Dems worry about Obama's chances at re-election ...

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

BadgeBunny

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 5, 2007
Messages
38,213
Reaction score
16
Location
Port Charles
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8692054/Democrats-doubt-Barack-Obamas-reelection-chances.html

Really??!!?!? It would be so unkind of the Brits to get my hopes up like this for nothing ...

The article:

President Barack Obama is facing mounting doubts within his own party about his re-election prospects, with fellow Democrats beginning to ask if Hillary Clinton would have made a better president.

Mr Obama's approval rating has fallen dramatically since the killing of Osama bin Laden in early May Photo: AFP By Alex Spillius, Washington
7:56PM BST 09 Aug 2011

Mr Obama's capitulation to Republicans in the recent tussle over deficit reduction is being seen as the lowest point of his presidency and the latest in a series of blows to the liberal agenda.

Faced with the staunch opposition of the Tea Party contingent of the Republican Party, he agreed to widespread cuts in government spending without winning any revenue increases in exchange.

Finding it hard to defend his often listless and repetitive performances, Democratic strategists and commentators are privately agreeing with Republicans and comparing Mr Obama to Jimmy Carter, another Democrat who remains the post-war benchmark for a failed president.

"He is a do-gooder at heart," said Morris Reid, a Washington consultant and former Clinton official. "He thinks everyone has the same agenda to do the right thing, but other people don't have the same agenda. Their agenda is to score points and get their party re-elected.

"This is the downside of him not being terribly political like Bill Clinton was. Bill Clinton woke up every day relishing this kind of fight, and Hillary is just a tougher person. The Clintons are much more combative, they are always ready to go to Defcon 1 ('war is imminent' state)."

Mr Reid added that the president remained a formidable campaigner and fund-raiser and should not be ruled out of the fight in 2012. But he said some Democrats were feeling "buyer's remorse" for selecting the president in his epic battle with Mrs Clinton for the 2008 Democratic nomination.

"The notion everyone is talking about is 'is he Jimmy Carter or will he be a one-term president'," he said.

Gary Pearce, a Democratic strategist in North Carolina, a swing state Mr Obama is likely to struggle to retain in 2012, said: "Democrats are worried. He looks weak, he doesn't say anything that grabs you, and people are looking for some kind of magic."

He said some activists were asking "do we need someone tougher to fight the tea party?" "You see a yearning for a Bill Clinton-type approach and Hillary would reflect that. Obama is just a different political animal, he is a low-key guy," he added.

Mr Obama's approval rating has fallen dramatically since the killing of Osama bin Laden in early May, and he has failed to outline a vision for how he will improve chronic unemployment and a housing market in which one if five mortgage holders are in negative equity.

A 2012 primary challenge by Mrs Clinton is currently regarded as unlikely, but growing number of party activists and old hands are hoping that she changes her mind.

On his nightly television show, liberal host Bill Maher dismissed Mr Obama as a Republican, and asked his panel if Mrs Clinton would have made a better president.

"Yes," replied astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, an African American astrophysicist and broadcaster, adding that the Secretary of State would have been "a more effective negotiator in the halls of Congress".

An article in the New York Times by Drew Westen, a professor of psychology at Emory University and a specialist in political messaging, summarised the dismay at Mr Obama's performance and was rapidly circulated online by liberals.

"Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president," he wrote.
 

radarmonkey

Let's go Brandon
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Jul 4, 2009
Messages
2,870
Reaction score
2,559
Location
Edmond, Ok
It's true. I was traveling thru ND yesterday and the only radio station I could pick up had a liberal talk show on. I don't remember the name of the host. Anyway, they were discussing whether or not they (democrat party) would have been better off picking Hillary instead of Obama. Most of the callers thought so, a few did not. I thought it was interesting.
 

Biggsly

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Feb 28, 2010
Messages
11,471
Reaction score
1,339
Location
West OKC
"Those of us who were bewitched by his eloquence on the campaign trail chose to ignore some disquieting aspects of his biography: that he had accomplished very little before he ran for president," he wrote.

This is the key. It was not hard to find out that Obama had never done anything. The media did all it could to never ask him any hard questions. Socialist knew that he was their only hope. The chose to ignore everything.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Lone Wolf '49

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Jan 18, 2008
Messages
3,132
Reaction score
8
Location
Oklahoma City
It's true. I was traveling thru ND yesterday and the only radio station I could pick up had a liberal talk show on. I don't remember the name of the host. Anyway, they were discussing whether or not they (democrat party) would have been better off picking Hillary instead of Obama. Most of the callers thought so, a few did not. I thought it was interesting.

I find that very interesting. Have many friends up north and of course the upper Midwest especially Wis., Minn, and so forth where in the 1800's the foundation somewhat of manufacturing in the US of A was founded because of the Great Lakes and shipping. Therefore, there and the steel working areas and auto building plus the associated supplier companies the unions thrived and had a purpose. As time has passed the companies in the good years, such as the fifties and the sixties there was no competition from overseas, so the companies went to the table with the unions and gave in always. There was an article in the Atlantic Monthly many years ago addressing this fact. They gave in to every thing asked. Then the Japanese began producing quality steel at a lower price and that is just one of the aspects that began the downfall of our economy. Many other articles in most reliable publications later on suggest that the war in VN aided in the economy.

I worked for 28 years for one of those companies but it is food related and HQ'd in MN. They eventually did the same thing as the really big guys. Let me put it this way, I was in Mgmt and union had pretty much the same way, but when my youngest daughter was born in 1981 I did not have to spend a cent. I am just saying it is the fault of both sides, but tell me which side is the worst now? Well before you before you flame me for all of this, may be you should study history and not Google, again I am just sayin'. There are so many articles out there before the internet came around and before the liberal and print media became as they are. Thank you for reading my rant, I am an old fool, but have seen a lot.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom