The most popular politician in America!

[DanOregon]

Funny thing about Bill Clinton and Obama, they both managed to lose the House in their first two years after having Dem control of Congress and the White House, Clinton also lost the Senate.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I think most presidents see a shift in power in the house and senate two years after they're elected.

Clinton had it in 1994. Bush had it in his second term. Obama, obviously had it.

 

[suburbia]

I think most presidents see a shift in power in the house and senate two years after they're elected.

Clinton had it in 1994. Bush had it in his second term. Obama, obviously had it.

It's a consequence of neither party being able to control itself upon getting full power. Yet neither side ever manages to remember the lesson the next time they get back in power.

 

[Stoney]

Does anyone really think the GOP would have caved in to Hillary? They'd use it as fuel to ramp up the outrage and partisanship.

But, you know, that doesn't matter so much IF you're full court pressing your agenda during a time period when you firmly control both the House and Senate, the other side's at its all time low popularity wise, and you have vast popular support--as was the case when Obama took office. In that situation, you should be able to get your shirt done even if the opposition won't cooperate--and they're the ones that pay the political price if overly obstinate about trying to impede that progress.

If rolling back the Bush tax cuts for the rich had been Obama's highest non-negotiable priority from Day 1 (as he plainly suggested during his campaign) he absolutely could've gotten it done during those first two years when he was holding all the political cards. But instead he tried to make nice at first thinking he could do it later. So he ends up waiting until after the rise of the Tea Party movement and after the 2010 mid-terms neutered him of his political muscle. An inexcusable miscalculation. If he loses next year, failure to get that rollback done in his first two years will likely be remembered as his biggest blunder.

I get the impression Obama honestly thought he could alter the political climate and foster some spirit of cooperation and compromise with Republicans before attacking some of the more contested parts of his agenda. It represents a fatally naive view of Washington that I'm quite sure Hillary moved beyond years ago.

I still support Obama, but I'll cop to now wondering if him over Hillary wasn't a collective heart over head choice by democrats. Was an inexperienced first-term senator who'd only been in Washington for about 3 years really ready to take on the Republican establishment in this political climate? Especially when you're trying to pound through as many changes from the status quo as democrat voters were demanding. In retrospect, that might've been a job better suited for the been-through-all-the-wars ballbuster.

 

[Greenhorn]

I don't belong to a political party and never took part in a primary. I always found the Clintons less than admirable so I was glad Obama won the nomination. I supported him over McCain because I have no faith in the Republican party. I certainly did not think Obama would reform Washington, enact the entire progressive agenda or send every right-wing politician down to defeat. You really only have a binary choice for president. And that is more than what I had in my old conservative congressional district where the same old GOPer ran unopposed every year.

 

[YGBFKM]

Alma, what are the legendary forces aligned against your dog?

 

[HejiraHenry]

Anyone who doesn't think Clinton wouldn't have been demonized the way Obama has been seems to have slept through the entire 90s.

I'm hardly thrilled with the President, but I can't name one thing that she would have done that he failed to do.

She'd pish standing up, I bet.

 

[I Should Coco]

Clinton has repeatedly said that Secretary of State will be her last public office. She'll also be 68 in 2016. Taking a pol at his/her word is dangerous, I know, but she's been emphatic about it.
And should Obama lose next year, hardly a wild assumption, my prediction is the 2016 Democratic nominee will be far to the left of the current party establishment -- therefore, likely to be someone off our radar in 2011.

I hope you're right.

After Obama's latest cave in to business, on the EPA Clean Air Act rule, the MoveOn.org guy wondered allowed why any environmentalist would vote for Obama in 2012.

He had a great point.

Because what's the alternative? Voting for Nader again? I just don't get the thinking that because my guy didn't do exactly what I wanted, I'm going to take my ball and go home. Hey, MoveOn guy, you know what people sitting at home got us in 2010? A Tea Party sweep. At least there is possibility of Obama taking your calls. I don't think President Perry is going to worry about your interests, douchebag.

(snip)

Back to the MoveOn guy -- you want Obama to be your friend? You want something done? Then quite bitching and spend your ample money on a GOTV effort not only for Obama, but for every Democrat, as left-wing as possible, as you can on every level of government. If you want to send Obama a message, don't stay home, lefties. Show up. Otherwise, the message will be sent for you. And you're not going to like what it says.

I understand what you're trying to say, Bob, but respectfully disagree.

Full disclosure: I did vote for Nader in 2000, and passed petitions to put him on the ballot in Michigan. I've voted Green Party the past two presidential elections (did NOT vote for Obama after he voted for the Wall Street bailout).

Throwing away my vote? No. Voting for people who campaign on proposals I agree with? Yes.

Gore lost in 2000 -- and the Democrats lost control of the House in 2010 -- because they abandoned their core constituents. Gore backpedaled on tougher fuel standards for autos; Obama and the House Dems settled for a half-assed health care "reform" plan that doesn't address the underlying problems of the current system.

Liberals, progressives, Green Partiers, etc., noticed and voted accordingly. That's why we have elections.

Republicans want the right wing vote, so they act accordingly in office. Democrats could learn something from that.

 

[SpeedTchr]

The only thing I can think that might not have happened would be the Tea Party ... a movement that coalesces largely around the fact that the president is black.

GFYA

 

[old_tony]

Anyone who doesn't think Clinton wouldn't have been demonized the way Obama has been seems to have slept through the entire 90s.

I'm hardly thrilled with the President, but I can't name one thing that she would have done that he failed to do.

This. So thoroughly this.

If anything, the GOP would have been more poisonous than ever with HRC as president because they wouldn't have underestimated her.

The only thing I can think that might not have happened would be the Tea Party ... a movement that coalesces largely around the fact that the president is black.

It couldn't possibly be that they're against policies that have been disastrous. No, siree. Couldn't possibly be that. :

Got news for you: This guy's skin color has nothing to do with why he's the worst president in U.S. history. It's the red that bothers people, not the black.

 

[Baron Scicluna]

Anyone who doesn't think Clinton wouldn't have been demonized the way Obama has been seems to have slept through the entire 90s.

I'm hardly thrilled with the President, but I can't name one thing that she would have done that he failed to do.

This. So thoroughly this.

If anything, the GOP would have been more poisonous than ever with HRC as president because they wouldn't have underestimated her.

The only thing I can think that might not have happened would be the Tea Party ... a movement that coalesces largely around the fact that the president is black.

It couldn't possibly be that they're against policies that have been disastrous. No, siree. Couldn't possibly be that. :

Got news for you: This guy's skin color has nothing to do with why he's the worst president in U.S. history. It's the red that bothers people, not the black.

Then where were they for the eight years that Bush was president? Or when Reagan ran up huge deficits? There was no Tea Party then.

All of a sudden now, the deficits are too high. Well, where were they when Cheney said, "Deficits don't matter?"

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Prediction: When the next Republican President doubles the deficit in an attempt to deal with unemployment (which could be as soon as 2013), you won't hear a peep about it from Republicans of any kind. They're a tribe, not a political party. It's a waste of pixels to use logic on 'em.