Det har længe været flere højredrejedes opfattelse at Obama  vil gå over i den amerikanske historie, som deres absolut mest kriminelle præsident. Det er sager som aflytning af pressen, smugling af våben henover den mexikanske grænse og hans brug af skattevæsnet i en klapjagt på politiske modstandere. Nu ser det ud til at hans ulovligheder bliver overskygget af hans inkompetence. En god ven beskrev Obama således

Obama har altid været vant til at være “the smartest guy in the room” - dels fordi han altid har samarbejdet med ligesindede der ikke modsagde ham, dels fordi han eller hans bagmænd konstant har undergravet enhver opposition før det kom til en mano-a-mano-kamp. Han har aldrig lidt et reelt nederlag, og tror derfor at han kan klare alt. Samtidig er han netop på grund af fraværet af nederlag panisk angst for at tillægge sig et, fordi det vil ødelægge hans wannabe-uovervindelighed. Ergo tøver han før enhver større beslutning, og prøver så vidt muligt at lade være med at træffe den selv - han overdrager det til andre. Men fordi han netop ikke selv vil træffe beslutningerne eller sætte sin prestige ind på dem, så ender det hele med at være noget halvhjertet sjusk, som man intet kan bygge på.

Pressens forelskelse i fortællingen Obama ser efterhånden ud til at krakelere . Jyllands-Posten skriver i sin leder om Obama

Den mest slagkraftige forskel samles i de forskellige personligheder - hadeobjektet George W. Bush, der stadig dæmoniseres helt ud i parodien, og everybody’s darling, Barack Obama, der i den grad er ved at blive indhentet af virkeligheden. En nøgtern analyse taler til Bushs fordel.

Op til Irak-krigen havde Bush sørget for at opbygge en stor international koalition, og han havde et klart strategisk og militært mål med aktionen. Han havde forberedt den amerikanske opinion på en helt anden måde, end Obama har, og Bush havde langt mere tungtvejende grunde til at gå i krig med Irak ud fra en national sikkerhedsbetragtning, end Obama har i tilfældet Syrien. Omvendt opererede Bush så afgjort i et stærkt emotionaliseret farvand efter terrorangrebet den 11. september 2001, lige som han ikke skulle slås med dagens almindelige krigstræthed. Men at udmale en verden til forskel på Irak 2003 og Syrien 2013 er uholdbart.

Obama har rystet på hånden. Det kan en amerikansk præsident bare ikke tillade sig. Det er ikke kun ham selv, embedet og USA, men alle civiliserede kræfter, der kan stå tilbage som tabere.

New York Times skrev hvorledes denne teleprompter præsident

Confronted with evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria, President Obama now finds himself in a geopolitical box, his credibility at stake with frustratingly few good options.

The origins of this dilemma can be traced in large part to a weekend last August, when alarming intelligence reports suggested the besieged Syrian government might be preparing to use chemical weapons. After months of keeping a distance from the conflict, Mr. Obama felt he had to become more directly engaged.

In a frenetic series of meetings, the White House devised a 48-hour plan to deter President Bashar al-Assad of Syria by using intermediaries like Russia and Iran to send a message that one official summarized as, “Are you crazy?” But when Mr. Obama emerged to issue the public version of the warning, he went further than many aides realized he would.

Moving or using large quantities of chemical weapons would cross a “red line” and “change my calculus,” the president declared in response to a question at a news conference, to the surprise of some of the advisers who had attended the weekend meetings and wondered where the “red line” came from. With such an evocative phrase, the president had defined his policy in a way some advisers wish they could take back.

“The idea was to put a chill into the Assad regime without actually trapping the president into any predetermined action,” said one senior official, who, like others, discussed the internal debate on the condition of anonymity. But “what the president said in August was unscripted,” another official said. Mr. Obama was thinking of a chemical attack that would cause mass fatalities, not relatively small-scale episodes like those now being investigated, except the “nuance got completely dropped.”

Politico

If President Barack Obama isn’t happy with his press coverage in the United States, he ought to take a look at how he’s being portrayed in the Arab media.

As Obama steps up his push for congressional authorization for a strike on Syria, the president is coming under withering criticism by opinion leaders throughout the Middle East, according to a review by POLITICO and experts of Arabic- and English-language media in the region.

The Obama bashing can be categorized in several ways: Those who charge the president’s needlessly dragging his feet; conspiracy theorists who argue it’s all a plot to boost Israel; and others who claim that any military operation in Syria is motivated only by the U.S.’s interest in dominating the region.

The increasingly unfavorable coverage Obama’s receiving in the Arab world - even come from the press in countries that support U.S. intervention in Syria - is doing harm to his image and influence, as well as further diminishing how America is perceived in the region, experts say. It hits especially hard coming at a time when Obama is looking anywhere he can, at home and abroad, to find allies for his plan to punish the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

“There are (Arab) media who say the U.S. should do something and basically Obama is being a chicken shit about it,” said Lawrence Pintak, a former Middle East correspondent for CBS News and founding dean of The Edward R. Murrow College of Communication at Washington State University. “The main talking point is that al-Assad needs to be stopped, this is a humanitarian crisis the U.S. needs to move. The second set is that Obama is showing a level of cowardice in turning to Congress for political cover, that it undermines American effectiveness.”

Og Memri har samlet nogle arabiske satiretegninger af bl.a Obama