You, Sirs, are no Barack Obama - Macleans.ca
 

You, Sirs, are no Barack Obama


 

No doubt the President’s declining approval ratings are going to hurt Democratic candidates in the mid-term elections this Fall — in which Democrats theoretically risk losing control of one or both Houses of Congress.

But Democrats have another problem: the Obama victory is proving to have been a singular historical event. A variety of off-year elections since Obama took the White House have demonstrated that in addition to losing Independent voters who have turned to Republicans, congressional Democrats are simply unable to assemble the same coalition of enthusiastic young people, first-time voters and African American voters that were so important to Obama’s victory.

The magic formula appears to be also eluding the new generation of black candidates trying to follow in Obama’s footsteps: Politico: Short Obama coattails for black pols

Turns out there can only be one First Black President.


 
Filed under:

You, Sirs, are no Barack Obama

  1. The higher they rise – the further the fall!

  2. The Dems have only themselves to blame. I know they and Obama are trying to rise above it all, but they have to accept the reality that the Republicans have mounted a no-holds-barred sustained attack on everything to do with Obama. As stupid as the narrative is ("Obamacare=Naziism," "Not born in America," "Secretly Muslim," "Wants the terrorists to win,") the Democrats have just dismissed the attacks, not realizing that they have gained traction. The sustained narrative that Obama is The Worst President Ever is ridiculous but unless the Democrats get down into the muck with them, the Republican attack is effective and working.

    • You're deluding yourself if you think those ridiculous things are the reason for Obama's drop. It has more to do with implementing policies that people don't want, such as health care reform that is opposed by 60%, the stimulus boondoggle that has done nothing for the economy, his take-over of the auto industry, 10% unemployment, and his complete and total bungling of the oil spill.

  3. Paging Christopher Lambert, there is a new 'one' in town.

  4. Contrary to your idea that Barack Obama may be a one-time wonder , I would like to suggest that this may not be so. I have read both of his books ( written before he entered politics) and all the books written about him since that time. He is the most intelligent, well read US President to come along in many years. He is focussed on what is good for the country and for people in the middle class. One of the most interesting books was written by David Plouffe , his brilliant campaign manager. His book is called "The Audacity to Win". It is a detailed account of how the campaign was managed and how Obama WON – They successfully captured the votes of many young people because the whole campaign organization was directed from the grass roots. The interesting news that I just read the other day is that David Plouffe has been recalled to lead again . So in spite of all the negativity surrounding President Obama, I think the Demcrats may just surprise a lot of folks in the upcoming 2010 fall elections.

    Juanita Rathbun
    jrathbun1@cogeco.ca
    Fonthill ON

    • What I have heard on call-in shows on the Obama-friendly media in the U.S. is that the grass roots (young people; gays; etc.) are disillusioned with Obama so far. He has not done enough, as promised, for them. More than one caller has said that they will not volunteer their time again for the next election. Plouffe may have an uphill battle this time.

  5. Obama has proven that when it comes to economics and the economy he's out of his depth in a parking lot puddle.

    Just proving, as predicted, that his sole qualification to be President of the United States, his ability to vote "present" doesn't compensate for his other talent, speech making.

    A compete an utter disaster as President..

    We shouldn't be surprised. Any man who sat through years of racist rants masquerading as Christian sermons in Rev Wright's church, any man who exposed his children to such racist rants, isn't presidential material.

    But Jimmy Carter is happy. No longer worst president ever. By a long shot.

    • No longer worst president ever. By a long shot.

      Yeah… that's Dubya's honor!

      For the record, what Dubya actually did:
      Failed to stop 9-11
      Lied to America about WMDs in Iraq in order to secure Iraqi oil
      Outed a CIA agent involved in weapons proliferation, to save their lying arses about WMDs
      Made Torture national policy
      Illegally collected and recorded the conversations of millions of Americans
      Removed the 800+ rule of Habeas corpus
      Failed to manage the Katrina situation ("Great Job Brownie")
      Cut research in science, engineering, and physical sciences to bankroll the Middle Eastern wars
      Tried to scuttle and then block corporate crime prevention legislation, after the first wave of corporate criminality (i.e. Enron, WorldCom,…etc.)
      Produced virtually no jobs during his eight years in office, that is capped by two recessions
      Caused the greatest economic meltdown in the history of the world (in terms of absolute size) through his deregulatory and laissez-faire policies
      Increased the US National Debt by 86% (i.e. $4.9 Trillion)

  6. Foreign policy disaster.

    Domestic policy disaster.

    It's not even close. He's the worst president ever, making Carter look good by comparison. Maybe vetting would have been a better idea for the media than giddy fawning, and over the top cheerleading. A radical leftist history with zero accomplishments to speak of, he can make a flowery speech (with a teleprompter that is…without one not so much).

    • Actually, I think Carter is worse, but Obama is a close second. I agree with the rest.

      • Let's not forget that Obama's got a lot of time left in his term still. While I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt, all signs point to him making more huge mistakes, not fewer.

  7. This discussion of "worst presidents" is ridiculous and historically uninformed to boot. Any discussion that leaves out James Buchanan (my selection), Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Millard Fillmore, and so on is severely limited (that the bad presidents are so concentrated in time should tell you something else about the ability of presidents to influence events – bad times produce bad presidents more than the other way around).

    That said, lets engage the worst president debate. The "Bush is the worst" argument is usually told in a contradictory fashion. It assigns the bad events at the beginning of Bush's term to Bush (the dot com crash, 9/11), while also assigning the bad events at the start of Obama's term to Bush (the 2008 financial crisis). This is simply not a consistent methodology. It is also wrongheaded because insofar as policies caused these bad events, often those policies can be attributed to other presidents altogether.

    Consider the 2009 financial crisis. The most compelling Democratic argument blames Bush for deregulation, and makes him the villain of the crisis. The problem with this is that the main acts of financial deregulation occurred when Clinton was president (though financial deregulation goes back to Carter). In 1994 congress passed Neal-Riegle, ending restrictions on interstate banking, in 1999 congress passed the Financial Services modernization act (overturning the Glass Steagall act), and in 2000 it passed the Gramm-Leach-Bliley act. Clinton signed all of these. Bush was actually a moderate regulator if you look at his record – signing the Sarbanes-Oxley act into law.

    The real case against Bush is modest (he was certainly a below average president). The decision to invade Iraq was a mistake, and that he didn't do enough to prevent the subprime mortgage crisis. He also could have done a better job of controlling spending, although Obama has made Bush look prudent by comparison.