President Barack Obama has now served in the Oval Office for just over 100 days as America's first African-American chief executive. Obama during these first days in office has set a blistering progressive pace in some areas while in others he has continued the American foreign and defence policy concensus, whilst making some modifications to mollify international opinion, in others.

One of Obama's first triumphs was the passage of his US$750 billion stimulus package through Congress in February, barely a month after he took his oath of office. Assisted by an emboldened Democratic majority in the House of Representatives and a near majority in the Senate, his administration steered through the most extensive Keynesian stimulus package in nearly three generations. This package will most likely be cited as one of the reasons in a year's time as to why the American economy is picking up again after so long in recession. Obama, with this package, has overturned nearly 30 years of neo-classical economic orthodoxy in the US which was begun under Ronald Reagan.

The Obama presidency has also witnessed greater federal government intervention within the economy for this reason. This new wave of interventionism began in the dying days of the Bush presidency when the banks received huge injections of taxpayer capital in order to stave off bankruptcy and financial system collapse. At the same time, the auto industry also received the first in a line of taxpayer bailouts as well. Obama has effectively continued the policy stance of his predecessor but has refused to go any further and disappointingly not heed calls for bank and auto industry nationalisation due to both his own and the American electorate's aversion to such an idea. But what should be remembered is that the Obama Administration has effectively nationalised banking, insurance and car manufacturers in all but name with his calls for executive bonuses to be paid back being heeded, for example. Therefore, through the attachment of conditions in return for financial support, the American Government has made itself an even bigger player in that much troubled economy.

Another domestic policy triumph could be in the wind too with Obama about to make another attempt, the umpteenth in almost 60 years of trying, to introduce universal health coverage into the country. Even so, this will not be state-provided universal health care as we know it in New Zealand but rather privately-provided but publicly-mandated health coverage where the millions of people who are currently un-insured or under-insured under the US's chaotic free market health system will have coverage provided to them through heavily taxpayer subsidised healthcare plans. This move will be revolutionary in the American sense in that most, if not all of the population, will be able to be covered for most of their health care costs for the first time. While a single-payer (i.e., government provided and funded) health care system would be more preferable, many Americans with their deep mistrust of statism will not (and sadly despite the great advocacy work of film maker Michael Moore in his film 'Sicko') wear a fully government funded healthcare system. Therefore, this is the most that Obama will be able to get away with in terms of reforming health care provision in America at the moment as he will not want to antagonise the private health lobby who effectively scuttled Bill and Hillary Clinton's attempts to reform the system back in the 1990s.

Speaking of Hillary Clinton, she is now Obama's Secretary of State (foreign minister) and it is the new administration's foreign policy that has captured global interest. In some respects, Obama and Clinton are continuing on with some of the Bush doctrine in terms of continuing the occupation of Afghanistan where a renewed Taliban insurgency is under way. What is more alarming is that, in line with his campaign promise, President Obama has approved the deployment of more US forces there to bolster the flagging North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) operation there. Disconcertingly, it has recently been disclosed that many of the troops being rushed to Afghanistan are going straight from Iraq where Obama and his Defence Secretary, the Bush hold over Robert Gates, are instigating a 'draw down' of US troops from.

And Iraq will continue to be an issue for the new administration, even if it is 'drawing down' troops. For all the talk about withdrawal, it not be a complete one as American and allied 'advisors' will continue to be stationed in Iraq to 'advise' Iraqi security forces in their fight against anti-American and anti-Iraqi administration forces. Furthermore, the Americans invaded Iraq in order to retain hegemony over the supply of oil from the Persian Gulf region and if anyone needs a reminder as to who the real boss will continue to be, the US now has a huge palace-like embassy in Baghdad.

The need to retain hegemony over the oilfields of the Persian Gulf is another key reason for the US's desire to engage with rather than bomb Iraq's neighbour, Iran. Although the Obama regime has changed tack from the Bush Administration's desire to rachet up tensions in order to create the conditions for a military attack on Iran's alleged nuclear weapons programme to one focused on diplomacy, the aim is still the same - that of keeping Islamic Iran in check so that it will not continue to threaten American interests in the region. While this is somewhat of a welcome change, the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has not played ball sensing that the Americans (and their Israeli allies) want to destroy their so-called nuclear programme. What Obama and his advisers are seeking to forget is that Iran is probably very fearful of Israel's nuclear weapons programme which has been clandestinely supported by the US for decades. While they argue that Ahmadinejad is wanting to threaten Israel due to his awful Holocaust denial comments, the real truth is that Iran will probably not possess the same number of nuclear warheads that Israel and the United States have combined and therefore if they do have a nuclear programme, it is likely to be one that seeks to protect the Islamic Republic from external attack and, hence, create some strategic balance within the region.

All this is not to say that Obama has made some positive moves on the international front. He has signed an executive order decreeing the closure within one year of Guantanamo Bay, the notorious detention centre set up by former president George W. Bush and an end to the use of torture as an interrogation instrument. However, on the contrary, the new administration still continues to hold so-called terrorist suspects at facilities in Afghanistan and within the Persian Gulf region and this is something he needs to act on if his new emphasis on human rights in foreign policy is to have any credibility.

Obama has also stated that he believes in the need for a nuclear free world and both he and Hillary Clinton have received reciprocal warm vibes from the Russian Government of Dmitry Medvedev to the holding of new arms reduction talks. This is what Obama hopes will cause the North Koreans and Iranians to re-think their nuclear weapons programmes but as was noted in the discussion about Iran above, these countries keep nuclear weapons because they see the bad example that the big nuclear powers have set in keeping theirs.

At the more personal level, Obama is the most elequent politician of our times and to listen him to speak, even if one is to disagree with what he is saying, is a real pleasure. Bush was a man who badly mangled the English language or as comedian and talkshow host Dave Stewart once quipped on 'The Daily Show' about Bush "he engaged in a daily struggle between himself and the English language." Gladly, this is not the case with Obama who has restored a large degree of decorum and sensibility to the Oval Office.

So, after 100 days, what's my scorecard for Obama? Although it is too early within this presidency to say as to what direction it will continue to run in, it looks like Barack Obama could be the most progressive American president since Lyndon B. Johnson. As I pointed out in a blog prior to his inauguration in January, Obama will need to avoid a drawn-out quagmire in Afghanistan as the Vietnam War sunk Johnson's hopes of creating 'The Great Society' in America. Therefore, if Obama and his advisers are to engineer a strong economic recovery and universal health care reform on the home front, then he needs to avoid foreign and military policy interventions such as the one being entered into more intensely in Afghanistan. Overall, this is the way he needs to steer the ship of American state in if he is to be re-elected in 2012.