were in the hands of George W. Bush?
But coming back to the issue at hand--the true effectiveness (or lack thereof) in Obama's record--it all depends on your expectations of the President. If you'd hoped he'd reverse Bush's mistakes (if that's how you view them) in these two years, slow down. I'm not sure any leader of such a complicated and vocally contentious political system which influences the votes of one of the most diverse national populations currently in existence could "fix" the multitude of economic, military, and political issues left in Bush's wake. In addition, if you were hoping Obama would be MORE liberal, then you face the fact that things are bad enough as it is with unilateral adversity to Democratic proposals in Congress by Republicans. Politically, no matter how critical of the Bush administration he may get, he cannot afford to let everything Bush-era (closed-door deals with influential industies, big business bailouts) go; the era of the Tea Party, firing up more and more voters, has bereaved him of that luxury.
If you wanted him to be more conservative (somehow, some way), then you are simply out of luck. The man has to stick to some of his political principles.

My questions to Walt are: Are we really to assume that Obama's difficulty in causing sweeping reform shows a lack of impetus on his part to fire on all cylinders? Many people say that he hasn't reached across the aisle enough to ensure the bipartisanship needed for reform. Is that statement valid, when the opposite party would rather dilute and end the reform he's trying to cause in the first place? How does a president expected to follow up on "promised" reform work with a party that, from day one, has refused to cooperate with his proposals on the basis, essentially, that he is a strong Democrat?