The end of the road for Barack Obama?

[houndawg]

What do you know about the media? You get 99% of your news from this site and your email inbox.

lol that's great

Post of the week.

[Benne]

I'm not even sure Obama's got enough cred right now to get the Donkey nom in '12. Looks to me like one of the two available Clintons is gonna run away with it.

Are you retarded? Bill can't run for President again. Chelsea is too young. Who are you talking about?

George? I'm okay with that.

[SuperHornet]

Have you forgotten about Hillary?

Chelsea may be too young for 2012, but we'll be hearing from her very soon. I'm afraid that the Clintons will be Kennedy redux.

[GannonFan]

Still a long way to go. He's an incumbent, and they are very, very difficult to beat. And the economy, even if he does nothing, should be in much better shape in 2-3 years than it is now and like Presidents before him, he can claim to have fixed it even if he didn't have a thing to do with it. And the Republicans would actually need to come up with a decent candidate that could beat him - Palin ain't doing it, and while Romney may be the most likely right now I don't think he'd get it done either. If Obama does continue to falter like he has in his first year, I think the other posters are right - Clinton in 2012 isn't that far fetched of an idea. But she only gets into the race if Obama starts to crumble like LBJ or Carter did, and that won't be a very good thing for the country if Obama fails that badly.

[native]

Still a long way to go. He's an incumbent, and they are very, very difficult to beat. And the economy, even if he does nothing, should be in much better shape in 2-3 years than it is now and like Presidents before him, he can claim to have fixed it even if he didn't have a thing to do with it. And the Republicans would actually need to come up with a decent candidate that could beat him - Palin ain't doing it, and while Romney may be the most likely right now I don't think he'd get it done either. If Obama does continue to falter like he has in his first year, I think the other posters are right - Clinton in 2012 isn't that far fetched of an idea. But she only gets into the race if Obama starts to crumble like LBJ or Carter did, and that won't be a very good thing for the country if Obama fails that badly.

Although Obama has time to recover, he is already failing worse than either Johnson or Carter, and it is already a very bad thing for the country.

So far, 2012 is shaping up as much like 1968 as 1980. He has already set up a civil war between his base of extremist leftists and the moderate Democrat middle, and he has made so many mistakes that any direction he chooses just pours more fuel on the fire of civil discontent.

Thus, the stage is set for an internal Democrat challenger in 2012, even if they know it will destroy short term Democrat electoral chances, because both committed leftists and centrists will conclude that they must fight for their own values to be able to prevail longer term in future contests.

Many of the Tea Party activists feel the same way, that they must stop obeying the Republican 11th Commandment (to speak no ill of a fellow Republican), and fight for their values in order to save their party, long term.

Regarding Romney, he would probably be a weak and ineffective President with a Democrat Congress, but an effective moderating influence on an activist Republican Congress.

[houndawg]

Still a long way to go. He's an incumbent, and they are very, very difficult to beat. And the economy, even if he does nothing, should be in much better shape in 2-3 years than it is now and like Presidents before him, he can claim to have fixed it even if he didn't have a thing to do with it. And the Republicans would actually need to come up with a decent candidate that could beat him - Palin ain't doing it, and while Romney may be the most likely right now I don't think he'd get it done either. If Obama does continue to falter like he has in his first year, I think the other posters are right - Clinton in 2012 isn't that far fetched of an idea. But she only gets into the race if Obama starts to crumble like LBJ or Carter did, and that won't be a very good thing for the country if Obama fails that badly.

Although Obama has time to recover, he is already failing worse than either Johnson or Carter, and it is already a very bad thing for the country.

So far, 2012 is shaping up as much like 1968 as 1980. He has already set up a civil war between his base of extremist leftists and the moderate Democrat middle, and he has made so many mistakes that any direction he chooses just pours more fuel on the fire of civil discontent.

Thus, the stage is set for an internal Democrat challenger in 2012, even if they know it will destroy short term Democrat electoral chances, because both committed leftists and centrists will conclude that they must fight for their own values to be able to prevail longer term in future contests.

Many of the Tea Party activists feel the same way, that they must stop obeying the Republican 11th Commandment (to speak no ill of a fellow Republican), and fight for their values in order to save their party, long term.

Regarding Romney, he would probably be a weak and ineffective President with a Democrat Congress, but an effective moderating influence on an activist Republican Congress.

The Republican's problem is that they care nothing for the country and have nothing for policy except doing whatever is bad for Obama. They need more than that.

[native]

Although Obama has time to recover, he is already failing worse than either Johnson or Carter, and it is already a very bad thing for the country.

So far, 2012 is shaping up as much like 1968 as 1980. He has already set up a civil war between his base of extremist leftists and the moderate Democrat middle, and he has made so many mistakes that any direction he chooses just pours more fuel on the fire of civil discontent.

Thus, the stage is set for an internal Democrat challenger in 2012, even if they know it will destroy short term Democrat electoral chances, because both committed leftists and centrists will conclude that they must fight for their own values to be able to prevail longer term in future contests.

Many of the Tea Party activists feel the same way, that they must stop obeying the Republican 11th Commandment (to speak no ill of a fellow Republican), and fight for their values in order to save their party, long term.

Regarding Romney, he would probably be a weak and ineffective President with a Democrat Congress, but an effective moderating influence on an activist Republican Congress.

The Republican's problem is that they care nothing for the country and have nothing for policy except doing whatever is bad for Obama. They need more than that.

Your "analysis" would be damning if it were accurate, but it is not.

[Skjellyfetti]

Y'all must have been freaking out during Reagan's first couple of years in office.

[native]

Y'all must have been freaking out during Reagan's first couple of years in office.

Reagan had cocktails with Tip O'Neill.

[OL FU]

Y'all must have been freaking out during Reagan's first couple of years in office.

No, the difference was there was change. not just talk of it. Volcker jack up the fed funds rate to get rid of inflation and tax cuts were in place to stimulate the economy. whether people thought it was good or not, changes were made.

So far only talk of changes. I personally think Obama will get healthcare reform through even if he has to hand the house to the republicans to do it. Unfortunately for him, the goodies of healthcare don't really kick in for a few years so the argument that the healthcare bill will strengthen democrats positions in 2012 probably isn't the case.

His hope is the employment situation turning around. I think it will and things will not look as bad in 2012. but only time will tell.

[GannonFan]

Although Obama has time to recover, he is already failing worse than either Johnson or Carter, and it is already a very bad thing for the country.

So far, 2012 is shaping up as much like 1968 as 1980. He has already set up a civil war between his base of extremist leftists and the moderate Democrat middle, and he has made so many mistakes that any direction he chooses just pours more fuel on the fire of civil discontent.

Thus, the stage is set for an internal Democrat challenger in 2012, even if they know it will destroy short term Democrat electoral chances, because both committed leftists and centrists will conclude that they must fight for their own values to be able to prevail longer term in future contests.

Many of the Tea Party activists feel the same way, that they must stop obeying the Republican 11th Commandment (to speak no ill of a fellow Republican), and fight for their values in order to save their party, long term.

Regarding Romney, he would probably be a weak and ineffective President with a Democrat Congress, but an effective moderating influence on an activist Republican Congress.

The Republican's problem is that they care nothing for the country and have nothing for policy except doing whatever is bad for Obama. They need more than that.

I agree with native on this one, the Republicans aren't the ones that have caused Obama's missteps and his nosedive from last year. Up until last month, the Republicans had absolutely no power to stop or direct anything. The problems with the wasted and ineffective spending of the stimulus bill, along with the crazy devotion to tackling health care reform in spite of a crumbling economy, and a misguided adherence to Keynesian economics have been things Obama has done all by himself, or let his party do for him. The Republicans were, up until last month, a side show, but not of any real impact. Congress has been the Dem's province since 2006 and there's precious little to show for it, since they abdicated action for the first two years waiting for Bush to sink his party (which he did), and now we have a wasted first year of the Obama administration. Blaming the GOP for Obama's troubles is like drowning in the ocean but being real concerned about a paper cut on your pinkie.

It's odd, your critique, in that one could have said the very same thing about the Dems from '06 to '08 - they didn't want to do anything that could take the focus away from Bush and his failings. Didn't matter much to them if that hurt the country or not, as long as it resulted in electoral gains and power in '08. Certainly one of the ways that the two parties are very similar.

[andy7171]

I'm not even sure Obama's got enough cred right now to get the Donkey nom in '12. Looks to me like one of the two available Clintons is gonna run away with it.

Are you retarded? Bill can't run for President again. Chelsea is too young. Who are you talking about?

Super Hornet says something absurd, shocker. Are you new?

[AZGrizFan]

The Republican's problem is that they care nothing for the country and have nothing for policy except doing whatever is bad for Obama. They need more than that.

As opposed to the Democrats, who's only policy is doing what is bad for America.

[SuperHornet]

Clinton in 2012 isn't that far fetched of an idea.

Super Hornet says something absurd, shocker. Are you new?

So any SH-statement is absurd, even when someone else WITH WHOM I HAVE DISAGREED IN THE PAST semi-agrees with it?!?

You're cr@zy, Andy. Just cr@zy.

[Skjellyfetti]

You said two Clintons. Still waiting on the second.

[SuperHornet]

You said two Clintons. Still waiting on the second.

Hillary now, Chelsea later. We're going to get a total of THREE (counting Bill's trashy admin) before we're done.

[houndawg]

The Republican's problem is that they care nothing for the country and have nothing for policy except doing whatever is bad for Obama. They need more than that.

I agree with native on this one, the Republicans aren't the ones that have caused Obama's missteps and his nosedive from last year. Up until last month, the Republicans had absolutely no power to stop or direct anything. The problems with the wasted and ineffective spending of the stimulus bill, along with the crazy devotion to tackling health care reform in spite of a crumbling economy, and a misguided adherence to Keynesian economics have been things Obama has done all by himself, or let his party do for him. The Republicans were, up until last month, a side show, but not of any real impact. Congress has been the Dem's province since 2006 and there's precious little to show for it, since they abdicated action for the first two years waiting for Bush to sink his party (which he did), and now we have a wasted first year of the Obama administration. Blaming the GOP for Obama's troubles is like drowning in the ocean but being real concerned about a paper cut on your pinkie.

It's odd, your critique, in that one could have said the very same thing about the Dems from '06 to '08 - they didn't want to do anything that could take the focus away from Bush and his failings. Didn't matter much to them if that hurt the country or not, as long as it resulted in electoral gains and power in '08. Certainly one of the ways that the two parties are very similar.

You missed my point GF, I'm not saying that the Democrats aren't fcvking up, I'm saying that the Republicans aren't exploiting it like they could and like they want to because the Republicans don't yet realize they need to have more than "no" this time. Sooner or later they're going to have to articulate a position that isn't more of the same drivel that got us here. So far they got nothing.

[native]

I agree with native on this one, the Republicans aren't the ones that have caused Obama's missteps and his nosedive from last year. Up until last month, the Republicans had absolutely no power to stop or direct anything. The problems with the wasted and ineffective spending of the stimulus bill, along with the crazy devotion to tackling health care reform in spite of a crumbling economy, and a misguided adherence to Keynesian economics have been things Obama has done all by himself, or let his party do for him. The Republicans were, up until last month, a side show, but not of any real impact. Congress has been the Dem's province since 2006 and there's precious little to show for it, since they abdicated action for the first two years waiting for Bush to sink his party (which he did), and now we have a wasted first year of the Obama administration. Blaming the GOP for Obama's troubles is like drowning in the ocean but being real concerned about a paper cut on your pinkie.

It's odd, your critique, in that one could have said the very same thing about the Dems from '06 to '08 - they didn't want to do anything that could take the focus away from Bush and his failings. Didn't matter much to them if that hurt the country or not, as long as it resulted in electoral gains and power in '08. Certainly one of the ways that the two parties are very similar.

You missed my point GF, I'm not saying that the Democrats aren't fcvking up, I'm saying that the Republicans aren't exploiting it like they could and like they want to because the Republicans don't yet realize they need to have more than "no" this time. Sooner or later they're going to have to articulate a position that isn't more of the same drivel that got us here. So far they got nothing.

Man, you are three steps behind, dawg! Have you not listened to Representative Paul Ryan or Senator Tom Coburn, just for a start???

[AZGrizFan]

You missed my point GF, I'm not saying that the Democrats aren't fcvking up, I'm saying that the Republicans aren't exploiting it like they could and like they want to because the Republicans don't yet realize they need to have more than "no" this time. Sooner or later they're going to have to articulate a position that isn't more of the same drivel that got us here. So far they got nothing.

You didn't seem apalled about the EXACT SAME SCENARIO (with the roles reversed) from 2000-2008....

Democrats ran on nothing more than "I'm not Bush".

[D1B]

You missed my point GF, I'm not saying that the Democrats aren't fcvking up, I'm saying that the Republicans aren't exploiting it like they could and like they want to because the Republicans don't yet realize they need to have more than "no" this time. Sooner or later they're going to have to articulate a position that isn't more of the same drivel that got us here. So far they got nothing.

You didn't seem apalled about the EXACT SAME SCENARIO (with the roles reversed) from 2000-2008....

Democrats ran on nothing more than "I'm not Bush".

So what? Lets move forward and elect an independent or expect more from both parties.

[houndawg]

You missed my point GF, I'm not saying that the Democrats aren't fcvking up, I'm saying that the Republicans aren't exploiting it like they could and like they want to because the Republicans don't yet realize they need to have more than "no" this time. Sooner or later they're going to have to articulate a position that isn't more of the same drivel that got us here. So far they got nothing.

You didn't seem apalled about the EXACT SAME SCENARIO (with the roles reversed) from 2000-2008....

Democrats ran on nothing more than "I'm not Bush".

I wasn't appalled then and I'm not appalled now. Business as usual.

[BDKJMU]

Eh, things aren't falling apart that quickly. He's still hovering around 50% approval ratings... where he has been for 6 MONTHS. Granted, he hasn't been able to get anything significant accomplished legislatively... but, he's still got a little less than 3 years. He'll be fine.

Obama has been hovering below 50% for several months.

[BDKJMU]

You missed my point GF, I'm not saying that the Democrats aren't fcvking up, I'm saying that the Republicans aren't exploiting it like they could and like they want to because the Republicans don't yet realize they need to have more than "no" this time. Sooner or later they're going to have to articulate a position that isn't more of the same drivel that got us here. So far they got nothing.

Man, you are three steps behind, dawg! Have you not listened to Representative Paul Ryan or Senator Tom Coburn, just for a start???

Exactly. The Republicans have put forth alternatives to every major piece of Democrat legislation, but have mostly been ignored. Whether someone think the alternatives are good, bad, or in between, anyone who says that the Republicans haven't proposed anything has their head buried in the sand.

[CID1990]

The Republican's problem is that they care nothing for the country and have nothing for policy except doing whatever is bad for Obama. They need more than that.

Your "analysis" would be damning if it were accurate, but it is not.

I lol'ed.