Washington Post

[dan_s]

On Friday, The Washington Post endorsed Barack Obama for re-election, but was quick to criticize the President for his shortcomings. [a rather weak endorsement.]

The paper said Obama is a better "navigator," who "could better lead the country during the next four years — and, most urgently, who is likelier to put the government on a more sound financial footing."

The iconic liberal paper said it made its judgment "with eyes open to the disappointments of Mr. Obama’s time in office."

The Post cited some of these failures:

He did not end, as he promised he would, “our chronic avoidance of tough decisions” on fiscal matters.
"We were disappointed that Mr. Obama allowed the bipartisan recommendations of his fiscal commission to wither and die and that he and Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) failed to seal a fiscal deal in the summer of 2011."

"Mr. Obama alienated Congress and business leaders by isolating himself inside a tight White House circle that manages to be both arrogant and thin-skinned. Too often his administration treats business as an obstacle rather than a partner."

He hardly tried to achieve the immigration reform and climate-change policy he promised.
In reviewing his foreign policy record, the Post said Obama "was hesitant and inconstent in responding to the two greatest and most unexpected foreign-policy opportunities of his presidency: the pro-democracy uprising in Iran in 2009 and the Arab Spring two years later."

"Mr. Obama kept the United States on the sidelines as Syria plunged into civil war, costing more than 30,000 lives — most of them civilians — and breeding extremism that may destabilize a half-dozen countries."

"By not securing a presence in Iraq after ending the U.S. military mission, he failed to capitalize on America’s decade-long commitment to that nation, and his ambivalence regarding Afghanistan — sending more troops, but with artificial deadlines and no clear commitment to their success — promises trouble in coming years."