With the deadline of January 20 looming for US President Barack Obama to bid farewell to the White House, media outlets around the world debated his legacy last week.

“While it is definitely too late, and may also be too little, there should be no doubt about the correctness of President Obama’s decision to retaliate against Russia for hacking American computers and trying to influence the 2016 presidential election,” said the New York Times in an editorial, referring to his decision to impose new sanctions on Russia. “It would have been irresponsible for him to leave office and allow President Vladimir Putin to think that he could with impunity try to undermine American democracy,” the paper said, applauding his action. “His latest response shows real teeth, chiefly in the form of sanctions on Russia’s two leading intelligence services, the FSB and GRU, including four top officers of the military intelligence unit who the White House believes ordered those attacks. Mr Obama also placed sanctions against a number of other individuals and companies, such as the Special Technology Center, which conducts signal intelligence.”

The Washington Post, by contrast, drew attention to the US decision to abstain on a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli colony-building activities, and harshly criticized Obama for it, while conceding that the action of the Israeli regime was illegal. “This reverses decades of practice by both Democratic and Republican presidents. The United States vetoed past resolutions on the grounds that they unreasonably singled out Jewish communities in occupied territories as an obstacle to Middle East peace, and that UN action was more likely to impede than advance negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians… A lame-duck White House may feel a radical change in policy is justified by Israel’s shift to the right under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; Israel’s governing coalition is supporting legislation that would legalize dozens of [colonies] that Israel itself defines as illegal, because they were constructed on private Palestinian property,” the paper said.

The Chicago Tribune looked back in time to its own coverage on the rise of Obama. “In 1996 when a young Chicago law professor and community organizer named Barack Obama ran for a seat in the Illinois Senate, this page declared that he “has potential as a political leader.” An underwhelming appraisal? Hey, it was two decades ago,” the paper said in an editorial. “Now the quick march of time leads us to consider in full the remarkable presidency of Barack Obama, and render judgment on the performance of the then-young U of C professor,” it said.

Summing up the president’s contribution, the paper noted: “Obama’s two terms in the White House were years of achievement and disappointment, a mixed record of accomplishment, misguided aims and frustrated ambition. He broke a historic barrier as the nation’s first black president and led the country with personal integrity. Nearly every action he contemplated came in the face of constant, choreographed opposition by Republicans in a nasty era of polarized politics… That’s the trick to assessing presidents: The procrastinators outperform those who rush to judgment. We won’t know for decades where Obama rests in the pantheon of US leadership because we can’t yet see his lasting influence or errors.”

The Guardian chose to highlight the stellar role played by the First Lady during her tenure at the White House and the personal side of the world’s most demanding job. “’Do what you feel in your heart is right,’ Eleanor Roosevelt once counselled, ‘for you’ll be criticised anyway.’ Her advice was general; yet it seems pertinent to Michelle Obama, the most inspirational first lady since Mrs Roosevelt herself. The admiration – even adoration – earned by both women makes it easy to forget how widely they were derided at first, facing flat-out lies… Like Mrs Roosevelt, she has proved to be not an old-fashioned helpmeet nor an ornament but a powerful advocate of equality in her own right. The Roosevelts had a close partnership yet notoriously unhappy marriage. The Obamas have been frank about marital tensions – due particularly to his political ambitions – yet their relationship remains inspiring to many,” the paper said.