Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

A One-Term President?

Posted by on Tue, Jan 26, 2010 at 6:42 AM

Obama talking to Diane Sawyer:

Discuss.

 

Comments (23) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
Max Solomon 1
who, specifically, is going to beat him?
Posted by Max Solomon on January 26, 2010 at 6:56 AM
2
Just think. If Obama is a one-term president, the wonderful, wonderful Supreme Court Justices Co-Presidents Beck and Palin could appoint. (After they push through the constitutional amendment allowing co-presidents)

Posted by Save the Babies!!! on January 26, 2010 at 6:56 AM
3
1
He is going to beat himself.
Posted by Pride goeth before a Fall on January 26, 2010 at 7:20 AM
4
Obama=Carter
Posted by One and Done Wonders on January 26, 2010 at 7:21 AM
Fifty-Two-Eighty 5
Oh, Obama's plenty vulnerable alright, especially if the economy doesn't improve in the next two years. But Max is right - the Republicans still have to run someone who can garner mainstream support, and I'm not sure I can see that happening.
Posted by Fifty-Two-Eighty http://www.nra.org on January 26, 2010 at 7:22 AM
pissy mcslogbot 6
in any case, Diane Sawyer is making some cougar bait pole numbers rise. rowrrr.
Posted by pissy mcslogbot on January 26, 2010 at 7:34 AM
Cato the Younger Younger 7
@5, no one ever thought Reagan would be a serious contender for the White House and we all know what happened there.

The GOP only needs to fill a suit and if they can help keep unemployment in the double digits it's game over for Obama.
Posted by Cato the Younger Younger on January 26, 2010 at 7:35 AM
sven forkbeard 8
maybe this is a question best saved till after the state of the union address tomorrow...
Posted by sven forkbeard on January 26, 2010 at 7:37 AM
Matt from Denver 9
@ 7, people seriously underestimated Reagan's leadership abilities then, and many on the left still do when assessing his presidency. Now, W was an empty suit of the greatest magnitude, and was electable only because of his name. The GOP doesn't have anyone like that now.
Posted by Matt from Denver on January 26, 2010 at 7:43 AM
10
I think Obama is entirely correct. The reason the Coakley disaster was a disaster, and not just an electoral setback, is because a seizable chunk of the Democratic Party has the exact attitude Obama describes. They aren't in politics for ideals, or if they are that has become overshadowed by their desire to hold on to a sweet gig. The news media myopically supports this attitude. Now if Obama would get in there and browbeat the House into passing the HCR bill, he could practice what he is preaching.
Posted by Jake Blumgart on January 26, 2010 at 7:54 AM
gloomy gus 11
A perfect softball, knocked out of the park.
Posted by gloomy gus on January 26, 2010 at 8:08 AM
Rotten666 12
It the economy stupid. If Obama can pull us out of the muck he will be the golden boy, if not, via con dios mi amigo.

But.....The Republicans still have a few years to find someone to lead the party. Factor in the Teabaggers (who will probably run their own lunatic, thereby splitting the republican base) and you have a recipe for a interesting 2012 election and a possible Obama reelection.
Posted by Rotten666 on January 26, 2010 at 8:13 AM
Loveschild 13
@1 An actor maybe? the Gop has done it before and they're all bout political theater after all. The only problem for them this time is that people aren't getting on board that old train.

Fact is that they'll take anybody right now, so long as they oppose the President. Just look at the nude model from massachusetts they're embracing now. So who knows, it's a race to scrape the bottom of the barrel from now till next year as far as they're concerned.
Posted by Loveschild http://www.samaritanspurse.org/index.php/articles/responding_to_haiti_earthquake/ on January 26, 2010 at 8:19 AM
14
Romney=Regean
Posted by Romney 2012 on January 26, 2010 at 8:38 AM
zombie eyes 15
What the fuck is so effective about fracturing your party, squandering a super-majority, sending the independents running to the Tea-baggers and shitting on your base...all in a year's time?

This guy built a maze for himself and then promptly lost the blueprints.
Posted by zombie eyes on January 26, 2010 at 8:57 AM
Pol Pot 16
15 FTW
Posted by Pol Pot http://bottlefuelrag.blogspot.com on January 26, 2010 at 9:12 AM
Pol Pot 17
It's difficult to imagine a more inept politician than Obama. His ability to squander political capital is awe inspiring in a bad way.Combine that with his utter refusal to engage in battle with his enemies while constantly disrespecting his core constituency, and you have a recipe for electoral disaster in 10 and 12.
Posted by Pol Pot http://bottlefuelrag.blogspot.com on January 26, 2010 at 9:18 AM
18
You know what Pol Pot, when we engage in buffoonery, we think we are disrespecting the president, but we are actually disrespecting ourselves. That behavior only serves to devalue our national identity. You can point and spit and blame, but you have no message, talent or balls to back it up. Who the fuck are you?
Posted by rachael f. on January 26, 2010 at 10:55 AM
jimmy 19
@9 Matt, you are as incisive as usual. Reagan was a prodigious writer and oversaw all of his communiques, even those written by the likes of Peggy Noonan. He certainly knew how to control the message, odious as it was.
Posted by jimmy http://www.mybigfatlazyblog.blogspot.com on January 26, 2010 at 12:10 PM
20
This kind of libtard hand wringing is just about the only thing that gives the GOP a change. For Christ's sake, we're one year into the Obama administration and his supporters are ready to jump ship because their particular narrow focus of interests haven't IMMEDIATELY been put into place. Health care? Only the terminally naive would think this wouldn't have been a bloody dog fight. The wars? Again, only people not connected to reality would think Obama could flick a switch and end our involvement.

Who does the GOP have? Palin? She continues to dig her own grave. Brown? Flavor of the moment and a north east Republican. Not exactly what they are into down south, just ask Romney.

And where will you turn? An ideologically pure type like Nader? He's the left's Palin. Ron Paul? Riles up the true believers but give me a break.

If Obama can turn around the economy within 18 months of the election, I don't see who could beat him.
Posted by Westside forever on January 26, 2010 at 12:22 PM
The Amazing Jim 21
Voting for him got us what exactly? Him and the rest of the Dems let us down considerably. They didn't even fight. The just wen to the Republican Super-Minority with hat-in-hand and said 'please don't accuse us of being socialists.' Then they start negotiating from the compromise position and blow all the hard work we, the people who voted them into office, put into this presidency and majority.

Fuck them, until I see them grow a spine they won't get one more minute of my volunteer time or another dime from me. God help them if they want me to bother voting.
Posted by The Amazing Jim http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/profile.php?id=100000076496291&ref=profile on January 26, 2010 at 1:30 PM
Pol Pot 22
@18 - Who the fuck am I? I'm not Nate Silver, who had this to say today:

Obama--who, incidentally, is not only a former community organizer fully conversant in the history of social movements and the resistance to them, but a former constitutional law professor and student of presidential politics--needed to recognize from the jump that a supermajority-worthy personal and public campaign had to be waged on behalf of healthcare reform. A few heads should have rolled, a few prisoners taken.

Nor am I Paul Krugman, Who had this to say today:

A spending freeze? That’s the brilliant response of the Obama team to their first serious political setback?

It’s appalling on every level.

But hey, go ahead insulting anonymous posters on line rather than dealing with the sad truths confronting us. Seems to be working out well for you.
Posted by Pol Pot http://bottlefuelrag.blogspot.com on January 26, 2010 at 5:50 PM
i'm pro-science and i vote 23
wow, how fucking lame. why is he even talking this long about the possibility of being a one-termer? that's such loser talk. Imagine hearing this from a republican president. Frankly, I can't imagine that.

If he's going to be a one-termer, it's better to be a great, principled, lion of a president than a mediocre one. He is more of a mediocre one than the former. Obama, you're up against republicans who openly wish for a permanent republican majority (no more room for, or compromise with democrats anymore in America). Considering this and considering how hard-right this country would go in the hands of republicans of today, it is absolutely not OK if he wins to a republican. Find a dem successor for 2012, mr. president. I suggest Howard Dean
Posted by i'm pro-science and i vote http://home.comcast.net/~theyellowdog/joerepublican.htm on January 26, 2010 at 8:56 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy