Novice

Barack Obama - Prvih sto dni predsedovanja - zgodovina

Barack Obama - Prvih sto dni predsedovanja - zgodovina


We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

1. dan51. dan 12. marec 2009
2. dan52. dan 13. marec 2009
3. dan53. dan, 14. marec 2009
4. danDan 54 15. marec 2009 nedelja
5. dan - nedelja55. dan 16. marec 2009
6. dan56. dan 17. marec 2009
7. dan57. dan 18. marec 2009
8. dan58. dan 19. marec 2009
9. dan-29. januar 200959. dan 20. marec 2009
10. dan, 30. januar 200960. dan 21. marec 2009
11. dan 31. januar 2009Dan 61 22. marec 2009 Nedelja
12. dan 1. februar 200962. dan 23. marec 2009
13. dan 2. februar 200963. dan 24. marec 2009
14. dan 3. februar 200964. dan, 25. marec 2009
15. dan 4. februar 200965. dan, 26. marec 2009
16. dan 5. februar 200966. dan 27. marec 2009
17. dan, 6. februar 200967. dan 28. marec 2009
18. dan, 7. februar 20096. dan 29. marec 2009 Nedelja
19. dan- nedelja69. dan 30. marec 2009
20. dan, 9. februar 200970. dan 31. marec 2009 Dan potovanja
21. dan 10. februar 200971. dan 1. april 2009
22. dan 11. februar 200972. dan 2. april 2009
23. dan, 12. februar 200973. dan 3. april 2009
24. dan 13. februar 200974. dan 4. april 2009
25. dan, 14. februar 200975. dan 5. april 2009
26. dan- nedelja76. dan 6. april 2009
27. dan, 16. februar 200977 dan, 7. april 2009
28. dan 17. februar 20097. dan 8. april 2009- Ni javnega urnika
29. dan 18. februar 200979. dan, 9. april 2009
30. dan, 19. februar 200980. dan, 10. april 2009
31. dan 20. februar 200981. dan 11. april 2009
32. dan 21. februar 200982. dan 12. april 2009
33. dan, 22. februar 200983 dan, 13. april 2009
34. dan 23. februar 200984 dan, 14. april 2009
35. dan 24. februar 200985. dan 15. april 2009
36. dan 25. februar 200986. dan, 16. april 2009
37. dan, 26. februar 200987. dan 17. april 2009
38. dan, 27. februar 200988. dan 18. april 2009
39. dan 28. februar 200989. dan 19. april 2009
40. dan 1. marec 2009- nedelja90. dan 20. april 2009
41. dan 2. marec 200991. dan 21. april 2009
42. dan 3. marec 200992. dan 22. april 2009
43. dan 4. marec 200993. dan 23. april 2009
44. dan 5. marec 200994. dan 24. april 2009
45. dan 6. marec 200995. dan, 25. april 2009
46. ​​dan 7. marec 2009Dan 96 26. april 2009 Nedelja
Nedelja 47Dan 97, 27. april 2009
48. dan 9. marec 200998. dan 28. april 2009
49. dan 10. marec 200999. dan 29. april 2009
50. dan 11. marec 2009

Primerjava prvih 100 dni Billa Clintona in Baracka Obame

Na prvi pogled se zdi, da imata Bill Clinton in Barack Obama veliko skupnega. Oba sta bila/bila sta mlada demokratska predsednika, ki sta imela/imela tudi kongrese, nadzorovane z demokracijo, ki so podedovali recesijo, vendar je vsak predsednik prvih 100 dni šel po različnih poteh.

Tu so zakonodajni dosežki prvih 100 dni Clintonove administracije:

1). Zakon o družinskem in zdravstvenem dopustu – 5. februarja 1993 je Bill Clinton podpisal Zakon o družinskem in zdravstvenem dopustu (FMLA). FMLA bi bila ena od trajnih zapuščin Clintonove administracije. Zakon dopušča zaposlenim neplačan dopust zaradi nosečnosti ali resnega zdravstvenega stanja. Predlog zakona je v Kongresu izginil, ko je George H.W. Bush ga ni hotel podpisati.

2). Ne ’t Vprašaj, Don ’t Povej – Don ’t Ask, Don ’t Tell je bil kompromis, ki ga je Bill Clinton sklenil s kongresom glede vprašanja gejev, ki služijo v vojski. Predsednik je prvotno želel razveljaviti prepoved homoseksualne službe, medtem ko je kongres nasprotoval dovoljevanju gejem, da bi služili v vojski. To vprašanje bo rešeno šele avgusta 1993.

3). Reforma zdravstva – Predsednik Clinton je leta 1993 ustanovil nacionalno delovno skupino za zdravstveno varstvo. Za predsednico je imenoval svojo prvo ženo Hillary Clinton. Načrt se je boril leto in pol, preden je umrl leta 1994.

4). Pomoč Rusiji – V odgovor na prošnjo ruskega predsednika Borisa Yetsina za pomoč je Clinton sprejel paket pomoči v višini 1,6 milijarde dolarjev. Paket je bil zasnovan za pomoč Rusiji pri stabilizaciji njenega gospodarstva, pomagati Rusiji pri zagotavljanju humanitarne pomoči državljanom in pri razgradnji jedrskega orožja.

Clintonovih prvih sto dni, ki so jih geji ujeli v vojaški razpravi, prvem bombnem napadu WTC in nasprotju podružnice Davidian/ATF v Wacu, TX. Clinton je zaradi škandalov izgubil tudi prva dva kandidata za generalnega državnega tožilca. Reči, da se je Clinton v prvih 100 dneh boril, bi bilo podcenjevanje. Njegovo redko predsedovanje, ki je s starostjo postalo vse bolj priljubljeno. Na stodnevnem dnevu je bila ocena odobritve predsednika Clintona#8217 55%.

Tu so glavni dosežki prvih 100 dni Obame#8217:

1). Načrt gospodarskih spodbud – Obama je Kongres sprejel načrt gospodarske spodbude v višini 787 milijard dolarjev.

2). Razširjen SCHIP – Obama je podpisal zakon, ki je državni načrt zdravstvenega zavarovanja za otroke razširil na dodatne 4 milijone otrok.

3). Zakon o Lilly Ledbetter -Obama je podpisala zakon Lilly Ledbetter, ki zahteva enako plačilo za ženske.

4). Etične smernice– Obama je uvedel nove etične smernice, namenjene zmanjšanju vpliva lobistov.

5). Iraku in Afganistanu – Obama je napovedal postopni umik bojnih čet iz Iraka, hkrati pa je v Afganistan poslal dodatnih 4.000 vojakov.

6). Proračun in zdravstvo– Obama je sprejel svoj proračun, kar utira pot reformi zdravstva pozneje letos.

Obama uživa oceno odobritve, ki je za približno 10% višja od Clintonove leta 83. Nekdanji Clintonovi v Obamovi administraciji so se lekcije dobro naučili. Obama se je izognil spornim vprašanjem in škandalom. Obama se tudi ni moral soočiti s čim hujšim, kot je bil izpad Waca ali prvo bombardiranje Svetovnega trgovinskega centra, zato je tu tudi nekaj sreče.

Bill Clinton je v svoji stranki iztiril zastoj, medtem ko se je Obama soočal s slabim odporom svojih kolegov demokratov. To je Obami omogočilo hiter sprejem zakonodaje. V primerjavi z neorganiziranim kaosom, ki je bil Clintonov prvih sto dni, je bilo za Obamo vse gladko. Clinton in Obama sta dva predsednika iste stranke, ki sta se soočila s podobnimi situacijami, a sta dobila različne rezultate. Zanimivo bo opazovati, ali se bo priljubljenost Obame povečala tako kot Clintonova, ali to predstavlja vrhunec novega predsednika?

G. Easley je glavni urednik, ki je oddelek za tisk Bele hiše, in kongresni dopisnik PoliticusUSA. Jason je diplomiral iz političnih ved. Njegovo diplomsko delo je bilo osredotočeno na javno politiko, s specializacijo na področju gibanj družbenih reform.

Nagrade in strokovno članstvo

Član Društva poklicnih novinarjev in Ameriškega združenja za politične znanosti


Pogovor: Prvih 100 dni predsedovanja Baracka Obame

Navedba številka 7 je napačna, ko je Obama odredil zaprtje zaliva Guantanamo. Prvič, ni v članku. Drugič, podpisal je ukaz, da bo zadevo pregledal čez eno leto. —Predhodni podpisan komentar, ki ga je dodal 32.179.116.252 (pogovor) 16:03, 20. avgust 2009 (UTC)

Prvih 100 dni Baracka Obame sliši se kot prva tretjina njegovega prvega leta življenja. Ali ne bi smelo biti Prvih 100 dni predsedovanja Baracka Obame(je predsedstvo napisano z veliko začetnico ??)? Predpostaviti, da Prvih 100 dni Baracka Obame se nanaša na njegovo predsedovanje zdi se kot primer nedavnosti. Kolikor vemo, je lahko njegovo predsedovanje eden njegovih manjših dosežkov, preden se življenje konča. Chillum 00:37, 12. februar 2009 (UTC)

Mislim, da bi bilo to res dobro preimenovanje v prvih 100 dni predsedovanja Baracka Obame ali prvih 100 dni predsedovanja Baracka Obame, kaj takega. In ja, po dogovoru je predsedstvo napisano z veliko začetnico glede na ameriškega predsednika. rootology (C) (T) 01:57, 12. februar 2009 (UTC) Raje slednje.-TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP: CHICAGO/WP: LOTM) 02:43, 12. februar 2009 (UTC)

Raje imam tudi slednje. Chillum 03:14, 12. februar 2009 (UTC)

Premaknil ga bom, vedno lahko ponovimo, če se pojavi kaj boljšega. rootologija (C) (T) 03:31, 12. februar 2009 (UTC)

Dobro je biti drzen. Chillum 03:42, 12. februar 2009 (UTC)

Ali ne bi smelo biti predsedstvo z malimi črkami? Angleščina ni moj prvi jezik, vendar se mi ne zdi pravi lastnik, potem pa jo predsedstvo Georgea W. Busha v uvodnem stavku navede z veliko začetnico. Natural Cut (pogovor) 02:32, 14. februar 2009 (UTC)

V skladu s tem [1] in vsem drugim, kar berem, uporabite veliko začetnico, ko govorite o določenem predsedniku. Rekli bi torej "Bilo bi lepo biti predsednik", prav tako bi rekli "Ne bi bilo tako lepo biti predsednik Bush". Chillum 05:14, 14. februar 2009 (UTC)

Toda vprašanje je, ali bi rekli "George W. Bush ni užival svojega predsedovanja" ali "George W. Bush ni užival svojega predsedovanja". -) Prvi se mi zdi preprosto narobe, ameriške novice pa pravijo "Obamino predsedstvo", zato se bom držal črevesja in rekel, da ga premaknem na male črke. Natural Cut (pogovor) 06:04, 14. februar 2009 (UTC)

"Predsedstva" niso napisali z veliko začetnico, ker se ta beseda ni nanašala na določenega predsednika, nanašala se je na položaj predsednika. V istem članku pravijo ". Da se predsednik Barack Obama lahko spopade s krizo s kompetentno in stalno ekipo". Ko govorimo o določenem predsedniku, se le -ta uporabi z veliko začetnico. Glej tudi [2], [3], [4]. Chillum 06:09, 14. februar 2009 (UTC)

S tem se nisem strinjal Predsednik bi bilo napisano z veliko začetnico. Imaš 100% prav. Je Predsedstvo [sic] kar pravim je napačno. Tudi ko je Predsedovanje predsednika Obame. Natural Cut (pogovor) 06:35, 14. februar 2009 (UTC)

Lol, ves ta čas sem porabil za raziskovanje pravil in pozabil, s čim smo se primerjali. Da, mislim, da imate prav, ker se "predsedstvo" ne nanaša na osebo, ki je predsednica, ki je ne bi smeli pisati z veliko začetnico. Oprostite, minilo je že dolg teden in malo sem bil zmeden. Chillum 15:52, 14. februar 2009 (UTC)

Ti se tudi strinjajo z vašo točko [5] [6]. Chillum 15:56, 14. februar 2009 (UTC)

Naredil sem korak naprej, saj so slovnična pravila glede tega jasna (zdaj, ko razmišljam naravnost). Chillum 16:01, 14. februar 2009 (UTC)

Splošno znano je, da medijem ni všeč, kako je Obama ravnal z njimi. Prvi prvi napaki sta bila njegov prvi odhod v medijsko sobo za veselo izročanje, ko sta želela vsebinske odgovore, in blokada medijev zaradi ponovne prisege. Vidim <> je bilo dodano glede tega vprašanja. To ne pomeni, da z mediji ne ravna učinkovito. Kolikor vem, še ni imel Kennedyesquejevih napak. Preprosto jim ni všeč njegova učinkovitost.-TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP: CHICAGO/WP: LOTM) 08:19, 12. februar 2009 (UTC)

Vendar pa je za enciklopedijo povsem neprimerno reči, da je storil napačne stvari, in reči, kaj bi moral storiti. To je treba odstraniti. Poleg tega mediji na te dve "napaki" gledajo kot na take, ne nujno nanj samega ali druge. Kar zadeva splošno znano dejstvo, da mediji niso navdušeni nad Obaminim ravnanjem z njimi, se to zdi splošno znano. --Andrew (pogovor) 13:17, 14. maj 2009 (UTC)

"Čeprav prvih sto dni ni bil pojem, pomemben za Lincolnovo upravo, je Obama sledil Lincolnu in za svojega državnega sekretarja ZDA imenoval nekdanjega vodilnega senatorja iz New Yorka. [ potreben citat ] Lincoln se je odločil za Williama H. ​​Sewarda, Obama pa za Hillary Clinton. "Nekako upam, da Obamovo predsedovanje ne bo ravno tako kot Lincolnovo, državljanske vojne niso vse, kar bi si lahko privoščili, vendar se je zdela ta primerjava zanimivo. ChildofMidnight (pogovor) 02:38, 16. februar 2009 (UTC)

Ker obstaja veliko virov na to temo, ne vidim razloga, da ne bi vestno odstranili necitiranega gradiva. Dobro opravljeno. Chillum 02:58, 16. februar 2009 (UTC)

Zakaj Obamin nastop na Lenu ni vključen? Pomembno je, da je bil prvi predsednik, ki se je pojavil v nočni pogovorni oddaji. Seveda to nima nobene zveze z njegovo politiko ali 100 -dnevnim načrtom, vendar se je odpravil na pot, da bi določenemu občinstvu/demografiji sporočil o gospodarstvu. Prav tako je naredil napako v komentarju "posebne olimpijske igre ali kaj podobnega". Menim, da je opazen in ga je treba vključiti. Mislim, da člankov o Obami ni treba popolnoma očistiti sporov ali neumnosti, ki jih je rekel ali storil, niso "nevtralni", kot vsi mislite, da bi morala biti WP. Že smo videli desničarje, ki se pritožujejo, kako Ayers in njegovo državljanstvo nista dovolj vključena v WP, mislim, da bi morali to omeniti, da bi bili vsi srečni in pošteni. —Predhodni podpisani komentar, ki ga je dodal 24.166.175.146 (pogovor) 19:58, 21. marec 2009 (UTC)

Boli me, ker imam rad tako Wikipedijo kot Obamo, vendar je ta članek grozljiv, brez kakršnega koli izgovora. Mislim, v redu je za veliko manjših tem, ampak. to ni. Zdaj vem, kaj boste rekli- "Bodite sprememba, ki jo želite videti v tem članku." No, verjamem, da moramo popolnoma premisliti, da bi imeli celo to stran, zato res delam vse, kar lahko. Torej. tukaj gre. Se opravičujem za dolžino. Če veste, o čem govorim, lahko večino preskočite.

Najprej se moram strinjati z večino ljudi, ki so trdili, da prvih 100 dni ni standardno merilo za merjenje predsednikov. To je priljubljena stvar, na katero se sklicujejo ljudje, ki želijo spodbujati vzporednice s FDR, vendar razen tega koncept nima pravega pomena. Za FDR je to vsekakor imelo pomen- to je bil poseben načrt, da se hitro prenese velikanska količina drastičnih sprememb politike. Celotna ideja 100 dni je bila, da so vsi želeli, da bi FDR naredil te drastične spremembe. Očitno je prišlo do nekaj zastojev (zakoni, ki jih je vrhovno sodišče razveljavilo), vendar je na splošno kongres želel storiti vse, kar je priporočil, čim hitreje.

To obdobje ni bilo nič takega. Obama je zelo trdo delal in naredil je veliko pozitivnih sprememb, veliko hitreje, kot smo vajeni. Toda Obama ni prišel na funkcijo z ogromnim svežnjem zakonov, ki bi jih lahko sprejel skozi kongres. In seveda ima prav, da tega ne stori, ker kongres ni tak, kot je bil pod FDR. Republikanci so skoraj popolnoma enotni v svojem nasprotju in so zelo glasni. Ne samo, da imajo moč upočasniti ali ustaviti ključno zakonodajo, imajo tudi vzvod, ki ji je priložen. Da, stvari se dosegajo, toda ton je še vedno v stalni razpravi med večinoma strankarskimi usmeritvami, le da bodo celo nekateri člani Obamine lastne stranke nasprotovali ukrepom.

Prvih 100 dni FDR je bilo zgodovinsko pomembno, ker je prišlo do nenadne spremembe tona, da bi "razprava premagala te stvari." In to ni samo pogled nazaj- to je bila ideja, ki jo je promoviral. Ne komentiram veljavnosti nobenega pristopa, le da sta si zelo različna in da so ta obdobja bistveno drugačna.

Zaradi česar je ta članek res slab, ni le to, da verjetno ne bi smel obstajati. Težava je v tem, da je to že od začetka zaskrbljujoče in soglasno mnenje je, da ga pustimo takšnega, dokler je uvod namenjen utemeljitvi obstoja članka. Uvod ne vsebuje skoraj nobenih dejanskih informacij, kot so pobude, na katere se je osredotočil (razen očitne ARRA), način, kako je uporabljal izvršna naročila in druga orodja, kako je delal z novinarji, kako je apeliral na javnost, da pritisnili na kongres ali pa bi lahko rekli ogromno. Vem, zakaj je tako prazno- v bistvu je bilo isto besedilo tam, ko je bil napisan ta članek- pred otvoritvijo. Uvod je bil napisan brez kakršnega koli znanja o tonu javnih zadev v "opaznem obdobju", ki se zdi, da ga predstavlja.

Ko se pomaknemo navzdol po strani, dobimo informacije o drugih naključnih predsednikih in zgodnjih delih njihove uprave, čeprav nihče sploh ni menil, da je koncept zanje pomemben- ker ni. Oddelek Primerjave je nekako tematski, vsekakor pa ne NPOV, in kmalu ne pride v poštev samo s primerjavo predsednikov. Do takrat je to naključen sprehod, čeprav različna dejstva, navedena drugje na strani, in nepomembne malenkosti. Še enkrat se zdi, kot da obupano poskuša prepričati bralca, da je "100 dni" pomembno.

Ponavadi ne morem očitati nekega članka, ker ima veliko informacij, toda Jezus, zakaj je dogodek prisege tako pomemben za ta domnevno opredeljujoč časovni okvir? Zato imamo inavguracijo Baracka Obame.

Oddelek za upravo in kabinet je res vrhunski, a zakaj je sploh tukaj? To je daleč največji odsek, vendar v uvodu ni bilo omenjeno ničesar v zvezi z osebjem. Če gre za prvih 100 dni, ali ne bi smeli slediti dejanjem namesto ljudem? Slog preprosto nima smisla.

Preostalo besedilo vsebuje nekaj koristnih informacij, približno enake stvari in več jih že imamo na predsedovanju Baracka Obame#Prvih 100 dni. Kar, mimogrede, menim, da je treba tudi spremeniti, vendar v resnici ne toliko.

V redu, če torej obdržimo ta članek, upoštevajte naslednje: V članek bomo morali še naprej vključevati vse več informacij o predsedovanju, dokler ne dosežemo poljubne meje 101 dni. Potem smo v precej nerodnem položaju, kajne? Kaj se zgodi, če se imenovanje kabineta odloži tako dolgo? Kam Obama gre za zunanjepolitično odločitev? No, če je to dovolj pomembno, očitno omemba v predsedstvu Baracka Obame in očitno obsežnejše poročanje o zunanji politiki administracije Baracka Obame. Če se to zgodi v prvih 100 dneh, gre tudi sem. Sčasoma bomo imeli več dvojnikov, kot jih že obstaja, kar pomeni zmedo pri urejanju, dodatno delo in manj doslednosti

Druga možnost je: Za razdelek Administracija in kabinet ga lahko preprosto postavimo na svojo stran. Potem ima lahko toliko dni, kolikor traja, in jo lahko razdelimo na odseke, vključno z začetkom z uvodom, ki ga že ima, razen če ni stisnjen med vse ostalo. Nato lahko članek postavimo v predlogo Baracka Obame kot njegov drobni bratski seznam sodniških imenovanj, ki jih je opravil Barack Obama. Kar zadeva podatke o otvoritvi, spet imamo fantastično inavguracijo Baracka Obame. Lahko samo združimo vse ustrezne podatke, ki so tam ostali (čeprav dvomim, da jih bo). Za vse ostalo. kot sem rekel, je vseeno večinoma podvojen ali nepomemben. Če si vsi želijo vzeti čas, da poiščejo drobce, lahko to stvar počasi razstavimo. In hudiča- če vsi menijo, da je fraza res tako pomembna, lahko pustimo stran, kot je "Prvih 100 dni (Barack Obama)", da dokumentiramo njeno široko uporabo v medijih in njene posledice. To je lahko dober, razmeroma kratek članek, ki bi ustrezal drugim javnim podobam. Resnično mislim, da bi bil odličen odsek na strani samo o njegovem tisku, o njegovi podobi v javnosti, samo za medije.

Zdi se mi, da bi morali Obamovi članki resnično odražati nekatere najboljše urejevalne težnje Wikipedije- del tega pa je organizacija, ki olajša navigacijo, lažje urejanje in doslednejše. Torej popravimo to.

BTW, žal mi je, da sem prišel močno (in dolgo- verjetno sem bil preveč premišljen, vendar mi ni všeč prepiranje med sitnicami- raje bi vse povedal enkrat). Prav tako vnaprej- verjetno sem tukaj naredil nekaj napak in prepričan sem, da imate vi boljše ideje. In ne mislim kritizirati ljudi, ki so pomagali pri razvoju članka. Ima nekaj dobrih stvari, le včasih se stvari malo zalomijo, ko namen članka ni jasen. —Predhodni podpisan komentar, ki ga je dodal Ian Burnet (pogovor • prispevki) 22:59, 3. april 2009 (UTC)

  • Strinjam se, da je 100 -dnevni članek zavajajoč. Morda bi morali imeti podčlanke za vsako leto predsednikovega mandata, ki bi se omejili z vsakim letnim nagovorom o stanju v Uniji. Aaron charles (pogovor) 17:02, 7. april 2009 (UTC)
    • Mislim, da je tako. Toda strani drugih predsednikov so razdeljene le na izraze. Ta stran je le preveč klon predsedovanja Baracka Obame. Resnično mislim, da je treba večino tega združiti s tem. Ian Burnet (pogovor) 19:41, 10. april 2009 (UTC)

    Obstaja članek o povabilih na Obamovo inavguracijo. To dokazuje, kako smešna je Wikipedia poskušala zakriti tega fanta. Mislim, da je to natančna replika njegovega običajnega članka o "predsedstvu". Ne potrebujemo toliko poročanja o njem, razen če bo kdo napisal "Drugih 100 dni predsedovanja Baracka Obame" ali "2009 v predsedovanju Obame". Kolikor se spomnim, Wikipedia "ni novica"

    Amen, Ian. --Andrew (pogovor) 13:28, 14. maj 2009 (UTC)

    Mislim, da drugi predsedniki nimajo članka, posvečenega prvih 100 dni. Na primer, naključno sem izbral predsednika, ki je preveril, in prvih 100 dni članka o predsedovanju Williama Henryja Harrisona ni. Grundle2600 (pogovor) 09:22, 17. maj 2009 (UTC)

    Glede na to, da je bil Harrison na položaju le 32 dni, to ni presenetljivo! Mediji so v prvih 100 dneh Obaminega predsedovanja naredili velik posel, zato je za Wikipedijo povsem smiselno, da o tem objavi članek (saj zlahka ustreza smernicam o pomembnosti). Skrb glede tega, da je preveč podoben predsedovanju Baracka Obame, je neumna, saj je Obama na položaju le štiri mesece. Očitno članek "Predsedstvo" se bo v naslednjih 4 (ali morda 8) letih nenehno spreminjal. - Scjessey (pogovor) 19:28, 17. maj 2009 (UTC)

    Dejstvo, da je ta podjetnik tako široko medijsko objavljen, je razlog, da obstajajo takšni članki. Wikipedia nima agende za pisanje člankov o Obami. WP temelji na virih in za to temo jih je peklensko veliko. 98.164.216.136 (pogovor) 06:29, 25. september 2009 (UTC)

    Ker ima Barack Obama članek v prvih 100 dneh, bi bilo sprejemljivo, da bi imeli podobno stran za voditelje drugje, ko se prvih 100 dni šteje za dovolj pomembne in res dovolj "mučne", da jih mediji omenjajo in jih je treba braniti zaradi obtožbe "neuspeha"? - can dle • wicke 04:12, 24. december 2009 (UTC)

    Brez soglasja premakniti se. Vegaswikian (pogovor) 23:45, 19. januar 2011 (UTC)

    Napačno ste napisali njegovo ime. Zgoraj sem popravil. Kar se tiče trditve, sem v redu z obema.-Dudemanfellabra (pogovor) 23:18, 4. januar 2011 (UTC) Šibko nasprotovanje, trenutna oblika se zdi bolj naravna in ker je pomen tako očitno enak, se zdi, da ni potrebe po skladnosti z drugim naslovom.-Kotniski (pogovor) 11:57, 12. januar 2011 (UTC) Zgornja razprava je ohranjena kot arhiv predloga. Prosimo, da ga ne spreminjate. Naknadne komentarje je treba dati v nov razdelek na tej strani za pogovor. V tem razdelku ni več treba spreminjati.

    Pravkar sem dodal arhivske povezave na eno zunanjo povezavo v prvih 100 dneh predsedovanja Baracka Obame. Prosim, vzemite si trenutek in preglejte moje urejanje. Po potrebi dodajte <> za povezavo, da je ne spremenim. Lahko pa dodate <> da me popolnoma odstrani s strani. Naredil sem naslednje spremembe:

    Ko končate s pregledom mojih sprememb, nastavite preverjeno spodnji parameter do prav da bi drugi vedeli.

    Od februarja 2018 razdelki pogovorne strani »Spremenjene zunanje povezave« ne ustvarjajo in ne spremljajo več InternetArchiveBot . V zvezi s temi obvestili na pogovorni strani niso potrebni posebni ukrepi, razen rednega preverjanja z uporabo spodnjih navodil za orodje za arhiviranje. Uredniki imajo dovoljenje, da izbrišejo te razdelke na pogovornih straneh "Zunanje povezave spremenjene", če želijo odstraniti nered na pogovornih straneh, vendar si pred množičnimi sistematičnimi odstranitvami oglejte RfC. To sporočilo se dinamično posodablja prek predloge <> (zadnja posodobitev: 15. julij 2018).

    • Če ste odkrili URL -je, ki jih je bot napačno ocenil kot mrtve, jih lahko prijavite s tem orodjem.
    • Če ste pri katerem koli arhivu ali samih URL -jih našli napako, jih lahko odpravite s tem orodjem.

    Pravkar sem dodal arhivske povezave na eno zunanjo povezavo v prvih 100 dneh predsedovanja Baracka Obame. Prosim, vzemite si trenutek in preglejte moje urejanje. Po potrebi dodajte <> za povezavo, da je ne spremenim. Lahko pa dodate <> da me popolnoma odstrani s strani. Naredil sem naslednje spremembe:

    Ko končate s pregledom mojih sprememb, nastavite preverjeno spodnji parameter do prav da bi drugi vedeli.

    Od februarja 2018 razdelkov na pogovorni strani »Spremenjene zunanje povezave« ne ustvarjajo in ne spremljajo več InternetArchiveBot . V zvezi s temi obvestili na pogovorni strani niso potrebni posebni ukrepi, razen rednega preverjanja z uporabo spodnjih navodil za orodje za arhiviranje. Uredniki imajo dovoljenje, da izbrišejo te razdelke na pogovornih straneh "Zunanje povezave spremenjene", če želijo odstraniti nered na pogovornih straneh, vendar si pred množičnimi sistematičnimi odstranitvami oglejte RfC. To sporočilo se dinamično posodablja prek predloge <> (zadnja posodobitev: 15. julij 2018).

    • Če ste odkrili URL -je, ki jih je bot napačno ocenil kot mrtve, jih lahko prijavite s tem orodjem.
    • Če ste pri katerem koli arhivu ali samih URL -jih našli napako, jih lahko odpravite s tem orodjem.

    Pravkar sem spremenil eno zunanjo povezavo v prvih 100 dneh predsedovanja Baracka Obame. Prosim, vzemite si trenutek in preglejte moje urejanje. Če imate kakršna koli vprašanja ali potrebujete robota, da prezre povezave ali celotno stran, obiščite ta preprosta vprašanja za dodatne informacije. Naredil sem naslednje spremembe:

    Ko končate s pregledom mojih sprememb, nastavite preverjeno spodnji parameter do prav ali ni uspelo obvestiti druge (dokumentacija na <> ).

    Od februarja 2018 razdelkov na pogovorni strani »Spremenjene zunanje povezave« ne ustvarjajo in ne spremljajo več InternetArchiveBot . V zvezi s temi obvestili na pogovorni strani niso potrebni posebni ukrepi, razen rednega preverjanja z uporabo spodnjih navodil za orodje za arhiviranje. Uredniki imajo dovoljenje, da izbrišejo te razdelke na pogovornih straneh "Zunanje povezave spremenjene", če želijo odstraniti nered na pogovornih straneh, vendar si pred množičnimi sistematičnimi odstranitvami oglejte RfC. To sporočilo se dinamično posodablja prek predloge <> (zadnja posodobitev: 15. julij 2018).

    • Če ste odkrili URL -je, ki jih je bot napačno ocenil kot mrtve, jih lahko prijavite s tem orodjem.
    • Če ste pri katerem koli arhivu ali samih URL -jih našli napako, jih lahko odpravite s tem orodjem.

    Ta primerjalni odsek se zdi še posebej slabo zasnovan. Preprosto ponavlja mnenja, ki so bila napisana v petdnevni seriji v New York Timesu, in bralca to naredi zmedeno (na primer se sklicuje na »Smith«, kar verjetno pomeni Jean Edward Smith, čeprav obstaja tudi Clive Stafford Smith, citiran in wiki povezan v članku). Trudim se, da vidim vrednost tega kot samostojnega odseka, razen "Medijske pokritosti", prav tako pa se mi ne zdi dolžina in globina odseka upravičena. Magic1million (pogovor) 17:11, 15. november 2016 (UTC)

    Vidim, da je bilo to izbrisano (kar podpiram), zdaj pa dvomim o nujnosti odstavka v "Mediji", ki celo omenja to serijo NYT. Odstavek pravzaprav ne vsebuje nobenih podatkov razen "časopis je o tem napisal". Seveda, NYT je objavljal prispevke na njem, tako tudi številne druge novice. Ne vidim, kako ta odstavek doda osnovnih podatkov dejanskim 100 dnevom. Ali je treba to popolnoma odstraniti? Ali pa, če se hrani, ali moramo res navesti datume objave in avtorje? Zdi se preveč podrobno. Henry chianski (pogovor) 16:57, 26. november 2016 (UTC)

    Pravkar sem spremenil 2 zunanji povezavi v prvih 100 dneh predsedovanja Baracka Obame. Prosim, vzemite si trenutek in preglejte moje urejanje. Če imate kakršna koli vprašanja ali potrebujete robota, da prezre povezave ali celotno stran, obiščite ta preprosta vprašanja za dodatne informacije. Naredil sem naslednje spremembe:

    Ko končate s pregledom mojih sprememb, lahko sledite navodilom v spodnji predlogi, da odpravite težave z URL -ji.

    Od februarja 2018 razdelki pogovorne strani »Spremenjene zunanje povezave« ne ustvarjajo in ne spremljajo več InternetArchiveBot . V zvezi s temi obvestili na pogovorni strani niso potrebni posebni ukrepi, razen rednega preverjanja z uporabo spodnjih navodil za orodje za arhiviranje. Uredniki imajo dovoljenje, da izbrišejo te razdelke na pogovornih straneh "Zunanje povezave spremenjene", če želijo odstraniti nered na pogovornih straneh, vendar si pred množičnimi sistematičnimi odstranitvami oglejte RfC. To sporočilo se dinamično posodablja prek predloge <> (zadnja posodobitev: 15. julij 2018).


    'Ne moremo narediti. spet te napake '

    Druga razlika je v tem, kako sta se predsednika držala z opozicijskim voditeljem v senatu, Mitchom McConnellom, R-Ky., Ki je bil v prvih letih Obame na istem položaju in je leta 2010 slavno dejal, da je njegova glavna prioriteta, da ga postavi za enega -začasni predsednik.

    "Največja naučena lekcija je, da Mitch McConnell ne ravna v dobri veri," je dejal David Litt, nekdanji pisatelj govora za Obamo. & quot; Vidite republikance Mitcha McConnella, ki vodijo isto knjigo. Toda Joe Biden in njegova uprava ter demokrati - tokrat vedo, kaj jih čaka. & Quot

    Dejal je, da je GOP glasoval, da ne bodo šteli volivcev Biden po napadu na ameriško prestolnico 6. januarja.

    & Quot V skladu s tem bi morali ukrepati, "je dejal Litt.

    McConnell je obtožil Bidena, da uresničuje levičarski program v nasprotju z obljubami njegove kampanje, ki si prizadevajo za enotnost. Podobno je kritiziral Obamo že zgodaj. Takrat so demokrati moderirali svojo politiko v iskanju podpore GOP - včasih brez uspeha, kot v primeru zakona o dostopni oskrbi.

    Biden pa je imel eno sestanek s senatorji GOP o pomoči Covid-19, preden se je odločil za postopek, ki je odporen na filibuster, da bi brez njih sprejel svoj račun v višini 1,9 bilijona dolarjev.

    & quot 'Daj me enkrat, sram, da me dobiš dvakrat, sram me ' je tukaj v igri, & quot; je dejal Cornell Belcher, demokratski strateg, ki je bil včasih raziskovalec Obame. & quotTa celotna ideja, da lahko najdemo podporo republikancev za stvari, je iz preteklosti. Gre za obdobje pred Mitchom McConnellom. Pošteno je, da se Joe Biden preprosto ne igra skupaj z njim v tej cinični igri. & Quot

    Republikanci pravijo, da se Bela hiša uči napačnih lekcij.

    "Morali bi se naučiti lekcije, da ne bi smeli mimo stvari, ki si jih ameriška javnost ne želi," je dejal senator Rick Scott iz R-Fla. in trdil, da volivci želijo varno mejo, ponovno odpreti šole, prepovedati igranje & quotmen zakoni o športu žensk in predpisi volivcev. & quotTrebajo početi stvari, ki jih želi ameriška javnost, namesto da bi ubijale ameriško gospodarstvo. & quot

    Vodja večine v senatu Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., je opredelil dve lekciji iz Obamove dobe, ko je bil na položaju tretjega poslanca v poslanskem klubu: Err na strani velikega reševanja kriz in ne izgubljajte časa.

    & "V letih 2009 in ཆ nismo sestavili trdnega računa za izterjavo in smo preveč let ostali v recesiji. In potem smo se leto in pol pogajali o nečem dobrem, ACA, vendar nismo storili ničesar drugega, "je dejal. & quotNe moremo ponoviti nobene od teh napak. & quot

    Različna ozadja Obame in Bidena sta oblikovala tudi njuno politično realnost. Obamin vzpon je predstavljal tektonski premik za večrasno demokracijo, ki je sprožil rasno reakcijo. Demokrati z razdeljenimi volilnimi enotami so iskali razdaljo. Biden nima tega problema. In centristi v njegovi stranki lažje sprejemajo njegove programe.

    Medtem ko je Obama imel zmožnost, da bi zmerni programi, kot je Zakon o cenovno ugodni oskrbi, zveneli za napredne, se je Bidenin talent odločil, da liberalne ideje velikosti FDR zvenijo zmerno.

    "Joe Biden happens to be an old white guy. There's something comforting to those old middle-of-the-road white voters about an old middle-of-the-road white guy," Belcher said. "When Joe Biden says something, it comes across differently than if Barack Obama said it. Implicit bias is real."


    Flashback: Media Lovefest over Barack Obama’s First 100 Days

    3,501 Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty

    The media’s framing for former President Barack Obama’s first 100 days began with the premise that his very presence in the White House was “historic.” Obama was praised for aggressively pursuing a bold policy agenda and reversing the policies of his predecessor.

    The same media would later indulge Obama’s incessant complaints that all of his problems were caused by George W. Bush, which is difficult to square with their nearly universal praise for his total reversal of Bush policies 100 days into his administration.

    Čas m agazine , for example, dubbed the Obama administration a “historic presidency” at the top of its Hundred Days special coverage, then brought in Joe Klein to declare Obama’s start “the most impressive of any president since F.D.R.”

    Mark Halperin gushed that Obama was “instantly comfortable and highly skilled at the hardest job in the world,” swooning over the new president’s “even temper, cool demeanor, boldness under pressure, shrewd facility for managing personnel, unfailing instincts about when to delegate and when to engage.”

    Halperin faulted Obama only for a “handful of public missteps” and, most amusingly, for his “failure to ameliorate the partisan divide.”

    Comparisons to FDR were ubiquitous in Obama’s Hundred Days coverage it would probably be easier to list the mainstream media articles that didn’t favorably compare Obama to Roosevelt. Savannah Guthrie at NBC News inadvertently let slip the reason why: White House officials were making the comparison themselves, every chance they got. The media simply followed their lead.

    NBC’s summary illustrated how much of the media uncritically accepted what the Obama White House said about its first few months in office. Guthrie’s piece literally repeats the talking points Team Obama gave her, treating them as objective truth. (“Advisers are only too happy to tick off a flurry of accomplishments on the economy in the administration’s first hundred days.”)

    She even repeated transparently ridiculous fluff like Obama’s aides claiming his “even temperament” only “darkened” when he had to deal with “military families who’ve lost loved ones” and read “personal letters from Americans telling stories of their own economic turmoil.”

    The Washington Post said Obama had “moved quickly to strengthen the U.S. economy, refine the American strategy in two foreign wars and reverse Bush-era detention and interrogation policies that have drawn condemnation at home and abroad.”

    V Objave view, Obama’s biggest failure at the 100-day mark was overestimating the willingness of Republicans in Congress to “rally behind the nation’s first African-American president at a time of crisis.” In other words, they thought Obama naive for believing evil Republicans could overcome their racism to vote for his magnificent stimulus bill.

    Jack Cafferty at CNN asked its audience to name their favorite Obama success in the first 100 days, blithely assuming no reasonable person would think the nascent presidency a failure. One of Cafferty’s favorite successes was “meeting with leaders around the world, promising a new era of American leadership and cooperation.”

    ABC News saluted Obama for moving “swiftly” and “rapidly” to “revoke and alter policies that marked the legacy of the Bush team.” (Why, just 100 days into the Obama presidency, Guantanamo Bay was as good as closed!)

    The only criticism of Obama ABC could think to mention was that “critics say he could be putting too much on his already-full plate.” Those old enough to remember 2009 may recall critics saying many other things about Barack Obama, but for the mainstream media, the only flaw of this history-sculpting titan was that he cared too damn much .

    The memory bank over at NewsBusters coughed up a clump of TV “journalists” worshiping at the Obama altar 100 days in, with comparisons to George Washington and the Kennedys. Michelle Obama was embraced as a “rock star.” Katie Couric asked John Boehner if his Republican caucus was “digging themselves into a hole” by not surrendering all objections to Obama’s magical agenda.

    It is hard to top New York Times reporter Jeff Zeleny’s legendary puffball question at President Obama’s 100 Days press conference: “During these first 100 days, what has surprised you the most about this office, enchanted you the most about serving in this office, humbled you the most and troubled you the most?”

    Even as the Obama Hundred Days were unfolding, the Pew Research Center noted that President Obama “enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George Bush during their first months in the White House.”

    Pew found positive stories about Obama outweighed the negatives by two-to-one, not just on the op-ed pages, but in “straight” news stories. One of the reasons proposed for this disparity was Obama’s habit of “getting out of Washington and meeting directly with the public,” giving the media a steady stream of soft-focus human-interest stories to write about.

    Also, Pew noted the coverage was heavily focused on Obama’s “personal and leadership qualities” than on his actual policy agenda. Not coincidentally, lifestyle and entertainment media continued treating the Obama family as celebrity superstars throughout the Hundred Days. “It feels as if sometimes the editors love them more than the readers,” one celebrity magazine editor remarked to the Today pokazati.

    When the media did talk policy during the Obama Hundred Days, it gave him nearly unlimited credit for dealing with the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. Coverage of Obama’s trillion-dollar stimulus bill almost invariably portrayed it as the new president’s effort to “fix” the nation’s broken economy, opposed only by mindless obstructionists (and, as noted, racists).

    The media stressed Obama’s popularity in polls, conjured an aura of profound legitimacy around his margin of victory in the 2008 election, and placed great emphasis on polls that showed public optimism about America’s moving onto the “right track” because of his election. (They seem a great deal less interested in polls that show the public brimming with confidence about the economy now that Obama is gone.)

    The media themselves were suffused with optimism and appreciation for Obama’s good intentions at the Hundred Day mark. For example, check out this assessment of Obama’s first budget proposal from April 29, 2009, at CNBC : “While a welcome victory, congressional passage of the budget would be only a first, relatively easy step toward Obama’s goal of providing health care coverage for all Americans.”

    Notice how getting that budget passed was not qualified as a welcome victory for Obama ali for Democrats, and his healthcare ambitions were presented as pure unalloyed goodness. The mainstream media rarely discusses the “goals” of Republican presidents, especially the current one.

    Obama’s political credit card had no limit for advances on his good intentions. There was a little grumbling about how he did not manage a few administrative details perfectly, but the media had no doubt whatsoever that Obama meant well or that he had brilliant strategies for achieving his noble ends. Conversely, Republicans were asked to explain how they could oppose the new president in good conscience. The narrative of a historic president with a nearly unprecedented electoral and moral mandate was set long before Day 100 ticked by.


    The first 100 days: Meaningful milestone or debunked benchmark?

    FDR's benchmark is now inextricably embedded in our presidential politics

    President Franklin Roosevelt served an unprecedented 4,422 days in office, but his first 100 set a benchmark by which his successors are inevitably measured. The milestone’s origin in Franklin D. Roosevelt’s presidency coincided with the convergence of a worldwide economic depression, a midwest climate crisis, and an activist chief executive who created a bureaucratic behemoth to address the disasters. Americans would henceforth turn to the modern, some would call it the “imperial,” presidency to address the nation’s ills.

    FDR declared in his first inaugural address that he was prepared to exercise “broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency.” His 1932 victory over the passive Herbert Hoover signaled the people’s “mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. …They have made me the present instrument of their wishes,” Roosevelt concluded. A few months later, he referred to “the crowding events of the hundred days which had been devoted to the starting of the wheels of the New Deal.”

    With Democratic Party majorities in both houses of Congress, FDR signed an unsurpassed 76 bills into law by the 100-day mark, and he managed to calm the nation with his patented fire-side addresses, delivered in soothing tones that supporters found accessible despite their patrician lilt.

    Winston Churchill observed that meeting FDR was like uncorking your first bottle of champagne. With the unemployment rate at 25%, the nation rallied to his effervescent personality. His jaunty cigarette holder, broad smile, and upturned face radiated confidence. “Happy Days Are Here Again,” his campaign theme song, seemed truly attainable. The Roosevelt brand was launched into history.


    The First Hundred Days

    Many news stories recently have looked forward to Barack Obama’s first hundred days as U.S. President, while looking back to the first hundred days of the presidency of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR), e.g., “Shades of FDR in Obama’s First 100 Days”:

    As Barack Obama plans his first 100 days as president, he has looked for inspiration to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who raced through his early days in office, spurring Congress to act.

    “I hope my team can emulate (FDR). not always getting it right, but projecting a sense of confidence and a willingness to try things, and experiment in order to get people working again,” the president-elect told “60 Minutes” in November. He said he was reading a book about the New Deal president's first 100 days in office in 1933.

    At the height of the Depression, Roosevelt used his first three-plus months in office to quickly push through Congress a series of reforms aimed at righting the economy.

    Since then, the first 100 days of each administration have become a benchmark to track the progress of the new president.
    .

    Like many previous presidents, Obama has attempted to tamper expectations for his first 100 days in office.

    “The first hundred days is going to be important, but it's probably going to be more like the first thousand days that makes a difference,” he told a Colorado radio station in an interview shortly before Election Day. “Most of the big challenges that we face, whether it's making college more affordable, or fixing our health care system so it works for everybody, or making sure that we've got a serious energy strategy, or winding down the war in Iraq, all those things are probably going to take longer than three months to complete.”

    Works about the first hundred days of FDR’s presidency are classed in 973.917 Administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1933–1945, if the focus is broadly on conditions, policies, programs, and events of that time, e.g., FDR: The First Hundred Days. If the work is biographical or focuses on FDR as a person (or on FDR and his close associates), it is classed in 973.917092 United States—1933–1945—biography (built with 973.917 plus T1—092 Persons), e.g., The Defining Moment: FDR's Hundred Days and the Triumph of Hope in Nothing to Fear: FDR's Inner Circle and the Hundred Days that Created Modern America.

    Works about the first hundred days of Barack Obama’s presidency—or first thousand days, or his full administration—will be classed as appropriate in 973.932 Administration of Barack Obama, 2009– ali 973.932092 United States—2009– —biography.


    FDR’s First 100 Days in Office

    Like Joe Biden, Franklin Delano Roosevelt took the helm of a country in crisis. In his first year in office, the American unemployment rate would reach its peak at around 25%. Over 12 million Americans were out of work.

    Roosevelt equated fighting the Great Depression to fighting a war—an analogy that has also been used to describe the fight against coronavirus. Roosevelt said:

    “I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis — broad Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe.”

    Two days after his inauguration on March 4th, 1933, Roosevelt declared a national “bank holiday” to stem the tide of people trying to withdraw their money from failing banks. A few days later, he signed the Emergency Banking Act, which allowed banks to reopen if the government found them sound. Aware that the country could plunge into deeper crisis, Congress rushed the passage of the bill—even though there were no available copies to read.

    On March 12th, FDR gave his first “fireside chat”—a radio address to the nation to explain his actions and to reassure Americans that it was safe to put their money in the bank.

    Roosevelt gives his first “fireside chat”, March 12, 1933 | Državni arhiv

    “My friends,” Roosevelt said, “I want to talk for a few minutes with the people of the United States about banking—to talk with the comparatively few who understand the mechanics of banking, but more particularly with the overwhelming majority of you who use banks for the making of deposits and the drawing of checks.”

    He reassured the country that it was: “Safer to keep your money in a reopened bank than under the mattress.”

    FDR’s direct communication worked. In the following weeks, Americans returned nearly a billion dollars to banks that the governments had declared sound. Raymond Moley, one of Roosevelt’s closest aides, remarked that “capitalism was saved in eight days.”

    Roosevelt didn’t stop there. In the next 100 days—technically, 105—his administration would usher 15 bills through Congress. They had a three-pronged goal: to boost employment, to help Americans in rural states, and to enact financial reforms.

    A year later, unemployment started to drop and the country’s GDP began to rise. Arguably, it would take the ultimate stimulus of WWII—and the ramping up of production—to end the Great Depression. But FDR brought relief to millions of Americans.

    In his actions, FDR not only helped steer the United States away from crisis—he redefined the role of the federal government. Roosevelt believed it was a matter of “social duty” for the government to help where it could. His predecessor, Herbert Hoover, was well aware of this. A free-market capitalist, Hoover remarked that the 1932 election between Roosevelt and himself would be not: “a contest between two men” but “two philosophies of government.”

    Roosevelt also erected a bar for future presidents to scale. His successors would face pressure to have a productive 100 days in office like he had.


    The first 100 days: When did we start caring about them and why do they matter?

    As we approach President Biden’s first 100 days in office many will use the occasion to evaluate his performance. Why 100 days? There is no constitutional or statutory significance to the first 100 days of a president’s term. In the first hundred and forty-four years of the Republic no one made a big deal about the 100-day mark. It is a somewhat arbitrary and artificial milestone. David Alexrod, a top aide to President Obama once called it a “Hallmark Holiday”—lots of attention but no significance.

    So where did this come from and why do we still talk about it?

    It came from the presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Elected in the midst of a great depression, Roosevelt kept out of the fray during the long transition period between Election Day 1932 and Inauguration Day on March 4, 1933. According to historians, his sense of political theater led him to avoid President Hoover’s attempts to involve him in dealing with the overwhelming crises before the country.[1] Thus he successfully orchestrated a complete break from the past and a new start with the American people.

    FDR’s ability to talk to America is without equal in the 20 th century and in 1933 it was an especially dramatic contrast to the stern and uncaring policies of his predecessor Herbert Hoover, who had vetoed several relief bills. Roosevelt’s inaugural address is memorable for the phrase “we have nothing to fear but fear itself.” And less than two weeks after that he gave the first of many fireside chats—explaining over the radio, in simple terms, what was happening to Americans and how he would fix it.

    But Roosevelt’s rhetoric and mastery of the new medium of radio were not what made him the president who is remembered for the first 100 days. It was the breathtaking scope of bold and new actions, both legislative and regulatory, that set the bar so high. To name but a few: in those 100 days he declared a bank holiday which stopped the disastrous run on the banks, he took America off the gold standard, and he passed groundbreaking legislation for farmers and homeowners and for the unemployed. He also passed amendments to the hated Volstead Act which had created prohibition. Immediately, “beer parties” were held all over the country in celebration.[2]

    Ever since, presidents have been evaluated for their performance in the first 100 days. Suffice it to say that few have lived up to Roosevelt. Ronald Reagan probably comes closest of all the presidents since then—a combination of skill and luck. His administration began with the release of the hostages that had been held in Iran by Islamic radicals. No clearer contrast could be drawn between him and the unlucky President Jimmy Carter, whose last year in office was clouded by the hostage crisis that he could not control and that he could not end. Although Reagan had little to do with ending the crisis, he came in with a clean slate.


    Obama begins leading America in a new direction

    On the last Friday in March, President Obama summoned leaders of the banking industry to the White House, where they gathered around a mahogany table in the State Dining Room, site of many a feast. On this day there was not a piece of fruit nor can of soda in sight. At each place was a glass of water. No ice. No refills.

    The president’s message was hard and crusty as a slab of day-old bread.

    He urged the bankers to view corporate excess through the eyes of Americans who are belt-tightening their way through the recession. Obama mentioned the carpet stains in the Oval Office, to make a frugal comparison with $1-million suites decorated with $8,000 trash cans.

    The corporate chieftains protested, citing the specialization of their field and the need to pay handsomely to avoid a brain drain. Obama cut them off: “Be careful how you make those statements, gentlemen. The public isn’t buying that. My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.”

    Direct, assertive and utterly self-assured, Obama has used his broad popularity, a driving ambition and a sweeping agenda to move America in a wholly new direction.

    Just shy of 100 days in office, he has ordered the closure of the Guantanamo Bay military prison and a troop withdrawal from Iraq made it easier for women to sue for job discrimination eased a ban on stem cell research extended healthcare coverage to millions of children ousted the head of General Motors reached out to the Muslim world moved to ease tensions with Cuba traveled to Canada, Europe, Turkey and Latin America and set aside huge tracts of wilderness for federal protection.

    More broadly, Obama has seized on the worst economic crisis since the 1930s -- exploiting it, critics say -- and set out to reshape major aspects of everyday life: the price we pay to see a doctor, the size of our children’s classrooms, the fuel we put in our cars.

    If Obama’s history-making campaign offered hope, the nation’s first black president has delivered audacity his vision of an activist government has been so vast, Washington now guarantees not only savings accounts but brakes on a Buick.

    “You can carp and gripe,” said Allan Lichtman, a historian at Washington’s American University. “But you really have to go back as far as Franklin Roosevelt for this much coming out of a newly elected president.”

    Whether dealing with imperious bankers or Somali pirates, Obama as chief executive looks a lot like Obama the candidate: the calmest one at the table, ribbing stressed-out aides and sipping bottled water as his lieutenants guzzle caffeine.

    Not that his performance was always so smooth.

    After a quick start, a series of controversies slowed hiring for the administration, leaving hundreds of desks vacant and phones unanswered it took three tries to land a Commerce secretary. Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner, the point man on the economy, relied on holdovers from the Bush administration to shape Obama’s policies, and botched his debut so badly that he helped send markets off a cliff.

    For a man who considers himself a good listener, Obama sometimes appeared tone-deaf, underestimating public disgust with a would-be healthcare czar who rode around Washington in a chauffeured Cadillac and failed to pay taxes on the perk. He was slow to detect the populist backlash brewing when tens of millions in taxpayer-funded bonuses went to executives who helped tank the economy.

    At times, the nation’s orator in chief struggled to find the right tone -- sometimes too grim, sometimes too glib -- when talking to a country that needed to hear both hard truths and gentle reassurance. (Last week, Obama gave a speech touting economic improvement the same day lousy consumer spending figures came out.)

    When Obama’s agenda threatened to hit a wall inside the Washington Beltway, he took to the road -- reporters in tow -- to soak up support from friendly, campaign-style crowds.

    But more important than personal adulation was something else Americans seemed willing to give their young president, something apparent in robust poll numbers and a recognition that things weren’t going to improve overnight: The country was willing to be patient.

    On Jan. 21, the first full day of the Obama administration, the president stepped into the Oval Office at 8:35 a.m. He spent the first 10 minutes alone, reading a private note that former President George W. Bush had left behind: “To: #44, From: #43.” Then, wearing a starched white shirt, sky-blue tie and no jacket -- his would be a less-formal White House -- Obama went to work behind Bush’s old desk.

    The transfer of power in Washington can be jarring. But mentally, Obama had been easing into the presidency for some time, especially since mid-September, when Lehman Bros. collapsed in the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history. The economy was in free-fall. Republican John McCain was dithering over whether to participate in the first presidential debate. And the country had long since stopped looking to Bush for answers. (In the final days of the campaign, when victory seemed assured, Obama would scan the bleak headlines and privately joke that he could still throw the race.)

    Maybe it was that head start, or his famous unflappability, but as president, Obama moved quickly to assert himself and begin reordering policies at home and abroad. The media, always a bit fawning over a new chief executive, breathlessly chronicled Obama’s every move. He walked toward his Marine One helicopter with “a manifestly brisk stride,” a wire service wrote, and shunned a raincoat and umbrella as though impervious to rain.

    Republicans were a harder sell.

    Pennsylvania Rep. Charlie Dent had been to White House events before, but never one like Obama’s Super Bowl bash. There was a Wii in the East Wing and kids running all over. The president circulated with plates of brownies and warm cookies. When Dent’s son and a friend needed to use the bathroom, they asked the guy with the cookies for directions. “How should I know?” Obama joked. “I’ve only been here 10 days.”

    Seventy-five guests from the two major parties, folks who work side by side on Capitol Hill but don’t seem to much like each other, mingled, drank beer, ate hot dogs and watched the Pittsburgh Steelers win a rare Super Bowl thriller. The president passed up the four cushy chairs at the front of the home theater to join the crowd in the cheap seats.

    Surely it was a reach to think that warm cookies and cold beer would make Republicans any more willing to swallow the end of a conservative era. But if Obama couldn’t get GOP leaders to back his stimulus package, or much else, perhaps he could win over a few of their members.

    Early on, the rank and file seemed to appreciate the effort. When Obama went to the Hill to sell his $800-billion economic rescue bill, House Republicans gave him two standing ovations, even though their leader, John A. Boehner of Ohio, had just urged them to vote against it, citing, among other things, the GOP’s lack of input.

    “It’s always good to communicate with the president of the United States,” Rep. Wally Herger, a Chico Republican, remarked afterward. “That doesn’t mean we’re going to support his plan.”

    In the end, angry over the size and scope of the package, not a single Republican House member did.

    But Obama continued his courtship, opening the White House for Wednesday night cocktails and hosting a state dinner that featured the nation’s governors dancing hands on hips in a bipartisan conga line. To White House strategists, the measure of success was not winning GOP votes but showing the country that, after all the animosity of the Bush years, Obama was at least trying.

    “I’ll keep hugging you, you keep hitting me. Doesn’t bother me none,” said Rahm Emanuel, the former Chicago congressman and political brawler, whom Obama hired as White House chief of staff. “If I keep hugging and you keep hitting, it’s not my fault. Guess who gets blamed?”

    Two weeks into Obama’s presidency, he faced his first significant setback.

    Former Sen. Tom Daschle was his pick to head the Department of Health and Human Services and, more important, to shepherd Obama’s ambitious healthcare plan through Congress. But Daschle’s image was being tarred by stories about his chauffeured limousine and lucrative ties to the healthcare industry.

    Obama and his aides were usually happy to ignore the conventional Beltway wisdom. In this case, though, they lapsed into typical Washington-think: If Daschle had the votes to prevail on Capitol Hill, where the ex-senator remained popular with former colleagues, then surely the controversy wasn’t that big a deal.

    What they didn’t count on was the angry reaction of the American people. The whole thing reeked of the kind of clubby back-scratching that Obama, as a candidate, had vowed to end.

    After waking up to a stinging New York Times editorial, Daschle decided to withdraw the president let him go. That night, Obama proceeded with five network TV interviews that were scheduled to peddle his stimulus plan. Instead, he delivered a five-pronged apology. “I screwed up,” he said.

    The morning after Obama’s serial mea culpa, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs ended his daily staff meeting with a declaration: “When the president said, ‘I screwed up’ last night, that officially ended our experiment with sipping from the waters of the Potomac.”

    The Daschle debacle produced the worst day of Obama’s young administration but established a pattern. Facing trouble, Obama would step forward, hit the road and try to change the subject. Messes made in Washington were best cleaned up outside Washington, by a president whose personal popularity was seemingly unsullied by any mistakes he made.

    But there was something else bothering Gibbs and others in the administration. The Washington narrative was a roller coaster of conflicting conclusions: One day Obama’s stimulus package was destined to pass, the next it was doomed to fail. Yet polling and focus groups found solid support across the country.

    The president, already feeling caged in the White House, was eager to escape. Obama and his aides realized that their best sales tactic was to put the president directly in front of the American people. He touched down in Elkhart, Ind., where unemployment had tripled in the last year in Fort Myers, Fla., where an adoring crowd chanted his name and in Peoria, Ill., where he announced with dramatic flair that the Senate had just passed the stimulus bill. Obama took more trips outside Washington in his first month than any of his five immediate predecessors.

    The point, as Gibbs told reporters on Air Force One en route to Elkhart, “is not explaining to Indiana what’s going on in Washington. This is taking Washington to show them what’s going on in Indiana and all over the country, and why people are hurting.”

    Timothy Geithner was standing before a crowd of reporters in the gilded Cash Room of the Treasury Department. It was a moment Obama had built up, suggesting that the youthful Cabinet secretary would spell out a plan to keep people in their homes and fix the nation’s path to economic recovery.

    But rather than leading a cavalry charge, Geithner looked more like a nervous delivery boy worried he had the wrong order.

    Badly placed teleprompters made matters worse as Geithner spoke, he moved his head back and forth like an oscillating fan, speaking of high concepts but providing little of the substance Wall Street wanted. Reporters began pecking out dispatches on their BlackBerrys, using words like “disaster.” The Dow tumbled 382 points.

    But if Geithner took a pounding, it was Obama who deserved much of the blame: He had promised far more than the Treasury secretary and his understaffed department could possibly provide.

    After Geithner, Daschle and others were tripped up by tax problems, the White House forced appointees to undergo a more vigorous scrubbing it was almost obsessive, some complained, practically forcing appointees to account for the spare change in their pockets. Some stepped aside rather than face a trial by nitpicking.

    The day of Geithner’s appearance, his chief speechwriter was still awaiting FBI clearance. The woman assigned to wrangle reporters didn’t know her way around the building it was her first day on the job.

    Overnight, Geithner became a butt of jokes: home alone at Treasury. A deer in the headlights. The laughter turned to fury weeks later when news broke of the $165-million executive payout at American International Group, or AIG, which received a massive federal bailout. The bonuses were contractually obligated but, fairly or not, Geithner got much of the blame.

    Obama once more set out to tidy the mess, launching a weeklong media blitz that seemed to target sports fans, news junkies, insomniacs and others. There he was on ESPN, making his picks in the men’s college basketball tournament on “60 Minutes,” saying, yes, he too was outraged by AIG on Jay Leno’s couch, where he lauded Geithner as “a calm and steady guy.”

    This time, however, even friends of the White House started asking whether Obama was becoming overexposed. He laughed on “60 Minutes” during a discussion of the failing auto industry. Was he punch-drunk? He apologized after cracking wise about the Special Olympics on Leno’s show. Was he diminishing the presidency by appearing on a late-night talk show?

    Administration insiders, fingers firmly on the pulse of opinion polls, were convinced that the nation’s trauma and Obama’s inordinate skill offered an exception to the usual rules of political engagement.

    “If these were ordinary times, I’d be more concerned than I am during what is, for most people, a crisis,” said Jim Margolis, a campaign advisor who remains close to the White House. “At this moment, Americans need to be able to connect to their president, to see that he understands what they are going through and that he is moving us toward a solution.”

    From the start, warp speed was the resting heart rate at the White House, grinding people down. Just about everyone had at least one head cold the first month. A fatigued national security aide dozed off during an afternoon briefing.

    Each day seemed like a week each week seemed like a month. Take Week Six: Obama hosted the conga-dancing governors on Sunday night, then Monday morning served muffins and a lecture on his stimulus bill. On Tuesday, he delivered his first address to a joint session of Congress, calling for expensive energy, education and healthcare programs that would produce an ocean of red ink. On Wednesday, news leaked that the first family was closing in on a puppy. On Thursday, Obama rolled out his $3.5-trillion budget. On Friday, surrounded by troops at Camp Lejeune, N.C., he announced his plan to wind down the war in Iraq.

    Halfway to the 100-day mark, Obama had already signed into law seven major pieces of legislation, including the biggest spending bill in American history.

    “Never allow a good crisis to go to waste,” Emanuel said. “It’s an opportunity to do what the political system and the inertia of the system have prevented.”

    Many, including more than a few congressional Democrats, suggested that Obama was too ambitious and that the understaffed administration was proceeding too quickly. “It is hard to do everything that needs to be done,” said Kent Conrad of North Dakota, chairman of the Senate Budget Committee. “You do have to prioritize.”

    Privately, Obama lamented the crush of events that required moving “from one thing to the other in a way that doesn’t give him the kind of collected and thoughtful ability to respond that he’d like,” said a friend who did not want to be identified discussing their private conversation. “It’s really an array of challenges, any one of which you could spend all your time on.”

    Still, Obama pushed ahead. Not because “I feel like it, or because I’m a glutton for punishment,” he told a group of business leaders. The economic crisis, he said, left no choice.

    One cold January afternoon, Obama posed for pictures in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s elegant office, the two seated in matching yellow wing chairs by the fireplace, smiling. In a few days he would take the oath of office on a stage that work crews were constructing beneath her balcony window. A handful of aides sat across the room, idling as the shutters snapped. When it came time for business, Obama picked up his chair, hoisted it over his head and plunked it down amid the circle of staffers.

    Presidents -- and those about to become president -- don’t move furniture. But clearly Obama had not yet grasped the starchy protocols of a job that comes with two men assigned to hold his coat, dial his phone and carry his lip balm. That was evident again a short time later, when the president-elect casually strolled onto the balcony, only to be yanked back inside by Secret Service agents.

    Assuming leadership of the free world obviously requires some adjustments. But if Obama was bemused by all the pampering, he had no problem seizing power. His White House quickly assumed the persona of its chief tenant: on point, no-nonsense, without a lot of wasted time or effort.

    Meetings start promptly and stay on topic. Participation is limited to those who have a reason to show there is little regard for apple-polishers, or people seeking face time with the president. When he’s not happy, Obama doesn’t holler or flap his arms disapproval is meted out in a clipped tone. “ ‘This is what needs to happen. This is what hasn’t happened. This is what in the next few days is grem to happen,’ ” Gibbs quoted the president, likening him to a disappointed parent.

    A typical presidential day begins with a 7 a.m. workout on the third-floor gym, followed by breakfast with daughters Sasha and Malia, policy briefings in the Oval Office and a series of tightly spaced meetings or public appearances. For lunch, he orders whatever he fancies: cheeseburgers and waffle fries more often than one might think. On Fridays, he lunches alone with Vice President Joe Biden.

    While Obama eats dinner, staffers prepare the night’s reading, which is dispatched to the residential quarters in color-coded folders. (Red for classified items.) He sometimes pores over them until after midnight, long past Bush’s strict 10 p.m. bedtime.

    Like every president, Obama is largely walled off from the world beyond the iron gates of the White House. His BlackBerry is a lifeline to old friends, who still call him “Barack.” (Unless they want to tease him. Then, following Michelle Obama’s lead, it’s “Mr. President.”) The Chicago crowd has created a buddy system of rotating houseguests who spend weekends in Washington.

    Obama also tries to stay connected by reading 10 letters a day -- selected from more than 250,000 he gets each week -- from Americans sharing their hopes, sorrows and things that keep them awake nights. The president requested the letters soon after taking office and sometimes shares them with aides, urging them to remember the true-life tales as they make policy. Obama answers about half.

    “I think this is his greatest single concern,” said David Axelrod, Obama’s top political advisor. “Being kind of caught in the bubble and cut off from people.”

    The first 100 days of a presidency have been a milestone since the epic days of Roosevelt’s New Deal. It is an arbitrary measure, and not always a good one. The Sept. 11 attacks that shaped Bush’s presidency were months away when he reached the mark in 2001.

    But the start of Obama’s administration has answered one question that hung over his improbable White House bid: whether a freshman senator, still shy of his 50th birthday and just a few years removed from the Illinois Statehouse, was prepared to face the responsibility and wield the awesome powers of the presidency.

    It will take much longer to determine whether Obama’s actions were wise or successful. But from the start he took the reins, and pulled hard.