What Obama and Clinton Have in Common

"[The President] is backtracking on promises...faster than you can say, 'George Bush is a buffoon--we can do better.'" (Reason)

"America has no real consensus over where the nation should be going and how it should get there. [The President] rightfully claimed a mandate for change...Problem is, [Americans] are not sure what direction or form change should take." (Tri City Herald)

"The complaint among the working staff and outsiders is: Too many meetings, too few decisions. The result is a risky pattern of slow reactions and desperate catch-up efforts." (Herald-Journal)

Sound like punditry on Obama's first year in office? Actually, it's about Bill Clinton's, taken from news clippings from more than 15 years ago.

Much has been made about the similar circumstances surrounding Obama and Clinton's White House entrance, including a failed Bush presidency, eight-plus years of Republican reign, and a country hungry for change. As it turns out, both also had similar challenges their first year in office--strong opposition to a stimulus plan (though Obama was able to pass his, while Clinton wasn't), foreign policy critiques (on Somalia for Clinton and Afghanistan for Obama), and a country disgruntled over a "politics as usual" approach.

I suspect that when the pundits come out with their inevitable year-end assessment of the Obama administration, it will closely echo the mixed reviews leveled at Clinton. As Joe Klein recently argued in Time, this may partly be because liberal leadership doesn't lend itself to a successful first year:

"Democrats come to office eager to govern the heck out of the country. They take on impossible issues, like budget-balancing and health care reform. They run into roadblocks--from their own unruly ranks as well as from Republicans. They get lost in the details."

Klein notes that of the past seven presidents, Clinton and Obama rank at the bottom after their first years. The top two? The Bushes.

Yet as we all know, George H.W. and--especially--George W. had largely unsuccessful presidencies, while Clinton had a successful one (the Monica mess notwithstanding). Indeed, Bubba was famously able to turn his rocky first year into two terms filled with many accomplishments. When he left office, America had a budget surplus (!) and wasn't fighting any major wars. Remember those days?

This isn't to say that in the long run, Democrats always end up with more successful presidencies than Republicans--Reagan and Carter are two glaring examples that prove otherwise. But just like it doesn't make sense to expect big change immediately, it also doesn't make sense to judge a presidency by the first 365 days. If Obama needs encouragement that presidencies take time to evolve, it may do him good to turn to his democratic predecessor.

If you like this piece on political punditry and the measuring of a president's success, check out this article on how the media handled 'climategate,' the hacked e-mails on climate change evidence.

(Photo by Eric Draper, White House Photo Director and personal photographer for U.S. President George W. Bush)