Interesting. Is Peter's judgment reasonable? Should we judge him based upon our understanding of what is good for the country, and not whether he is meeting his own standards?

Peter L. just wants to remind us that the president, like any president, is a partisan president, with a partisan's view of what is good for the whole.

Peter Lawler wanted to avoid the irony of grading him low for doing what he plainly said he would if he were elected. So my grade had to have something to do with his understanding--one affirmed by the American people--of what's best for the country. And there's no denying he and even his accomplishments are still viewed rather favorably even now. I stand by my actual comments: In foreign policy he sounds worse than he's actually been so far, in domestic policy it's plain what he's going to get done (which I said was "unfortunate"), and his social or cultural policy hasn't kicked in yet, really. It would clearly have been best had he not won, but McCain, to say the least, didn't get the job done in explaining why.