Do you think that Obama has the biggest challenge of any incoming president since FDR?

[mtnsnake]

I sure do.

Our economy is in the tank, we're involved in a horribly unpopular war, and our country has been split down the middle. But to make things even worse, Bush has flushed our worldly reputation, honor, and dignity right down the toilet.

Not only does Barack have to face the immediate challenges of ending this terrible war and righting our economy, but he is also faced with the extra burdon of restoring the pride and dignity to America that Bush has taken away. All I have to say, is thank goodness that Barack Obama is going to be President because I don't know of a better person to take on such a challenge. It ain't gonna be easy.

[jwirr]

1. Absolutely, not only economic, militarily but also philosophy. nt.

[YOY]

2. He can do it.

If anyone can he can. He's no miracle worker but he knows how to take an advantage and use it and take a disadvantage and make it into a usable advantage. We elected the smartest motherfuckers in the room.

[DB1]

3. Bigger, FDR had a filibuster proof senate.

[DJ13]

4. I agree, and I hope he can keep the DLC out of his way

As radical as FDR's solutions were considered back then, Obama will need to implement solutions that are thought of just as radical now.

That will entail going against the wishes of the business community, and I hope the DLC is nowhere near the discussions of whats needed.

[orwell]

5. Yes...

...mainly because of the global financial crisis.

When you take away budgetary flexibility you make the job much tougher.

[The Traveler]

6. Obama faces challenges that may be far greater

Obama faces challenges that may be far greater than the issues of Roosevelt's time. Yep. Hard to imagine bigger problems ... the Depression, the rise of Facism, etc.

I hope Obama is up to the job ... because quite frankly I cannot think of anyone else right now who might be. The American people wisely elected "the smartest motherfucker in the room". But we the people are going to have to back his play.

There ain't nothing about the next several years that is going to be easy.

[mtnsnake]

9. I couldn't agree more that we really have to back his play

I just hope that everyone can be a little patient with him if he can't do it all as fast as they'd like him to. Some of the problems he is inheriting are monumental in size, plus he has our reputation to fix on top of everything else.

[Jackpine Radical]

7. Nah. FDR had it easy. I think you have to look back at least as far as maybe Lincoln.

Maybe, in fact, there is no precedent.

There was no war on the table when FDR took the reins. Hitler was still a wannabe. There was no global ecological crisis threatening the existence of the species. There was nothing comparable to the energy crisis. Agriculture was still a distributed enterprise, not caught up in the hands of a few giant corporations.

[mtnsnake]

I don't agree FDR had it easy in comparison, but yes it is arguable how far back you might go

to find something equivalent to what this man faces.

I think we can agree that we all hope he's as successful as FDR.

[Overseas]

8. Yes. Privatized military services have endangered our national security.

The Obama Administration will have to undo a lot of privatization instituted by the Cheney Administration.

[Life Long Dem]

10. I don't think it will be as bad as people think.

For one thing look at where this is coming from. Another thing is Obama has the people on his side to get us through this. The only interference will be from the media. I think ones like Rush Limbaugh need to be cool down his attack on Obama for our safety. I'm not only talking about terrorist attacks on Obama but also the safety of the country if there were something that happened to Obama. Especially in times when America is supposed to be strong from attacks. What would it say to our security if the president t isn't even safe? But there would be riots across the country. What was the question again?

[grantcart]

11. From a straight historical perspective I think that the President who was going to

take over in 1968 had a much bigger challenge. Two major assasinations, a summer of riots, an umpopular war, and a country that was without hope and in open rebellion against itself. Not only were the parties against each other but the Democratic Party was in rebellion against itself.

It was as near as complete chaos as could be imagined.

[mtnsnake]

12. I was wondering about that myself.

That's why I phrased my post as a question, and I think you have a fair argument. Those were tough times, too.

[grantcart]

15. If you lived through it you would have to say that it was much worse than today.

I remember going to our Church Youth meeting and having a rational discussion (with adults, some of whom were attorneys) about whether or not what Bill Ayers and the Weatherman were doing was more ethically responsible than simply demonstrating.

[indepat]

13. And Obama will have to deal with $8+trillion debt 'pukes have piled on this nation since Saint

Gipper introduced his trickle-down-voodoo economics. :P

[ksoze]

14. I think it was Bush...

He came in unprepared, inexperienced, intellectually challenged, lacking of curiosity, surrounded by daddy's henchmen from two decades earlier and on top of all that, he didn't even really win the election. The challenge of those times would have been trival for others, but for someone so ill prepared as 'W", it was rocket science.