And this is from his hometown paper the Chicago Trib "When Ronald Reagan ran for re-election in 1984, his slogan was "Morning in America." For Barack Obama, it's more like midnight in a coal mine. The sputtering economy is about to stall out, unemployment is high, his jobs program may not pass, foreclosures are rampant and the poor guy can't even sneak a cigarette. His approval rating is at its lowest level ever. His party just lost two House elections — one in a district it had held for 88 consecutive years. He's staked his future on the jobs bill, which most Americans don't think would work. The vultures are starting to circle. Former White House spokesman Bill Burton said that unless Obama can rally the Democratic base, which is disillusioned with him, "it's going to be impossible for the president to win." Democratic consultant James Carville had one word of advice for Obama: "Panic." But there is good news for the president. I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election. He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he's willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013. That might be the sensible thing to do. It's hard for a president to win a second term when unemployment is painfully high. If the economy were in full rebound mode, Obama might win anyway. But it isn't, and it may fall into a second recession — in which case voters will decide his middle name is Hoover, not Hussein. Why not leave of his own volition instead of waiting to get the ax? It's not as though there is much enticement to stick around. Presidents who win re-election have generally found, wrote John Fortier and Norman Ornstein in their 2007 book, "Second-Term Blues," that "their second terms did not measure up to their first." Presidential encores are generally a bog of frustration, exhaustion and embarrassment. They are famous for lowest moments rather than finest hours. Richard Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace, Reagan had the Iran-Contra scandal, and Bill Clinton made the unfortunate acquaintance of Monica Lewinsky. Administration officials get weary after four years and leave in droves. The junior varsity has to be put into service. New ideas are hard to come by. Someone said that when a man is smitten with a beautiful woman, he should remember that somebody somewhere is tired of her. Likewise, the most inspiring presidents get stale after years of constant overexposure. In the event he wins, Obama could find himself with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress. Then he will long for the good old days of 2011. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner will bound out of bed each day eager to make his life miserable. Besides avoiding this indignity, Obama might do his party a big favor. In hard times, voters have a powerful urge to punish incumbents. He could slake this thirst by stepping aside and taking the blame. Then someone less reviled could replace him at the top of the ticket. The ideal candidate would be a figure of stature and ability who can't be blamed for the economy. That person should not be a member of Congress, since it has an even lower approval rating than the president's. It would also help to be conspicuously associated with prosperity. Given Obama's reputation for being too quick to compromise, a reputation for toughness would be an asset. As it happens, there is someone at hand who fits this description: Hillary Clinton. Her husband presided over a boom, she's been busy deposing dictators instead of destroying jobs, and she's never been accused of being a pushover. Not only that, Clinton is a savvy political veteran who already knows how to run for president. Oh, and a new Bloomberg poll finds her to be merely "the most popular national political figure in America today." If he runs for re-election, Obama may find that the only fate worse than losing is winning. But he might arrange things so it will be Clinton who has the unenviable job of reviving the economy, balancing the budget, getting out of Afghanistan and grappling with House Majority Leader Eric Cantor. Obama, meanwhile, will be on a Hawaiian beach, wrestling the cap off a Corona." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/ct-oped-0918-chapman-20110918,0,5039308.story
Good advice from the Trib... but haven't we already established Hillary WON'T RUN and there's really nobody else the Dems can turn to? They've boxed themselves into a corner with Barack... no way out but the way they came in... riding on Obama's coattails.
That's a good article. The only thing, though, Obama is too arrogant to hand the reins over, to anybody.
Do you realize how stupid this sounds? Quitting your job right before your performance review (what an election is in a nutshell) is just retarded.
I realize how arrogant your post is, which doesn't surprise me. Keep on believing his election is in a nutshell, too.
That is far from certainty. I still think he will win. Most political analysts will probably tell you the same thing.
Yes, I did mis-read what you had in parenthisis....I didn't miss the tone and arrogance calling me stupid. What else?
LOL...right, whatever. Back to the OP...I still don't see him winning again, or IF he were given a choice, he would not hand the reins over. He's too into himself and believes himself to be un-stoppable, no matter what the polls are saying.
No it's not and when you lose you liberal hometown paper's support you better start reevaluating your position. People aren't falling for his class warfare anymore. We tried that it didn't work.
Presidents don't willingly just give up very often. So Obama is pretty much like the vast majority of Presidents. If he's so into himself, so are all the rest. I guess you can see the future. Or you're just foolish. That's a moronic talking point without one iota of intelligence behind it.
The future? That is a current article I posted, he's losing the support of his hometown paper, a MAJOR US paper, if you don't understang the implications of that then your invective applies to you more than me. And that is an ignorant statement concerning Obama's political strategy, one that will fail this time.
Just think... if the Dems would've been smart enough to nominate Hillary in '08, with Obama as her running mate... their party might be looking at a 16 yr dynasty. Instead of a one-term wonder. Too bad they went for all flash & no substance. They deserve to lose in Nov '12. Any party that brings such an incompetent candidate to the table deserves to be limited to one term in office.
I saw her interviewed just like week and she basically said, "Not NO, but HELL NO." Hard to say what she'd do if the DNC came to her on bended knees, but it's pretty obvious she's not gonna voluntarily throw her hat in the ring with Barack. She's really distanced herself from him and seems to really enjoy her job. Can't see her changing her mind... and like I said, the Dems have got NOBODY else.
There was a time not so long ago when TheOne could be 'excused' (by those who mistakenly supported him) due to inexperience and naivety. In short, an amateur with thug tendencies. No longer. The more news that comes out, the more crooked and unethical he appears. That might be acceptable in Chicago or in Illinois, in general but it doesn't fly well with the greater public. Especially when you run for office claiming to "reform" those kind of politics and then it comes out that you have been doing the exact things. There are now too many questionable actions not to require a special prosecutor. It's a given that Holder can't be trusted to investigate: he's probably neck deep in this as well.
"Class warfare" is the cry of those no longer able to defend rising inequality, collapsing infrastructure, a tax system full of loopholes that result in the rich paying a significant portion less than what's on paper, and rising debt that can apparently only be dealt with by cutting NPR and programs aimed at the poor and pregnant women.
If there are enough of these kinds of Editorials from liberal newspapers and other Democrat officials expressing this kind of sentiment, I think it's certainly possible Obama would just cash it in saying, "I've got better things to do," paving the way for Hillary. Hillary probably would get Democrat snd libs going again and for them there would be an excitement that is not there right now. I'm hoping Obama's arrogance will rule the day and he'll run again.
The economy WAS in a death dive straight into the ground. The fact that it is still around to "sputter" is a cleat sign of vast improvement. And yet the Right wants to gear up and go back to apply MORE of the same BS that nosed us into the ground!
Liberals vow to challenge Obama in Democratic primaries President Obamas smooth path to the Democratic nomination may have gotten rockier Monday, after a group of liberal leaders, including former presidential candidate Ralph Nader, announced plans to challenge the incumbent in primaries next year. The group said the goal is to offer up a handful of candidates from various fields and areas where the president either has failed to stake out a progressive position or where he has drifted toward the corporatist right. Without debates by challengers inside the Democratic Partys presidential primaries, the liberal/majoritarian agenda will be muted and ignored, Mr. Nader said in a news release. The one-man Democratic primaries will be dull, repetitive, and draining of both voter enthusiasm and real bright lines between the two parties that excite voters. In search of candidates, Mr. Nader and the others sent out a letter, endorsed by 45 distinguished leaders,to elected officials, civic leaders, academics and members of the progressive community who specialize among other things in labor, poverty, military and foreign policy. The list, they said, also includes progressive Democrats who have held national and state office and have fought for progressive reforms. We need to put strong Democratic pressure on President Obama in the name of poor and working people, said Cornel West, author and professor at Princeton University who has been highly critical of Mr. Obamas tenure since helping him get elected in 2008. His administration has tilted too much toward Wall Street, we need policies that empower Main Street. Mr. Nader and Mr. West are joined by Christ Townsend, of the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America, and Brent Blackwelder, president emeritus of Friends of the Earth. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/19/liberals-vow-challenge-obama-democratic-primaries/
The lowest one can earn is $0 the highest is unlimited. That means the "inequality" will always grow. But tell me if everything was "equal" how would that manifest itself? Our infrastructure is not collapsing and repair and maintenance would be much better were it not government running it but we have to live with that. I hope you support the Fair Tax or the Flat Tax if loopholes are you pet peeves else support the Republicans who DO want to eliminate them. But the fact remains, as fully evidence by Obama's speech today all the Democrats have is class warfare. Do you really fall for that phony rhetoric?
