Obama Back Trying To Trick People To Believe He Wants To Change Politics

  the empire strikes back

Appropriate, sure.Since kicking off his re-election bid with history’s least enthusiastic campaign ad, Barack Obama is back on the campaign trail again, simultaneously presenting his dead-in-the-water deficit plan to the country and trying to get people excited to give him another four years in office. The problem, of course, is that it’s hard for him to argue that orgasmic “Change” and “Hope” message again when Obama himself has seemed to give up on these things. “There have been times where I felt the same way you do,” Obama said about the disappointments of his term to a crowd of “young supporters” (though he wasn’t talking about enjoying keg stands) in Chicago. But obviously those “times” weren’t, say, when he was doling out tax cuts to the insanely rich.

But Mr. Obama implored the crowd not to lose heart, declaring that the vision of America he laid out in his fiscal speech — one in which “we are connected to one another; that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper” — would animate his campaign and drive the debate in the 2012 election.

Sly! The definition of “brothers and sisters” has changed since he used it in the last campaign. Then, it meant “Americans.” Now, it means “millionaires and the Republicans I let hold everything hostage.”

Obama also used “Yes We Can” the other night, which now is defined as “Yes I Can Decide the Situation Is Difficult and Do Things I Promised In 2008 I Wouldn’t Do.” “Change” now means “Change the Policies I Laid Out So Things Will Be Easier and I Will Get Re-Elected.” And “Hope” is “Hope I Find Some Time To Remember Why I Supposedly Wanted This Job.”

If Obama hadn’t been the candidate who had the “vision and decision-making skills” to be “anti-Iraq War,” he probably wouldn’t have won the primaries. Now, more than two years into office, we’re in more wars overseas than under Bush. And one of those, of course, is Iraq.

Will Obama still be able to trick people back into believing he wants to transform government and the country? Yeah, probably. [NYT]

Related

 
Related video

About the author

Jack Stuef is your loyal editor and a freelance satirist or something like that. He is a contributing writer for The Onion. E-mail him or whatever.

View all articles by Jack Stuef

Hola wonkerados.

To improve site performance, we did a thing. It could be up to three minutes before your comment appears. DON'T KEEP RETRYING, OKAY?

Also, if you are a new commenter, your comment may never appear. This is probably because we hate you.

130 comments

  1. Barbara_i

    Yes we can! (as soon as the richest Americans take their tax cuts, creating jobs and the wealth trickles down)

    1. DaRooster

      Needs more- TARIFFS…
      We used to make 38% of the goods we use here… now?- 11%.
      Can't have a thriving economy on that.

      1. SorosBot

        Yeah, but get our cheap clothing and plastic toys thanks to the overseas near-slave conditions productions. Do you want to have to pay more for plastic crap?

    2. Swampgas_Man

      CHANGE! — which is all I have left in my pockets after the goddamn rethugs are through.

      1. Negropolis

        I don't know; change is the first thing to fall out of one's pockets during a proper shakedown.

    1. Crank_Tango

      He NEEDS to run on that slogan to help everyone down-ticket. four more years of Obama, meh, but another two years of Boehner is just too fucking much.

      1. SorosBot

        Just lots of images from the teabagger rallies, along with footage of some of the GOP leaders' insane speeches, should do the trick.

        1. horsedreamer_1

          The GOP would decry that as "politics of personal destruction", & everybody but Maddow, Ed Schultz, & Chris Matthews (on even-numbered days) would parrot that line.

        2. GOPCrusher

          I still say, a loop of Joe Barton apologizing to Tony Heyward with "Is this the America you want?" superimposed at the bottom of the screen, would do the trick.

  2. OC_ROBOTS!!_Serf

    back on the campaign trail

    …and then be like the Republicans and stay on campaign mode throughout his next term?

    Hell Yes!

  3. BaldarTFlagass

    Well, maybe things could be a lot better, but with a little imagination you can certainly say that it could be a whole fuck of a lot worse (i.e. President McCain/VP Palin).

    1. GOPCrusher

      I for one, was looking forward to the post-apocalyptic Road Warrior type existence that would have come with a McCain/Palin Administration.

  4. freakishlywrong

    *Sigh. We are utterly demoralized. But really, who else is there? And what a horrible way to select leadership. When's the revolution?

    1. TanzbodenKoenig

      I'm thinkin next Tuesday, around 3:15 or so, that way when it peters out after we can all meet up at the bar and drink away our soul crushing misery

    1. PsycWench

      "Barry would will win in a landslide with a slogan of "US America's Least Worst Choice." "

      Fixed.

  5. V572..whatever

    Back in the days of real voting machines with levers, instead of those shitty punch-card thingies in a tray on skinny legs, you could hold your nose with one hand and vote with the other.

    And OT, can we please wean the MSM from the canard-of-the-day to the effect that 47% of the people don't pay taxes?

    Gretchen Carlson, the Fox News host, said last year “47 percent of Americans don’t pay any taxes.” John McCain and Sarah Palin both said similar things during the 2008 campaign about the bottom half of Americans.

    Ari Fleischer, the former Bush White House spokesman, once said “50 percent of the country gets benefits without paying for them.”

    Actually, they pay lots of taxes—just not lots of federal income taxes.

    Data from the Tax Foundation shows that in 2008, the average income for the bottom half of taxpayers was $15,300.

    This year the first $9,350 of income is exempt from taxes for singles and $18,700 for married couples, just slightly more than in 2008. That means millions of the poor do not make enough to owe income taxes.

    But they still pay plenty of other taxes, including federal payroll taxes. Between gas taxes, sales taxes, utility taxes, and other taxes, no one lives tax-free in America.

    When it comes to state and local taxes, the poor bear a heavier burden than the rich in all 50 states, Citizens for Tax Justice calculated from official data. In Alabama, for example, the burden on the poor is more than twice that of the top 1 percent. The one-fifth of Alabama families making less than $13,000 pay almost 11 percent of their income in state and local taxes, compared with less than 4 percent for those who make $229,000 or more.

    Read it all. Get mad. http://citypaper.com/news/let-us-count-the-ways-1

      1. SorosBot

        But we have the highest corporate income taxes in the world! (If you similarly disingenuously only look at income tax rates and not the amount of taxes actually paid).

    1. AJW@[redacted]

      I'm barely hanging on by my fingernails, yet I pay income taxes. How does the other 47% do it, and by do it I don't mean do it, ya perves…

    2. unclejeems

      Yep, half of our peeps are so poor, they don't pay no income taxes. And we are so proud . . .

      1. GOPCrusher

        But according to the Republiklans/Tea Bagger crowd, poors choose to be poor. And they do it so they can suck off the government teet.
        Assholes. (the Republiklans/Tea Baggers)

        1. CookiE_MonstA

          I remind them that being poor sucks and that people want to work but, where do you go to demand that someone hire you?

          1. anti0aquabudda

            Being poor sucks!! There is no question about it! They say that money can't buy hapiness, but when their is no food on your table and you can't pay your bills, money can't definately help to bring about some happiness!!

            I think you two completely misunderstand most conservatives viewpoint regarding the "poor". In my opinion, there are people that are poor and cannot find a job. I totally agree that our country should help them. Next, there are people that have lost their jobs, are down on their luck, (who were once middle class) and are now poor. The government has things in place to help these people get back on their feet (like college grants, welfare, etc). I also agree with these types of government programs.

            There are also people that realize that they can get along fine in life by taking welfare and government assistance without ever having to even look for a job. (I have personally known dozens of people that fall into this category) These people choose to live their lives of laziness by sucking off the so-called government "tit". Now the question is whether our government should continue to give money to these types of people?

            What say you?

          2. CookiE_MonstA

            Being poor sucks. That alone is motivation to go get a job. Problem is, no one can just go demand a good job. The number of people in your first two examples FAR outnumber the amount of people who wrack your soul with consternation. Just get over the fact that we can live with the 1 in 10 who do not deserve a hand out because the other 9 in 10 who DO deserve assistance are more important. If that is too much to deal with, as I have said before, I say you're an asshole.

          3. anti0aquabudda

            So let me get this straight, I tell you abou real world experiences i have had with people taking advantage of the system and I am labeled an "asshole"? The part that is sad is that I am not even disagreeing with you that people need assistance. I AGREE! I am not saying to take people off welfare that need it. I am not saying to tax the "poor" more, in fact, I agree that tax loop holes need to be closed so that the "rich" pay more.

            All I am saying is that we are racking up $1.6 Trillion this year and Obamas budget (as proposed a few months ago) would take us towards a national debt near $24 Trillion over the next 10 years. We need to start implementing change in this country to get rid of corporate welfare, government subsidies for everything under the sun, make welfare progams less prone to abuse, etc. We have to implement real change but all you want to do is label me an asshole for trying to get rid of abuse that I have personally seen?

  6. Texan_Bulldog

    Buck up, Wonketteers or we'll be typing President Trump next November! That should scare you enough to vote twice.

    1. KeepFnThatChicken

      If he even campaigns, I will pretty much give up right there. Everything would have been fine, were it not for an electorate that partly believes in Barry's Islam more than Barry, and, well… The Donald As Candidate. Or Grandmother Flash Sarah Palin.

      For them to have any numbers at all is demoralizing. Mix that up with Creationism making a comeback in the age of contrary evidence, to the point that we're legislating Jesus in our schools, and I just don't see how we can win against that much stupid.

      I must have a case of the Mondays.

  7. weejee

    We need defecation reduction in this deficit debate. Paul Krugman nailed this bullshit months ago.

    Stop with the poop and move to the people. With the economy in the tank, folks will be staying home more and using local facilities more, like parks, and in most cities the parks departments have seen heavy budget cutting. If the Rs like block grants so much how 'bout block grants to provide low wage jobs, but jobs none the less, for those who have lost their unemployment and limit it to being used on public infrastructure maintenance and repair? We still need the Feds to spend on jobz and the civil engineers society rates the overall US infrastructure with a D. It's the 150 anniversary of the Civil War, and a lot of Americans are pooping into pipe that were installed before Sherman did his thing in Georgia.

    1. Swampgas_Man

      Great, so my 50 yr old, college edumacated ass can spend the rest of my life (retirement– HA!) working on a road crew. Well, I needed the exercise. . .

    2. TsunamiAli

      Yep, our family is going camping this summer instead of going to an amusement park or staying at the beach. At least where we're camping is close to the beach. If it's really nice maybe we can live there when the economy completely tanks and we lose our house. Good idea to start scoping out these things ahead of time.

      As part of the writing assignments for my class I'm making the kids look up job statistics for their fields to see what's ahead for them in the market; a lot of the reports have been optimistic but one group is seeing the future as problematic – the civil engineering students, of course.

      1. 4TheTurnstiles

        If this is an Obama problem, it's a Democrat problem first. The democratic party needs to get its shit in order if it wants its priorities attended to in the legislative process. Blame the leaders all you want, y'all, if that's easier than taking responsibility for electing responsible leaders.

    1. GOPCrusher

      It would have been nice if he would have gotten out in front of the issue and went to the public and told them to get out and vote if you were in favor of health care reform and doing away with the Bush Tax Cuts.

      1. imissopus

        I saw video of a speech last fall where he did actually tell people that no one had any excuse for staying home on Election Day, that voting was too important to skip out.

  8. donner_froh

    Even with everything that Obama has done wrong or not done right I have still signed up to be an Obama (or at least Democratic Party) volunteer for the campaign. I'm probably a sucker but the idea of President Pawlenty/Romney/Huckabee/Fuckwitz/YoMomma is frightening.

    1. anti0aquabudda

      yea, heaven forbit we put someone in there that has any real world executive experience and can actually make a decision!

  9. Oblios_Cap

    And OT, can we please wean the MSM from the candard-of-the-day to the effect that 47% of the people don't pay taxes?

    And if that's the case, why the mania for cutting them any more?

    1. GOPCrusher

      Because, they want you to believe that the 47% that don't pay taxes are stealing from the 53 % that do.

      1. tessiee

        And yet, somehow, those same people are OK with the corporations that don't pay taxes stealing from the people who do.

  10. TanzbodenKoenig

    Fool me once, Barry, shame on you… Fool me twice, well.. uhmmm- you're not gonna fool me again!

    1. anti0aquabudda

      Our of curiosity, why are you so mad at Obama? Is he not liberal enough? Has he leaned to the right too much?

  11. Monsieur_Grumpe

    Lawn Jesus holding up Obama sign: OK
    Lawn Jockey (black) holding up Obama sign: Not OK

    This has been a message from the Obnoxious Lawn Ornament Council of America.
    You’re welcome!

  12. ttommyunger

    When you consider the perfect storm leading up to the '08 election and the gaggle of malcontents and misfits lining up to oppose Barry next time, you can only come to one conclusion: He is, by far,the luckiest motherfucker in United States Political History, bar none! The unluckiest: Walnuts McSame, fer sure, and it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

    1. V572..whatever

      Kind of amazing that we had two putatively serious presidential candidates in a row (Kerry and McCain) who couldn't parley their Vietnam service into an election victory. Nobody's a pure, perfect, uncontroversial war hero if you scrutinize the available record hard enough. "Lost" wars like Vietnam are a gift that keeps on giving, even 60 years later.

      1. ttommyunger

        Bush, the draft-dodging AWOL would-be pilot, managed to parley his “service” pretty well. I think it is all about the skill, resolve and resources of the candidate's backers. The Right is relentless, shameless and financially generous in its propaganda efforts. Those traits spell success when coupled with a public that is only partially paying attention, if at all.

        1. V572..whatever

          Ew, you're right, and it goes to the same place: attachment to the "humiliation" in Vietnam is politically poisonous. Chimpy kept his hands clean reading magazines in Montgomery. There're no atheists around a Xerox machine!

          1. ttommyunger

            Too true. Kerry has a service record I would kill for, Dubya has one more murky and full of doubt than anyone's, yet they managed to successfully diminish Kerry's and pretty well insulate Dubya from criticism. How they got away with belittling every Silver Star and Purple Heart Holder in America is beyond me. They are fucking masters! You have to give that to them. If Dubya hadn't poisoned the well so thoroughly for them we would have VP Palin today, as if Chimpy weren't bad enough.

          2. V572..whatever

            Hope you’ve read or are reading Where Men Win Glory, the story of Pat Tillman and how Chimpy and McChrystal tried to turn this long-haired, cat-owning hippie high-school-sweetheart-marrying patriot into their idea of a hero, both before and after he got snuffed by friendly fire from his own goddamn company. I hadn’t realized they sent dudes over there as Rangers who hadn’t even been to Ranger school yet. Holy crap.

          3. ttommyunger

            Ranger Units have tougher standards and training (and lots more field duty) than regular line outfits. A small percentage of their Officers and NCO's are run through for a chance at the Ranger Tab. It is just a matter of numbers; Ranger School can only crank out so many Tab-Holders a year and maintain their standards. When I was serving there were no active (line) Ranger Units. Ranger School Graduates went back to their units as Ranger Tactic Instructors within the Unit (Patrolling, Water Navigation, Hand-to-Hand, etc.). McChrystal was/is a Company Man. Company Men play ball, you don't make/keep General Grade by doing what's right when doing that conflicts with your CO's wishes. Lying, breaking the law, bending the rules; those activities are given the euphemism: “Getting ahead of the paperwork”.

        2. tessiee

          "The Right is relentless, shameless and financially generous in its propaganda efforts. Those traits spell success when coupled with a public that is only partially paying attention, if at all. "

          I hereby declare you King of This Thread.

          1. anti0aquabudda

            I think most of the public understand politics. The public was ticked at the repubs and Bush for racking up debt during the Bush presidency which is why the Dems took control of the house and Senate in 2006. Pelosi promised to use "pay as you go", but then went on to rack up 5 Trillion in debt in 4 years. If Obama continues at the same reckless spending pace and doesn't institute real reforms to balance the budget, he will be shown the door in 2012. Again, I think the American people are paying attention, but our elected officials are deaf!!

      2. weejee

        In wars the combatants do nasty things. Jar Jar & Dubya Bush's dad supposedly strafed a lifeboat with Japanese sailors. If he did you'd have to say they were sitting ducks so not a valor upfist, but they really were not in the non-combatant category 'cause if they were picked up by the Japanese, they would be able to fight again. Warz suck.

        1. jqheywood

          Actually, the shipwrecked at sea are hors de combat and protected persons under article 12 of the 2d Geneva Convention. Whether or not they are combatant makes no difference–you still can't kill them.

    2. horsedreamer_1

      Unluckiest, also. Since the mess was too much for one-term &/or one president to clean.

      At least, now the Teatards have concrete evidence a black cannot be a good president. (Just as the Fundie Anti-Papists have Kennedy & Viet Nam & the Cuban Missile Crisis to point to, when explaining why we must keep Popery at some remove from the Presidency.)

      1. ttommyunger

        I think Barry has forever broken through the “Black” Barrier. The racist portion of his detractors would hate and oppose him if he had achieved full employment and complete economic recovery. This is the 30% of our Electorate which is permanently fucked in the head. I think he is a “shoo-in” if the present field produces a candidate.

    3. MozakiBlocks

      And as the man said…Sometimes it's better to be lucky than good.

      Still, I'm glad Barry's the one with the nuke codes otherwise we would have all met Jeebus by now.

    4. BerkeleyBear

      Lincoln managed to get the Republican nomination despite having no fewer than 4 rivals with higher profiles/bigger warchests, then won the general because the South collectively lost its damn mind and the vote was split 4 ways in such a freaky way that the guy with the 2d highest popular vote (Douglas) actually got the least electoral votes.

      Oh, and Lincoln did so poorly in his first term as far as public perception was concerned that heavy hitters in the GOP asked him to think long and hard about letting Salmon Chase or someone else run against McLellan instead.

      Now, he'd also qualify as pretty damn unlucky, too, given the whole Ford's Theater thing, but his getting 2 terms was near miraculous.

      1. CalamityJames

        Someone should invite Bachmann and Scalia over here sometime. History, she is a confusing mistress.

      2. horsedreamer_1

        I don't know, 'cause I still don't really want to see The Conspirator. Unless Evan Rachel Wood gets naked like she did on that premium cable deal Mildred Pierce.

      3. ttommyunger

        Not sure even “Lucky Lincoln” could have pulled it off if he were black; see what I mean?

    5. HateMachine

      It's really both lucky and unlucky, for Barry. I was discussing his term with a fellow frustrated commie, and he commented that Barry could have turned America into a utopia if his predecessor had been anybody but fucking Dubya. Can you imagine an Obama presidency right after Clinton, with no current wars, a budget surplus, and a memo on Al Queda sitting on his desk that he just has to pick up and read?

      And the counter-argument, of course, is that Barry would never have been elected following anybody but Dubya.

      Fucking America, man. We get our dream candidate, but the only circumstances that would allow his election doom him to mediocrity.

      1. ttommyunger

        He may still turn out to be a good thing if: 1. He wins a second term (no elections to worry about). 2. He can stay alive.

      2. tessiee

        I've often thought, and heard it said, that the R's didn't send in their first team in 2008 because they knew that whoever won the election would be inheriting the Bush trainwreck. I see no reason to disbelieve it now.

  13. randcoolcatdaddy

    In 2012, my friends, the choice is clear.

    We have choices between bland politicians that suck up to any big corporation or influential donor to get a few bucks and mentally ill individuals that are playing out their paranoid schizophrenia in the public sphere.

    There's also some guy running on the Democratic ticket.

  14. Mumbletycurd

    Brother's keeper, sister keepr, 'promise' keeper.

    Like how Bradley Manning's being 'kept', you mean? No thanks.

    1. V572..whatever

      Isn't it "funny" that no one even mentions habeas corpus anymore? Oops, another constitutional right gone forever. Thanks for Gitmo, Chimpy!

  15. OneDollarJuana

    Once again, the only way we are going to make real change is to elect a good Legislature. We have to elect a Democratic President because Supremes, but only strong progressive majorities in the Senate and House will get good legislation.

    1. CalamityJames

      I don't think it's appropriate to imply that we have a black Prez because of the Supremes. Throw in Gladys and the Pips and it may be a different story

  16. BarackMyWorld

    He has changed the way Washington does business.

    Strictly speaking, caving in to the other party at almost every opportunity was a change.

  17. DarwinianDemon

    Well off the top of my head, Republicans agree with the profiling AZ law so we Hispanics would be a fuck ton worse off, DADT would not have been repealed over McCain's veto, McCain wants ground troops in Libya, there wouldn't even be the semblance of HCR, the Republicans want to destroy the shred of Wall Street Reform we got, the Republican president would not veto the destruction of medicare, PP would be defunded. Oh and the EPA rules that Obama put in place are rolling back the power of Big Coal (the republicans want to kill the EPA).

    But by all means, continue with your plan to vote Republican in 2012.

    1. MaxUdargo

      I will, Senor Grumpypantalones.

      But what you forget is that the Republicans weren't this bat-shit, over-the-top crazy before the scary hombre negro broke into the Whitey House. Even when they controlled the presidency and both houses, did the Republicans push for such radical shit? No, they couldn't do that until Barry pushed their base over the edge. Now, in the ensuing panic, all kinds of crazy libertarian bullshit seems rational and it's time to roll back the 20th century. Limiting the size and scope of government takes on a whole new urgency when the coloreds have taken over.

      So, being the catalyst for all this crazy, Barry could have at least done his part to keep the kitchen clean.

      El es Destructor de Toda la Esperanza.

      1. DarwinianDemon

        Oh, so Obama and his blackness are to blame for the Republicans becoming crazy and therefore Obama has to be an even better president than a white president would have to be because he must make up for their crazy reactions and that is why you are voting Republican next year.

        Awesome logic.

        Jesus, the Republicans aren't even responsible for their nutbag reactions to a black president anymore?

          1. DarwinianDemon

            Judging by how insane the Republicans were from 1992-2000, someone should inform Clinton he really was the first black president.

        1. MaxUdargo

          Talking to you is like talking to my mother. I talk cause and effect, you hear blame and responsibility.

          Obviously, most of this crazy shit wouldn't be happening if we didn't have a "Tea Party" encouraging people like Paul Ryan to dust off the copy of Atlas Shrugged he hasn't read since high school and start proposing radical libertarian solutions. And we wouldn't have a Tea Party if the coloreds knew their place.

          Attention: What you just read was a description of cause and effect, not an assignment of blame. You probably have trouble differentiating between the two because you are probably Catholic because you said you were Hispanic. I know Catholics invest everything with guilt. Or at least that's what I remember from the Catholic girls in high school.

          So, instead of Obama the Great Giver Upper, we'd have a contented and smug John McCain, who would probably say "whatever" to gays and Mexicans because it's obviously all about him and he'd be riding high. He'd probably be hugging Ahmedinejad just because, hey, isn't life grand now that the people have elected John McCain to be president? McCain is like Lieberman: he only makes your life miserable when he's feeling miserable. Otherwise, let's all fuck fashion models and drink Pina Coladas and do donuts on the flight deck.

          And do you really think Obama is going to veto the Medicare Freedom Act or whatever they're going to call it? Can you imagine this guy standing up for anything? That's not how he rolls. He's going to give them everything they want and feel good about it. Nothing makes him feel more satisfied with himself than giving his enemies everything they want. It proves how "adult" he is. Or something.

          Of course, we're going to hear some good speeches for the next year or so. He is campaigning now, after all.

      2. Mumbletycurd

        "Even when they controlled the presidency and both houses, did the Republicans push for such radical shit? No, they couldn't do that until Barry the Koch Brothers et al. pushed their base over the edge."
        Fixed. See Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine. There's more history to this than just the advent of the Obama Administration.

  18. MathIsHard

    I don't get what you're all so disappointed about. Come on people, it's not like he said "Yes we will".

  19. Terry

    I think this is why they got rid of the curtain at my local poll. The poll watchers could hear my cocktail shaker, but not SEE it. Now, I have to sneak pre made drinks in in a flask. The loss of gentility in this world, I swear.

  20. Oblios_Cap

    The TeaTards hold small rallies and get a huge amount of TV coverage; yet there aren't enough of them to see the movie "Atlas Shrugged" on its opening weekend and help it make a profit.

    1. BaldarTFlagass

      Well, according to Ebert:
      "The movie is constructed of a few kinds of scenes: (1) People sipping their drinks in clubby surroundings and exchanging dialogue that sounds like corporate lingo; (2) railroads, and lots of ’em; (3) limousines driving through cities in ruin and arriving at ornate buildings; (4) city skylines; (5) the beauties of Colorado. There is also a love scene, which is shown not merely from the waist up but from the ears up. The man keeps his shirt on. This may be disappointing for libertarians, who I believe enjoy rumpy-pumpy as much as anyone."

      Other reviews I've read indicate that it's more dialogue-driven than a Richard Linklater film.

      Myself, I enjoy choo-choo trains, so maybe I'll… no, I won't.

        1. tessiee

          I was thinking more like the South Park episode where Cartman interviews himself:

          "Why are you so cool, Eric?"
          "I don't know; I just am."

  21. BZ1

    I honestly think the Prez is disappointed at how it's all turned out, but levers of power can be slippery.

  22. MasterDebater

    Come on Jack (and Ken). You guys need to chill out. There's a lot of shit that got done in this administration and you know it. Barry is a Jedi master when it comes to politics. It's clear that he was able to retain middle class tax cut in exchange for a temporary extension of the Bush cut, and now it's clear he is going to campaign in 2012 on repeal of the tax cut.

  23. MasterDebater

    This isn't even "vote for the lesser of two evils" nonsense. Obama has lowered my taxes, Pell grants have been increased, the "war" in Iraq is winding down and combat fatalaties are dwindling, etc. And he's refusing to release the Super 8 home movie of his emerging from a Hawaiian vagina to keep the crazies on the right foaming at the mouth, distracted, rudderless.

    I'm not happy with a lot of things in this country right now, but Obama is the only adult actually working to fix these enormous problems, and he deserves a second term. You do remember that barely 20% of the country identifies as "liberal", according to Gallup, right? He works with what he can, and gets Lilly Ledbetter, DADT, HCR, NATO to bomb Libya, etc. etc.

    And you guys consistently provide cogent, thoughtful analysis of the state of the nation, but somehow ignore all of this in order to push for…what, exactly? Nader? McKinney?

  24. hagajim

    So Barry is back on the campaign trail again….

    Shouldn't that be back on the shampaign trail?

  25. catholic4condom

    Why is Obama raising campaign funds? Does he really need to buy ads to make his case against the person who wins the GOP's "I'm more conservative than you" contest of a primary. If Obama wants to tell America how moderate he is he should ask a left-leaning Democrat to run against him in the primary. But then again he might not want to lose primaries to someone like Dennis Kucinich.

  26. walterhwhite

    “There have been times where I felt the same way you do,” Obama said about the disappointments of his term…

    Oh God, Barry. Please stop channeling Jimmy Carter (“malaise”)

  27. imissopus

    If Obama hadn’t been the candidate who had the “vision and decision-making skills” to be “anti-Iraq War,” he probably wouldn’t have won the primaries. Now, more than two years into office, we’re in more wars overseas than under Bush. And one of those, of course, is Iraq.

    Gah. I get to point out here, yet again, that Obama never ran as some sort of left-wing peacenik. We still have forces in Iraq because Obama has honored the Status of Forces agreement Bush set up with the Iraqi government, in which combat troops were pulled out but thousands of support troops were left in indefinitely. Obama might have opposed the invasion back in 2003, but we still invaded so he has to deal with the consequences of that, not the consequences of what would have been if he'd been in office eight years ago. Which in this case meant honoring the agreement our previous president made with the Iraqi government. As Colin Powell said of Iraq, "We broke it, we bought it."

    Once again, during 2008 Obama specifically said that Iraq was a mistake because Al Qaeda was along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border and if elected he would ramp up our efforts there. So many of my liberal friends seemed to stop listening after the first half of that statement and just assumed that the rest of it was the complete opposite of what the man actually said.

    People want to slam Obama for breaking some other promises they think he made or compromises he's offered, fine. But could we please stop with this whole "Obama sold out the left by being a war monger" meme already? The guy has never, ever, been a dove.

    1. hooray4anything

      And if imissopus is going to go on a rant, here's mine– the reason Obama caved on the Bush tax cuts isn't because he's a secret Republican but because the Republicans were threatening to go full-on Big Baby and whine and whine and whine after the elections and thus shut government down. By agreeing to the tax cuts, Obama got the Republicans to behave themselves and as a result, Congress was able to pass more unemployment funds, the START treaty and, oh yeah, the ending of DADT.

      So, basically, he had a choice– sacrifice everything he wanted to do over tax cuts or compromise on this one to get a whole bunch of other things. We'd all like him to make a stand or to sit back and tell the Republicans to kiss his black ass but sometimes that would mean not getting the few things he has done done.

  28. imissopus

    I agree with the specific point but the passage I excerpted seemed to conflate "anti-Iraq war" with "anti-war" in general, and to also be a complaint that even though Obama was against the Iraq war he hasn't pulled all the troops out yet. Which I think is an unfair criticism, if that is what Jack intended.

  29. Negropolis

    “we are connected to one another;

    That makes it easier to drown us when one of us falls into the deep. Brutally efficient progress!

    I've said it before, but were it not for Bush, America would have never elected Obama. Bush fucked up SO totally that America wanted the most unbelievable candidate they could find…and they found him. This is what happens when you elevate a guy a few years removed from a state legislature to head up the most powerful nation in the world. These are the limits of inexperience. You were told, yet everyone's so fucking surprised that he doesn't know how to use the office he's been given.

Comments are closed.