I think almost any President we have had in the past would have been more effective in reacting to this spill.
Possibly. But assuming that to be true doesn't refute my point unless "more effective", actually means "effective" which is doubtful.
The leak would still be going. So they wouldn't be effective on the most important point. Would they have been more effective at getting booms placed in the right places, and otherwise containing the damage from the growing amount of oil in the Gulf? Maybe, but that's mainly directed by people other than the president, and its probably good that it is. I'm not highly confident that the best president possible, would do a much better job here. Would they have communicated to the public better, and conveying caring and competence better? Well that's quite possible, but doing so wouldn't resolve the problem, and not doing so doesn't reasonably make the spill their legacy.
The destruction of the Gulf and Obama will be forever linked.
That might be true. I can't control, or even with high reliability foresee, people emotional reactions, and the opinions of the public, journalists, historians, etc.
But if its true, I don't think its justified.
I'm no fan of Obama. There is a ton of stuff he did mess up, but this situation (except possibly the communication and appearance side which I don't care as much about as some people) isn't one of them. Just as Katrina, although often linked to Bush, wasn't a Bush failure. |
