What really needs to be done in the first 100 days

Newsweek has redefined itself from reporting the news (most of which we can get elsewhere) to doing features that add to the conversation, or explores an issue in depth. This first issue of the new format has two essays on Obama. The longer one is by Michael Bloomberg, mayor of NYC. He argues that we shouldn't rate a president by what he accomplishes in 100 days, but by the groundwork he lays in those first 100 that will position him for the 1,300 days that follow. If so, there are different questions to ask:

* Did he pick a team based on merit or politics? Bloomberg says that Obama readily hired based on merit.

* Easy victories or tough battles? Bloomberg says as mayor he chose tough battles first. His ratings dropped into the 20s for a while, but he also got a great deal of respect when he pulled them off. Tackle healthcare now? Good idea.

* Bridging the partisan divide? Forget the GOP in Congress, the state and local GOP officials appreciate the effort.

* Embracing innovation? The teaching innovation fund in the stimulus package is a good start.

* Improving confidence in America's global leadership? All that fence mending now will pay off later.

In the shorter essay, Jacob Weisberg isn't so kind. In four months of action, some character traits are emerging:

* He's good at listening to enemies and seeking compromise, but that is not a moral stance.

* He's the decider and doesn't seem good delegating that role, in spite of the numerous policy czars he has appointed.

* Obama has too many crises to micromanage them all himself (Jimmy Carter had that problem too). At the recent White House Correspondents' Association Dinner all his jokes about himself were about how great everyone else thinks he is.

* His lack of loyalty seems ruthless. Tom Daschle and other failed nominees disappeared mighty fast.

And if Obama-fatigue hasn't set in, Jon Meacham interviews the prez (with an introduction). It's a good one, though I'll only comment on one piece of it. Today (well after the interview) Obama made a speech on national security (in the national archives with the original signed Constitution as his backdrop. One place where it was broadcast was on a big screen in a right-wing think tank (I don't remember which one). Immediately after Obama's speech was over Cheney took the stage there and offered his rebuttal. This is not the first time Cheney has criticized Obama, so in the interview Obama noted that in the last few years of the Bush era Cheney's ideas had been ignored (perhaps discredited?). These ideas included never talking to enemies, unilateral action is best, national security is only about applying force, and enhanced interrogation techniques are useful. Obama muses:

And so it is interesting to me to see the vice president spending so much time trying to vindicate himself and relitigate the last eight years when, as I said, I think, actually, a lot of these arguments were settled even before we took over the White House.