Times/CBS News Poll: Obama is a Different Kind of Politician

[daniel green]

Barack Obama entered the presidency promising a new kind of leadership in Washington, and after observing him for nearly 100 days in the White House, most Americans do say he is not your typical politician, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll. More than two-thirds of the poll’s respondents call Mr. Obama a different kind of politician, while just 1 in 4 say he is a typical politician. When those who called him different were asked what sets him apart, most said it was more a matter of his style of governing and his personal qualities than his policies.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/timescbs-news-poll-obama-is-a-different-kind-of-politician/?nl=pol&emc=pola2

[daniel green]

As Mr. Obama approaches the 100th day of his presidency, Americans seem to have high hopes for him; 72 percent said they are optimistic about the next four years. By and large, Americans expect the president to make significant progress in revamping health care, energy and immigration policy, issues central to his ambitious domestic agenda.
...It is not unusual for new presidents to enjoy substantial public support at this point in their terms. But Mr. Obama’s 68 percent job approval rating is higher than that of any recent president at the 100-day mark. Former President George W. Bush had the approval of 56 percent of the public at this juncture.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/us/politics/28poll.html?hp

[watcher2005]

... most said it was more a matter of his style of governing and his personal qualities than his policies.

...


Kudos for leaving that part in, but I wish it would spawn more critical analysis.

[watcher2005]

...
I have some "critical analysis" of your posts. I don't think you would want to see it.

Aren't I now?

[watcher2005]

...

For an actual discussion, would love to engage Bacevich point by point ....

Interesting author. I looked him up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bacevich

[libbelle]

There is plenty of critical analysis. And, I for one am more than prepared to be bashed for pointing out some of it. For example:

http://www.counterpunch.org/bacevich04272009.html

For an actual discussion, would love to engage Bacevich point by point and add any other analysts who are not THs, but people of some experience who have given this serious thought.

Where I am having a problem with articles like this one is that I'm just not sure we can judge what is actually going to happen. It's only been 100 days. My feeling is that is not enough time to fully know what Obama is going to do and how things will end up.

[daniel green]

snipped
http://www.counterpunch.org/bacevich04272009.html

For an actual discussion, would love to engage Bacevich point by point and add any other analysts who are not THs, but people of some experience who have given this serious thought.

I agree with him on this:

Granted, Obama has acted with dispatch to repudiate several of George W. Bush's most egregious blunders and for this he deserves credit. In abrogating torture, ordering the Guantanamo prison camp closed, and setting a deadline for withdrawing troops from Iraq, Obama is turning the page on a dark chapter in American statecraft. After the hectoring and posturing that figured so prominently in his predecessor's style, the president's preference for dialogue rather than preaching is refreshing.

I do not agree with him at all that any President of the US, ever, and certainly not President Obama who campaigned on keeping out military strong, would ever get rid of the military, or change its "purpose." Which is what the author of your piece seems to be advocating:

The sins of omission are telling: There is no indication that Obama will pose basic questions about the purpose of the US military; on the contrary, he has implicitly endorsed the proposition that keeping America safe is best accomplished by maintaining in instant readiness forces geared up to punish distant adversaries or invade distant countries.

I just read in this thread that the author's son, may he RIP, died in this tragic, nonsensical, needless war. I don't know what I would do had that happened to my child. Or what I would think. But I daresay that if my child had died in that insane war like his did, I may just want to end the military or change its purpose. As a personal belief, perhaps. Out of rage and pain.

But it's not one that any significant number of Americans will agree with.