Grading Obama

After U.S. President Barack Obama's first 100 days in office, Foreign Policy asked a group of experts to grade him on everything from North Korea to nukes. On the anniversary of his historic election, we've reprised the experiment -- and found out that the White House isn't doing so well.

NOVEMBER 2, 2009

After U.S. President Barack Obama's first 100 days in office, Foreign Policy invited some of its favorite bloggers, pundits, and political experts to analyze his foreign policy and help us create a report card for the young administration. The bulk of our respondents gave Bs, with a final score in the B+ range.

FP repeated the exercise on the one-year anniversary of Obama's historic election, with much international-affairs water under the bridge: his speech in Cairo, the leadership switch in Afghanistan, and the protracted back-and-forth with Israel over settlements, for instance.

This time, the experts have stopped grading on the curve. Obama scored only an average of a B-: five As, nine Bs, four Cs, and five Ds.

What happened? Some argue that Obama's real policies haven't (and couldn't possibly) match his rhetorical brilliance. Others argue he has punted where he should have played, such as on the question of strategy in Afghanistan and the presidential crisis in Honduras. Still others argue that while the sheen may have faded, the policies remain sound.

FP has grouped the responses by grade. Click through for the full report -- and check out the loyal opposition's response on the Shadow Government blog.

The As

"In the next year, Obama's final grade will depend on such issues as his decisions on Afghanistan and how he handles an Iran that refuses to live up to its commitments. But if the past is prologue, he should do well."

Lawrence J. Korb of the Center for American Progress

Paul Cruickshank of the Center for Law and Security at New York University

Marc Lynch of George Washington University and the FP blog lynch.foreignpolicy.com

Parag Khanna of the New America Foundation

Charles A. Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations and Georgetown University

The Bs

"Progress has been evolutionary, not revolutionary, because U.S. policy is rooted in national interests that do not change dramatically with a change in the occupant of the White House."

"While the administration cannot be blamed for the mess it inherited, it as of yet offers no real strategy for the future."

J. Alexander Thier of the U.S. Institute of Peace

Paul Pillar of Georgetown University

Dmitri Trenin of the Carnegie Moscow Center

Sharon Kelly of Human Rights First

Erica Gaston of the Open Society Institute

Sarah E. Mendelson of the Center for Strategic and International Studies

James Joyner of the Atlantic Council

Fawaz A. Gerges of the London School of Economics

Shuja Nawaz of the Atlantic Council

The Cs

"The Obama appeal? It is fading fast."

"On AfPak and Iran, he is a better Hamlet than Jude Law on Broadway"

Geneive Abdo of the Century Foundation and InsideIran.org

Ted Galen Carpenter of the Cato Institute

Gianni Riotta of Il Sole 24 Ore

Roque Planas of New York University

Philip I. Levy of the American Enterprise Institute

The Ds

"It seems almost a cheap shot to give the president low marks on a foreign policy that is so obviously failing."

"The president's UN general assembly speech presented the problem: Obama positioned himself above the nation, mediating between us and the world, his job to restrain America's ugly aggressive instincts and apologize for past crimes. No wonder friends and allies wonder where this all leads."

Elliott Abrams of the Council on Foreign Relations

Otto J. Reich of the George W. Bush administration

Michael Scheuer of the CIA

Hillary Mann Leverett of the consulting firm Stratega and the blog www.TheRaceForIran.com

Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute

Aude Guerrucci-Pool/Getty Images

 

BUFFALO09

3:42 AM ET

November 11, 2009

Party Allegiance One Sided?

Why are you surprised? So you noticed a vote along party lines in the grading, particularly on the "D" end of the scale? Well, logic can only dictate according to your perception that party line votes would also be applicable to votes cast in the "A" portion of the scale also. Hmmm.....people who think Obama is the messiah give him an "A" and those who think of him as the devil give him a "D". By only designating lower portion of the grading scale as being politically influenced exposes your lack of objectivity. A large portion of people that voted for "O" were given a quite false impression that his presidency would propose and enforce legislation through moderation; this however has not been the case as he along with his administration have decided to govern quite left of center from what was originally promised and communicated, and you ask how could he get low marks? According to your perception; I am to believe that everyone who graded Obama's at the higher end of the scale have no political allegiance favoring the president or sympathy towards the Democratic Party? So I am to believe that only people who voted and gave Obama low marks on his performance were influenced by political ideology? I guess it would be safe to brand every individual who does not support President Obama's Health Care Proposal as a "racist" like M. Dowd recently suggested in the New York Times. I am a registered "independent" and I applaud the president for some things that I feel he has done really well, however I do not let political alignments influence my decisions as I am also quite critical of the president in some areas. I voted for "O"; however the man in the white house is not governing and legislating like the men whom I saw speak at numerous rallies across the country. I guess that would be a good example of my ignorance due to the fact that I actually thought that words from a politician would bear fruits.

Anyways, your statement above is obviously based upon your personal political alignments, therefore I might suggest you go back to amateur night over at moveon.org where the word "objectivity" does not exist nor does a minimal amount of intellect that would allow one to comprehend the concept of being "objective". Better yet, you might just want to go straight on over to the Star Trek fan website (you know for all the U.N. junkies who designate themselves as "citizens of the world").