The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by panerd

I get done posting about how big of strides the internet has made in questioning government and it has to come right after this nonsense?

SI

[Noop]

Obama is not a good president.

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

It ultimately comes down to Group X not trusting Person Y. Not trusting them to make good decisions, not trusting them to have a clue, not trusting them as far as they could throw them, not trusting entirely that they're completely human. Class envy, race, politics, ethics, morality, the size of someone's ears, the ability to pronounce nuclear, the ability to read from a teleprompter, all of it plays a role but the poll results cited here look to come down to a bottom line of trust & whether people believe there's much that's unbelievable about Person Y.

Jon is quite right on this. It matter whether you are in Group Y and Group X is attacking you. Just turn that equation around and talk about Group Y not trusting Person X. Same thing and depends and which side you are on that determines your reaction and response.

I have seen since the Reagan years that there will always be a percentage (whether 10, 12, 15, 25, whatever) that will HATE the opposition and the lead person in charge - regardless if it makes sense (or not) or if it's true/untrue or if logical/illogical. But I try to not make it personal, unlike many of the things I have seen against Reagan, Clinton, Bush2 and Obama. I don't trust Obama and his administration one bit and will always answer a poll as fully disapprove. But I wouldn't go along with making up stuff against him and make it personal.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Noop

Obama is not a good president.

This I agree with. But that doesn't make all the ridiculous crazy-talk legitimate.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Noop

Obama is not a good president.

A little early for that sort of judgment. At this point in their terms public opinion had Clinton and Reagan down as shitty and both Bush2 as brilliant and Bush1 as mediocre. At best, one of those judgments was correct.

[Grammaticus]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

The only thing that decentrailzation (which is essentially what all these people seem to be after) will lead to is more regionalism and a weakening of the US as a Global power. It's akin to when the Roman Empire started to fragment.

Damnit - at this point I really should have gone to grad school and gotten my Ph.D. in Roman History - then I could write the fascinating book I've always conceptualized in my head comparing the US to Rome.

I'm not sure what you mean here? Are you referring to the split of the eastern and western Roman empire? How do you feel that caused problems? I'm not going to say "fall" since you did not use that term. You said fragment. Although that implies fall or decline.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Man, even in the worst of the Bush years you didn't hear liberals calling him a vile son of a bitch and suggesting he had carnal knowledge of a goat.

You don't remember the Nazi/Hitler comparisons that some nutsos kept bringing up? Bush had much more vitriol hurled at him than Obama.

Obama has been called ineffective. His religious views have been called into question, but have people actually insulted him personally? I have not heard the first comment in that vein. Most comments I have heard have been, "Obama is a great speaker, but...."

[Greyroofoo]

Not to mention many liberals still believe that Bush was behind 9/11

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

You don't remember the Nazi/Hitler comparisons that some nutsos kept bringing up? Bush had much more vitriol hurled at him than Obama.

Obama has been called ineffective. His religious views have been called into question, but have people actually insulted him personally? I have not heard the first comment in that vein. Most comments I have heard have been, "Obama is a great speaker, but...."

Wait, what? Obama has never been insulted in a personal manner?

SI

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

You don't remember the Nazi/Hitler comparisons that some nutsos kept bringing up? Bush had much more vitriol hurled at him than Obama.

Obama has been called ineffective. His religious views have been called into question, but have people actually insulted him personally? I have not heard the first comment in that vein. Most comments I have heard have been, "Obama is a great speaker, but...."

How is calling someone's religious views into question not a personal insult? To me, that is one of the worst insults possible.

[sterlingice]

Or putting a Hitler mustache on him or calling him a racist or questioning where he was born or...?

SI

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

How is calling someone's religious views into question not a personal insult? To me, that is one of the worst insults possible.

They are not calling the guy a Satanist. Kennedy was villified for being a Catholic. That is insulting your religion. Saying that you are a member of a religion you are not, that's nothing.

I would also like to see the first comment where someone called him a racist. I haven't heard one.

People questioning where he was born is no worse than the crap in Florida in 2000. The whole point of that is to call his legitimacy into question. No more, no less. The heck of it is that it works. You say it enough times and people believe it.

Who has called him Hitler? Where are all the Hitler mustaces on his pictures? I haven't seen 'em.

His policies have been called into question. He's been called an empty suit. Out of touch? Sure. Regardless, my point is people have been much more mild towards him than they were towards Bush.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

They are not calling the guy a Satanist. Kennedy was villified for being a Catholic. That is insulting your religion. Saying that you are a member of a religion you are not, that's nothing.

I would also like to see the first comment where someone called him a racist. I haven't heard one.

People questioning where he was born is no worse than the crap in Florida in 2000. The whole point of that is to call his legitimacy into question. No more, no less. The heck of it is that it works. You say it enough times and people believe it.

Who has called him Hitler? Where are all the Hitler mustaces on his pictures? I haven't seen 'em.

His policies have been called into question. He's been called an empty suit. Out of touch? Sure. Regardless, my point is people have been much more mild towards him than they were towards Bush.

Bullshit.

Originally Posted by blog post, not mine

At its core, the belief that Barack Obama is a Muslim or favors Muslims is all part of sometimes subtle, sometimes brazen propaganda spreading the lie that Muslims cannot be trusted, stigmatizing them permanently. Two dark pathologies work in tandem in this effort. Hatred, based on race and religion, and a toxic, willful know-nothingism. Together, they tramp along to the drumbeat of the Rush Limbaughs, Michael Savages, Glenn Becks and their demagogic wannabes throughout the media. These political carnies cannot call the President the word they would like to use, so they hint with a venomous wink and a nod that he is other, not really American, not really one of "us," not acceptable. The "Muslim" label works effectively to that end, reinforcing tribal identity.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Wait, what? Obama has never been insulted in a personal manner?

If he hasn't, I'm clearly going to have to do a better job of prioritizing my energies.

Sigh. So many liberals, so little time.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

Who has called him Hitler? Where are all the Hitler mustaces on his pictures? I haven't seen 'em..

Just Google Obama Hitler. It's a neverending stream of this stuff. Just on the first pages of Google I find this:

Tea Party Group buys this billboard - Billboard Linking Obama, Hitler Draws Complaints - CBS News

Some Conservative writer likens Obama's rise to Hitlers and Palin praises it - Sarah Palin Jumps Aboard the 'Obama as Hitler' Train - Robert Schlesinger (usnews.com)

Limbaugh comparing the two, tons of homemade images and Youtube videos, and a slew of far-right sights making these comparisions in blogs or comments.

Now comparing a leader to Hitler seems to be the cool thing to do these days and it was done under Bush and I'm sure under Clinton, HW, and Reagan as well. But I'm not sure how you've missed all the Obama-Hitler stuff going on.

[bhlloy]

Awesome. A "your side was meaner to our president" pissing match again.

Why we can't just admit there are freaking lunatics and kooks on both sides that are easily the equal of each other, I have no idea. It's not like it takes legitimacy away from any of your viewpoints to admit.

+1 to the internet theory BTW. Before if you were genuinely crazy and angry about something, you could try and meet enough people in your local area to have a small protest about it and then it usually didn't go any further than that. What the hell else were you going to do, spend hundreds of thousands on TV or radio ad spots to spout your crazy shit? Now the internet is a way to get that message out for free and all the scum is just rising to the top. On both sides.

[Greyroofoo]

When the lefties march it's the same old thing they've been marching about for ages. It's the same old song and dance and nobody cares.

When the right-wingers march, people on the left and right chatter, and thus the news networks want to cover it. I visit a few liberal forums and recently at times it seemed as if every other thread was about Glenn Beck's little party in DC. I imagine conservative forums are the same.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I would also like to see the first comment where someone called him a racist. I haven't heard one.

Fox Host Glenn Beck: Obama Is A "Racist" (VIDEO)

You made it easy:

The group was discussing the recent Gates controversy, and Beck exclaimed that Obama has "over and over again" exposed himself as "a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture. I don't know what it is..."

When Fox's Brian Kilmeadeon pointed out that many people in Obama's administration are white, so "you can't say he doesn't like white people," Beck pressed on. "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem," Beck said. "This guy is, I believe, a racist."

Honestly, this is the way it's going to be from now on. The folks on the fringes now control both ends of the media. Righties attack lefties, lefties attack righties. I was hoping a centrist (which I honestly think Obama) to be, would at least draw power from the center.. nope. Just lets both sides have open season at the same time.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

You don't remember the Nazi/Hitler comparisons that some nutsos kept bringing up? Bush had much more vitriol hurled at him than Obama.

Obama has been called ineffective. His religious views have been called into question, but have people actually insulted him personally? I have not heard the first comment in that vein. Most comments I have heard have been, "Obama is a great speaker, but...."

You could read the comments on this page...

Because there's virtually nothing that seems beyond the pale for that vile son of a bitch.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

I imagine conservative forums are the same.

I dunno about the forums because I don't really frequent any that would qualify as conservative but among my online friends - FB folks & the like - it was barely a ripple. I think a total of 3 out of roughly 100 mentioned Beck's event in any way, before/during/after, and only 1 of them was really into it. There was so little chatter about it that I kind of assumed it flopped until I read the media coverage, crowd estimates, etc. I've seen more comments about the "education dept encourages employees to attend Sharpton rally" story.

Take that FWIW of course, entirely anecdotal, and I'm sure there are forums where it was all the rage. But it definitely wasn't something that seems to have been considered earthshaking by any means, at least not in my world.

[Noop]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

This I agree with. But that doesn't make all the ridiculous crazy-talk legitimate.

Yeah the outside parts of both parties are a little more crazy then usual.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

A little early for that sort of judgment. At this point in their terms public opinion had Clinton and Reagan down as shitty and both Bush2 as brilliant and Bush1 as mediocre. At best, one of those judgments was correct.

I hate too say this but Obama is a one term president and will likely be known as one of the worst. I honestly can not think of one thing that defines Obama other then his election. I question is leadership ability and I fear he is being run by a team of idealist.

I hope for the sake of the country he can at least get us out of this bad economy and start securing the future of my children's children.

[panerd]

I have found that the way your side is portrayed by the other side's media outlets and supporters is generally closer to the truth than what you believe or are spoon-fed by your side. (Obviously taking out the outrageous elements of both sides.) So if you are a big Obama supporter my guess is Fox News shows how the government really runs under a Democratic administration. (Back door deals, union and lawyer control, questionable leftist influence, banks over the people, military over everything) If you are a Republican supporter MSNBC shows how the government runs under a Republican administration (back door deals, NRA and big oil control, questionable religious influence, banks over the people, military over everything)

[JediKooter]

Speaking of Beck's rally:

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by panerd

I have found that the way your side is portrayed by the other side's media outlets and supporters is generally closer to the truth than what you believe or are spoon-fed by your side. (Obviously taking out the outrageous elements of both sides.) So if you are a big Obama supporter my guess is Fox News shows how the government really runs under a Democratic administration. (Back door deals, union and lawyer control, questionable leftist influence, banks over the people, military over everything) If you are a Republican supporter MSNBC shows how the government runs under a Republican administration (back door deals, NRA and big oil control, questionable religious influence, banks over the people, military over everything)

So libertarians are selfish idealists concerned with little more than how long until they can get high again?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by Noop

I hate too say this but Obama is a one term president and will likely be known as one of the worst.

I agree the frustration and disappointment. But I am still not convinced of the one term thing. If the economy improves (more or less unemployment significantly down) i do not see how he can lose. from what i hear most say the economy will improve somewhat sometime next year. Which means, if it continues, by 2012 campaign he will have a lot to gloat about.

while obama is certainly not as dramatic/intentional as reagan (the big squeeze) i think he will be able to successfully argue that he turned the economy around. which or course would be as true as saying bush caused it.

on the other hand, if there still is no recovery in 2 years i think the big choice we will face is fork or chopsticks

[panerd]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

So libertarians are selfish idealists concerned with little more than how long until they can get high again?

No doubt. It helps for people to take me off my ivory tower every once in a while. I usually will argue back and forth with them but I understand why people have problems with Libertarians. It is just silly when there are page long discussions about how "shocked" people are that the Republicans hate Obama and the Democrats didn't like Bush. Cries of racism and anti-Americanism and whatever Jon was talking about with the goat are just coping mechanisms to help them deal with why someone might have a different view than them.

[tyketime]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I agree the frustration and disappointment. But I am still not convinced of the one term thing. If the economy improves (more or less unemployment significantly down) i do not see how he can lose. from what i hear most say the economy will improve somewhat sometime next year. Which means, if it continues, by 2012 campaign he will have a lot to gloat about.

I guess it will be up to the spinmeisters (as usual). I don't think economy will recover for 5 or more years. So then it will be a game of statistics:

If you started with $100, and it is now down to $60, you've had a 40% drop.

If in the next two years your nest egg goes up to $72... well then you can be sure someone will take credit that it has gone up 20% in the past two years (neglecting the fact you are still down 28% overall).

And as for unemployment, what does "significantly down" mean?

And as long as we are still down overall, I better not hear any gloating!

[Swaggs]

Originally Posted by AENeuman

I agree the frustration and disappointment. But I am still not convinced of the one term thing. If the economy improves (more or less unemployment significantly down) i do not see how he can lose. from what i hear most say the economy will improve somewhat sometime next year. Which means, if it continues, by 2012 campaign he will have a lot to gloat about.

while obama is certainly not as dramatic/intentional as reagan (the big squeeze) i think he will be able to successfully argue that he turned the economy around. which or course would be as true as saying bush caused it.

on the other hand, if there still is no recovery in 2 years i think the big choice we will face is fork or chopsticks

I agree. I think Obama is pretty well positioned to be re-elected (unless the fork or chopsticks scenario really does come to fruition). For all his missteps, it is still all about the economy and this recession was always projected to last for a couple of years. It would have been nice if it had been cut short, but hoping for that is wishful thinking for the most part. Obama will have a solid resume to run on if (obviously a huge IF) the economy gets straightened out.

The GOP winning the house (increasingly likely) and/or senate (probably unlikely) this year probably plays in his favor, as well. If the GOP and Obama work well together and the country thrives, Obama will look good. If not, the GOP will be the party in power that wasn't able to help. I suspect the economy will rebound and both the GOP house and Obama will look better.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

are just honest reactions born of dealing those who are diametrically opposed to the majority of their interests,priorities, and beliefs.

Fixed that for you.

[DaddyTorgo]

How can Boehner, and those supporting him, claim to stand up there and be for deficit reduction when the following is their plan (disclosure - I don't know the politics of the website this is on, but apparently a fully-sourced PDF file is available via a link at the top of the article):

NDN Analysis: The Fiscal Impact of the New Boehner Economic Plan - Update 1 | NDN

The Fiscal Impact of the Boehner Plan
1.Fully Extend the Bush Tax Cuts.
Increase deficits and debt by $3.8 trillion over ten years.
2. Have the president veto the Employee Free Choice Act, a carbon tax or cap and trade, and “any other tax increases on families and small businesses” if passed during a lame-duck session of Congress.
Unable to assess impact of hypotheticals, but the provision impairs ability to address deficits and debt, including the potential loss of $624 billion in revenue over ten years from a carbon regime.
3. Health Care Agenda: Repeal the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/Repeal the provision in healthcare reform mandating that small businesses file IRS 1099 forms on purchases of over $600.
In his Cleveland speech, Boehner called for the repeal of what some call the “1099 mandate” as included in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in order to close the business tax gap. This would increase the deficits and debt by $17 billion over ten years per Congressional Budget Office estimate. However, since our last analysis, the Congressional Budget Office has released an analysis of the costs of repealing the entire Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Boehner has previously referred to repealing this legislation as his “No. 1 priority.” Doing so would add $455 billion to the deficit over the next ten years.
4. Reduce non-defense discretionary spending to 2008 levels.
In 2008, non-defense discretionary spending was approximately $522 billion. Boehner’s office has stated it wants a “hard cap” on such spending and claims a total of $340 billion in savings over ten years, but does not document such savings. Our analysis reveals that, against current policy such a hard cap would actually yield a savings of $67 billion over ten years. Most of these savings come at the end of the decade. Against the President’s budget, which includes a three year freeze on non-security discretionary spending, savings are negligible.
5. Resignations of the President’s economic team, starting with Secretary of the Treasury Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers.
The position of NEC Director is not Senate confirmed, so it is fair to estimate that it would take the Administration two weeks to fill that position. Estimating for the taxes paid on his $172,000 annual salary , two weeks without an NEC Director would save the Federal government between $5000 and $6000.
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner makes an annual salary of $191,300. Because he is Senate confirmed, it is safe to estimate that it will take two months for his confirmation. Therefore, two months without a Treasury Secretary would likely save the Federal government between $25,000 and $26,000. Therefore, these resignations amount to a fiscal impact of $30,000 - $32,000 of deficit reduction over the next two months.
Total Fiscal Impact of the Boehner Plan: Increase Deficits and Debt by roughly $4.188 trillion over ten years.

Nice. How does anyone actually vote for these hypocrites and liars?

It's not that they want to reduce spending - it's that they want to be in control of the spending. And by jacking up the deficit, make us even weaker on the international stage and more prone to just falling apart.

Seriously? Who puts these POS plans together for them?? Even the CBO has come out and told them it's going to jack the deficit (If I'm not mistaken that's a source of the budget estimates). And then they think (perhaps rightfully) that Americans are actually stuipd enough to vote for this.

Newflash - if you're going to vote Republican based on the "fiscal responsibility" you might as well just bend over and let the bankers and corporations fuck you in the ass.

[Greyroofoo]

Whenever I hear the name John Boehner I think of this clip

[Greyroofoo]

By the way NDN stands for New Democrat Network

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

How can Boehner, and those supporting him, claim to stand up there and be for deficit reduction when the following is their plan (disclosure - I don't know the politics of the website this is on, but apparently a fully-sourced PDF file is available via a link at the top of the article):

Newflash - if you're going to vote Republican based on the "fiscal responsibility" you might as well just bend over and let the bankers and corporations fuck you in the ass.

Aren't most of the politicians lawyers? I wonder what the requirements for a law degree are and if they even have any economics requirements at all. It's our fault for hiring (electing) people who are not qualified for the job. Would you hire a pizza delivery driver to be a heart surgeon? That's pretty much the equivalent of what we are doing by electing these morons. We can't expect rational policies on things like economics when they have no clue themselves. They are going to come up with policies that they think will get them re-elected. And these people aren't going to pick advisers that will question them or disagree with them, they hire their cronies.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

By the way NDN stands for New Democrat Network

Aaaah. Well anyways - the report is fully footnoted and I think the budget projections all come from the nonpartisan CBO, so that's fine by me.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Aaaah. Well anyways - the report is fully footnoted and I think the budget projections all come from the nonpartisan CBO, so that's fine by me.

Not arguing that the CBO is non-partisan, but how accurate are they?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

Not arguing that the CBO is non-partisan, but how accurate are they?

It's the Congressional Budget Office. Considering that they're a federal agency that provides economic data to Congress and has been estimating revenues and budgets for official government use since 1974...generally pretty accurate I'd say. They have a better idea than anyone else on either side, that's for certain.

Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, as a senator once famously said, but not his own facts.
In Washington, D.C., every politician, lobbyist, activist, taxi driver and barber has an opinion. But only a few institutions are trusted with the facts.
On spending, one is the Congressional Budget Office .
Known around the nation's capital as the CBO, the federal agency is in charge of telling Congress how much its legislation will cost taxpayers. But it is required by law to avoid making any policy recommendations in its reports.
That makes it something of a scorekeeper in the ongoing debate over spending in the federal budget. In fact, the process for determining how much a bill will cost is known as "scoring."

[Greyroofoo]

So you're saying I should trust it because it's a government agency?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Pretty telling poll result here regarding the discontent of the voters with Obama........

Public Policy Polling: Previewing Ohio

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

Pretty telling poll result here regarding the discontent of the voters with Obama........

Public Policy Polling: Previewing Ohio

Hey - I'm not in love with Obama at the moment, but if the alternative is to vote for a group whose great solution to the economic problems facing the country is to increase the deficit by 4 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, that pretty much makes my decision for me.

[DaddyTorgo]

What the 2010 Trustees’ Report Shows about Social Security — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

By far the most important fiscal decision that Congress will face between now and the end of 2010 is whether to extend the Bush tax cuts that are scheduled to expire at the end of the year. President Obama has proposed to let those cuts expire for Americans making over $250,000 a year. Some legislators have called for extending all of the tax cuts permanently; others have called for extending the high-income tax cuts temporarily on the grounds that they provide economic stimulus, though the Congressional Budget Office ranked this as the least effective of a large number of stimulus proposals. The revenue loss over the next 75 years just from extending the tax cuts for people making over $250,000 — the top 2 percent of Americans — would be about as large as the entire Social Security shortfall over this period (see Figure 1). Members of Congress cannot simultaneously claim that the tax cuts for people at the top are affordable while the Social Security shortfall constitutes a dire fiscal threat.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

So you're saying I should trust it because it's a government agency?

C'mon, little to what Father Torgo, erm, I mean Daddy Torgo has to say. The NDN is the truth and the light and the way. Have a little faith.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Right, we only believe the government without question when they say the scary brown people have weapons of mass destruction, right?

Only when they have a scary brown person present the evidence. Also when we give WMDs to the scary brown people in the first place.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Noop

I hate too say this but Obama is a one term president and will likely be known as one of the worst.

To be considered the worst, I feel like you have to do something bad. Not "Fox News the world will come to an end if a minor health bill is signed bad", but something that changes the course of American history. I think he'd be remembered for his race and the campaign, but his Presidency will just be looked at as going down the same path we have been for decades. He didn't steer us one way or the other.

Guys like Pierce and Buchanan helped set the stage for the Civil War. Andrew Johnson dragged on the racial divide after the Civil War. Hoover helped make the depression last much longer and become more severe.

A lot of people thought Bush was one of the worst. He certainly has a bad resume with the wars, Katrina, reckless spending, and leaving as we entered one of the worst economies in nearly a Century. But still, his mistakes were scrutinized much more in an era of cable news. I don't even see how he could be in the same league as some of the others.

The thing is, the country is in pretty decent shape when we look back at some of our worst times. I don't see people lining up down the street for government cheese, just whatever new Apple product is being released.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Dutch

C'mon, little to what Father Torgo, erm, I mean Daddy Torgo has to say. The NDN is the truth and the light and the way. Have a little faith.

The numbers are all verified by the CBO Dutch, so whatever.

Unless the new conservative fear-mongering tactic is "the nonpartisan CBO is part of some giant liberal conspiracy against the American people to hide the economic miracle-treatment that we've devised where cutting taxes on rich people will result in the deficit going down."

In which case - I have a lovely suspension bridge in the Sahara I'd like to sell you.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

[molson]

I think the possibility of an Obama term is simple.

-Economy continues to recover (however slowly): 2nd Term
-Double-Dip recession in the next few quarters (last economic survey I saw put the odds of this at about 30%): New president.

That weird ugly guy from the 90s was right about the economy.

If this was a different, less partisan time, an upstart Democrat might have a chance to really make some waves and attack Obama and go for the nomination, but that can't happen anymore. Which is too bad, because if that was even POSSIBLE, I think we'd see a different Obama. When his competition is Newt and Palin - you pretty much need to just play not to lose.

If I didn't read the paper, I wouldn't at all the know the difference between different presidents being in power. I was just thinking about that the other day. Don't get me wrong, there's important, world-changing stuff in the newspapers that doesn't involve me - but I wonder what % of Americans' lives are actually impacted either way.

[JPhillips]

Recent research has really clarified the link between economic performance and reelection. I don't think you can say campaigning doesn't matter at all, but it doesn't matter that much.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

Hey - I'm not in love with Obama at the moment, but if the alternative is to vote for a group whose great solution to the economic problems facing the country is to increase the deficit by 4 trillion dollars over the next 10 years, that pretty much makes my decision for me.

Ditto. And I bet you millions will make the same calculus in 2012. Especially if the Republicans elect a loony as they seem they will.

I think Obama is a 2 term President and I think he'll win by a decent amount (not as much as 2008, but not Bush v. Gore either).

[sterlingice]

I think it's pretty simple math- if unemployment is below 8%, Obama wins, short of some crazy scandal (and not some Fox manufactured crap) with, what's the cliche- a dead woman or live boy? If it's higher than that, he's going to have issues.

SI

[flere-imsaho]

While the author may have an axe to grind, this is by far one of the more fulfilling (well, if you're a Palin-hater), hit pieces on Palin in recent memory: Sarah Palin: The Sound and the Fury | Politics | Vanity Fair