world

Obama announces re-election bid in email to 13 mil supporters

148 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

148 Comments
Login to comment

why? unless he's prepared to tell Americans about their real prospects under their crushing debts but I don't think so

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This will be a cake walk for President Obama. Who could beat him? Donald Trump? Mitt Romney? Sarah Palin? Chuck Norris?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This should not really be considered a surprise.The general plan for the far left wing of the party for years has been the creation of a new America within(just look at our immigration policy), one that will crowd out the historical,traditional one the far left in the country has been at war with since the 1930s.Technology makes it possible for this president to say one thing to the media and another to the faithful,who are so deluded that many imagine this latest message is a direct message from Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And no spam alert?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Tea Party's school bully approach to governance is so lowbrow and unappealing I don't give the GOP very good odds. Their candidates now have 17 months in which to alienate voters by getting caught philandering, embezzling, and putting their foot in their mouth with a goofy or racist statement. Let the "process of elimination" begin.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am sad to say it, but I agree with Sarge and Wordstar. I can't imagine anyone Fox News supports beating Obama. G.W. Obama for another 4 years = sad.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think crazy Col. Ghadafi is going to have a bigger hand in this than Obama and his re-election committee might have imagined.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You think its easy being a president? Think its easy to clean up the mess Bush made in 8 years? I think Obama is one of the best the US can ever have. id vote him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't give the GOP very good odds

am sad to say it, but I agree with Sarge and Wordstar. I can't imagine anyone Fox News supports beating Obama.

Guess you guys were asleep during Obama's midterm election.

Republicans catapulted back into relevance and power Tuesday, taking majority control of the House and winning governorships all over the country. Democrats fell in dozens of House races as voters registered their unhappiness with the recession-wracked economy and the direction of the country.

In a pendulum swing of historic proportions, Republicans picked up at least nine governorships in states now led by Democrats, including many that will be key to the 2012 presidential election, and held on to Florida. They also took Democratic Senate seats in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Arkansas, Wisconsin, North Dakota and Illinois. Republicans needed 39 new House seats to take control; they won at least 60.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thanks for the Fox News broadcast@sailwind. Wishful thinking should carry you through the last week of October, 2012. Which color necktie are you planning to wear to Obama's Inaugural Ball, by the way?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama's main concern will be who will the Dems through up against him. Remember 1980? Carter had a hard fight against Ed Kennedy which pretty much split the Dem party which led to Reagan getting elected.

Obama will face some Dems on the far left who think he is not doing enough, and those moderate Dems who think he has gone off track. Those moderate Dems will probably be the ones who will cause him the most problem.

If he gets the Dem. nomination, those Dems who are more moderate will probably look at the Rep. candidate, and as long as he is not a far right person they probably will side with them, and Obama would loose the election. Once again, I refer to the 1980 election.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama's main concern will be who will the Dems through up against him. Remember 1980?

LOL!! Whatever you're smoking, please pass it around. The Democrats are nowhere, but NOWHERE, near putting up anyone to challenge President Obama.

Those moderate Dems will probably be the ones who will cause him the most problem

Name one. Just one.

The Democrats are very unified and will be so all the way to Charlotte. On the other hand, the Republicans have been tearing at each other for months now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thanks for the Fox News broadcast@sailwind.

Ummm....Just F.Y.I, I quoted from directly from an article that was on HUFFPOST.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Name one. Just one.

Hillary Rodham Clinton.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You think its easy being a president? Think its easy to clean up the mess Bush made in 8 years?

I agree: I can't help feeling sorry for Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits: Name one. Just one.

You never really know. I doubt anyone even remembered Obama two years before the election except for the speech he gave at the Democratic convention, and that probably wasn't a whole lot of people. Two years is a long time. Obama has rolled back on a few of his major campaign promises which could create an opportunity for another Democratic challenger. Personally I support Obama's new positions (except for extending the tax cuts for the rich) so he's still got my vote.

The Republicans are still far behind the curve. They have to create some kind of party unity, then from there create a platform, then from there start to sell it to the public. In that sense, two years is a very short amount of time. All of their famous figures are famous for being polarizing figures and that's not the best way to win an election.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

America might finally be ready for a third party in the not so distant future. I think a party that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal would resonate with a large chunk of the population.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Democrats are very unified and will be so all the way to Charlotte. On the other hand, the Republicans have been tearing at each other for months now.

Whatever you are smoking, you need to put it down and join the rest of us in reality. Michale Moore has already came out against Obama and his stance on Libya. Kucinich and Rangel have denounced Obama. Sen Webb (D-Va) has decided not to run for the Senate in 2012. He has not made any indciations as to if he would run, but if he decided to explore it, he would gain much of the moderate Dem support that Obama has. Not to mention Hillary, she will resign her post as soon as the first realy serious poll comes out on who the voters would want to have in the Dem party vice Obama, and if his numbers are low, she will be in.

The Dem. party is not as unified as you would like to think, just like the Rep. aren't either.

One thing Obama will not have, the "Oprah" factor. Since she is quitting her show, and the ratings on her network are in the tubes, he will lose out on that. Since he has had a cozy relationship with GE and NBC, when Couric leaves CBS news, the first show, in whatever forum will have on as a guest Hillary. Many females felt betrayed by Oprah and her putting her support behind Obama (Black like she is) and not Hillary (a woman like she is).

Also, keep in mind, the Dem. primary process went down to the wire, and it was not an easy walk for Obama. Many thought he was unknown. Now many know him, and probably will not vote for him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The guy is just so incredibly MODERATE. And that's no surprise: anyone who'd looked into his history before 2008 would find evidence of wide-spread moderation and nothing else. Of course, it drives some people crazy - the far left, who were really hoping he would be a closet Bernie Sanders; and the majority of the right, whose attacks on Obama airballed one after another as it turns out he's almost as moderate as those critically endangered New England Republicans.

He'll win, of course, and then he'll have more freedom to act as he wishes. That will be interesting to see.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Basically this was a message to the president's 13 million facebook buds. It is a long way to Novemeber 2012,and Obama is not running as the outsider come to rescue the system,which is broken because Washington is full of people who won't listen to you the voter,but can be fixed by adding a million more wonks and vote buying experts to state and federal payrolls.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh please nooooooooo! Not another US Presidential election, they go on and on forever.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The guy is just so incredibly MODERATE.

Agreed, forcing everyone to buy health insurance is the epitome of moderate. I guess now the Feds under moderate Obama will force everyone to buy a house to solve the "homeless" problem.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LOL!! Whatever you're smoking, please pass it around. The Democrats are nowhere, but NOWHERE, near putting up anyone to challenge President Obama.

As a conservative, this is good news for me. Obama is exceedingly unlikely to be able to pull off a 2nd term. He has been the most divisive president ever. His level of incompetence eclipses even that of Carter. And while it certainly isn't set yet, its quite possible his legacy will rise to the level of Carter as well, who went down in history as Americas worst President ever.

Having said this, as an American, I have to admit I'm disappointed that the Dems won't put up someone decent to challenge him. I really would like a choice. For example, in 2008, had it been an election between McCain and Hillary, I would have voted for Hillary. Certainly she would be a million times better then Obama. She sure as hell couldn't possibly have been worse. Of course had it been Romney and Hillary, I'd have gone for Romney. I believe that having a choice between 2 good candidates is better for the country, regardless of who is elected.

The guy is just so incredibly MODERATE. And that's no surprise: anyone who'd looked into his history before 2008 would find evidence of wide-spread moderation and nothing else.

lol, I really do wonder what people like this are smoking. Please name a moderate position taken by Obama. Really. His extremist positions in everything from the environment to the Healthcare monstrosity say you are completely wrong. Not only is he the most incompetent President ever, he's also the most extremist as well. With obvious corruption at all levels, incompetent, inconsistent, and weak foreign policy. These do not suggest anything but a disaster in 2012 for the Dems. It would be better for everyone including the Dems, if he stepped aside and allowed a real challenger to step forward.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And while it certainly isn't set yet, its quite possible his legacy will rise to the level of Carter as well, who went down in history as Americas worst President ever.

it's gonna be a tough competition. Maybe Carter and BO can be co-worsts?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hope everyone will remember George H.W. Bush announced his intention to run for re-election on 16 May 2003 when his approval rating was one of the highest of any president in history...........we all know what happened then. Obama does not have to popular support Bush had and there is an aweful lot that can happen between now and November 2012.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

George H.W. Bush announced his intention to run for re-election on 16 May 2003

I think you made a mistake here...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I stand corrected...that was W.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The chief executive with the best job approval score, George H. W. Bush at 75% in 1991, ironically went on to lose re-election less than two years later.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama does not have to popular support Bush had and there is an aweful lot that can happen between now and November 2012.

Agreed, we could have inflation again and 6 dollar a gallon gas and looking for an exit strategy from Libya to now go along with Afghanistan. Also an Iran who tested its first nuke, a totally wrecked healthcare system and a President who is still clueless about a real energy policy, a real foreign policy, a real economic policy and a real immigration policy. Four more years of this? Heck, I'm scared of the damage he can still do in the two he has left right now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's just my point, Sailwind and Moliner - dragging American healthcare into the lat 20th Century extremist? - whiff! Foreign policy after eight years of running two wars by borrowing from China "weak"? - whiff! Cooperation with big business on implementation of Cap and Trade extremist too? - whiff! The Republicans have no one. Look who's likely to declare: Bachmann? Gingrich? Ha! Huckabee and Palin and Romney? The latter would only survive the primaries by hurling himself into a tree shredder. A pair of Pauls? Who is least insane?

Nah, I'm just gonna enjoy this for a while. The only race of interest is 2016 - difficult to predict, as whether the Republican Party still exists as a united entity by that time is iffy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That's just my point, Sailwind and Moliner - dragging American healthcare into the lat 20th Century extremist? - whiff!

By modeling on mid 20th century European socialist experiments that are now bankrupting their economies, my how forward thinking.....whiff! Foreign policy by borrowing money from China....heck, add Libya to the bill!!!!...whiff! Cap and Trade, man lets get energy prices even higher on everyone and really kill the economy!....Whiff.

I'd fall back on playing the race card or stereotyping Conservatives as neanderthal dolts who just cannot appreciate the genius that is the Obama administration and its 3 trillion debt legacy it already saddled our future children with.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Four more years of this? Heck, I'm scared of the damage he can still do in the two he has left right now.

Very good point Sail. Very good point.

Nah, I'm just gonna enjoy this for a while. The only race of interest is 2016 - difficult to predict, as whether the Republican Party still exists as a united entity by that time is iffy.

lol, were you one of those proclaiming the death of the Republican party in 08 after Obama won? I remember that vividly. So many of the libs were proudly proclaiming that Republicans were dead, only to discover 2 years later, they had reinvented themselves as the party of responsibility to counter balance the irresponsible and reckless spending exhibited by the Dems.

As for your points, destroying the health care system is something the majority of American oppose, and want repealed. On foreign policy Obama is weak not because of his wars, but how he goes about prosecuting them. Waiting months before making a decision on Afghanistan, waffling back and forth before making a bad choice on Libya. He cozys up to enemies, while turning his back on allies. This makes the US look weak, and makes it seem like you are better off being an enemy of the US, then a friend. And Cap and Tax, while the EPA scheme still has a shot, fortunately it never made it past the Senate, thus this moronic, idiotic policy designed to benefit Al Gore likely won't take effect. His pushing it despite the job killing involved shows precisely how extremist he is.

The only real question is, who is going to come out of the Republican primary, and if the Dems have the intelligence to put a viable candidate up in place of Obama. If HRC runs, the Dems might have a shot in 2012, if not, its going to be a Republican year.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You mean those European countries that spend less per-capita on health care but get more - based on their overall level of health? Yup - you whiffed. And the $600 million the US spent to defang Ghadaffi? - debatable in purpose, sure; cheap compared to Bush's wars, definitely - but wait! Don't Republicans call Obama's foreign policy "weak"? Can't make a basket 'til you choose a side, son. Oh, and the Cap and Trade plan is drawing increasing business support because businessmen know that they can profit by it. They'll be on Obama's team this cycle, if low-key about it. This is because they know the value of a dollar invested wisely.

Oh, and Republicans really have no leg to stand on when it comes to debt anymore. That's why far less than 40% of independents trust the Republicans with the nation's wallet compared with the Democrats.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Laguna,

I'll just stick with one thing you pointed out because the result is the entire Obama administration in a nutshell and where it will ultimately lead America to in the long run with its debt and policies.

You mean those European countries that spend less per-capita on health care but get more - based on their overall level of health? Yup - you whiffed.

18 May 2010 ... Greece was told that if it wanted a bailout, it needed to consider privatizing its government health care system. ... part of a deal arranged by the IMF, the European Union and the European Central bank, is a tacit admission that national health care programs are unsustainable.

No thanks, I rather have my kids future be bright than end up like Greece or Portugal or Ireland or Spain right now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Whatever you are smoking, you need to put it down and join the rest of us in reality.

Sorry, AlphaApe, but yours is the reality of "Bizzaro-World." Michael Moore, while critical of President Obama on some of the issues, will resoundingly support his re-election bid. Hillary or Webb? Pure hallucination of the LSD type.

One thing Obama will not have, the "Oprah" factor.

Two things easily counter that example of cupidity: 1) Oprah doesn't need a show to have influence, and 2) incumbency easily makes up for whatever Obama might lose by not going on the Oprah show.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thanks for bringing up the Mississippi of Europe, Sailwind - although at least in Greece, 85% are insured, as opposed to 55% in Mississippi.

The truth is that Americans pay more for health care than any other country in the world and yet the health care Americans receive is ranked by the World Health Organization (WHO) 37th in overall performance and 72nd in overall level of health of the 191 nations included in the 2000 study.

Some seem to be fine with the status quo; others desire progress. Some spout epithets; others look to logic. Comprehensive health insurance offers the greatest efficiencies and thus leads to the lowest costs. And that, my friend, is economics 101.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The truth is that Americans pay more for health care than any other country in the world and yet the health care Americans receive is ranked by the World Health Organization (WHO) 37th in overall performance and 72nd in overall level of health of the 191 nations included in the 2000 study."

So why is the UN still located in the US?Shouldn't the WHO be a little more concerned for the health of its poor members,forced to resort to NY hospitals?Does anyone with a brain in the head believe Cuba offers the same quality of health care you can get in the US?Good Lord, P.T. Barnum was right - there is one born every minute.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So why is the UN still located in the US?Shouldn't the WHO be a little more concerned...

The General Assembly is located in NY. WHO, however, is located in Geneva, Switzerland. The "poor members" receive the excellent health care characteristic of just about everything the Swiss do.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I wonder if President Obama will get virtually 100% of the black vote again...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"No longer the fresh voice of change"

What's up with that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Lieberman2012, Google "Cuban vs. US healthcare" if you're really interested in the truth. That such a poor country with such a repressive regime is able to at least match the US in healthcare quality at a fraction of the cost is not something the US need brag about.

Certainly, US healthcare is wonderful for those able to afford it. I'm a private businessman with two children, one with asthma, and I pay about 60,000 yen a month for insurance in Japan; in the US, I'd be lucky to find any private insurer to cover my family at all. Ask anyone with family in the US what is a major prohibitant towards starting their own business, and they'll mention insurance: that is a very major demerit for what is supposed to be an "entrepreneurial" society.

In a decade - mark my words - conservatives will be baying, "Keep your government hands off my single-payer healthplan!" - just like they've been doing with Social Security.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Comprehensive health insurance offers the greatest efficiencies and thus leads to the lowest costs. And that, my friend, is economics 101.

Agreed, when it doesn't institutionalize bureaucratic bloat already built into the system. Fact the U.S spends 16 percent of her GDP on healthcare. Fact France spends about 12 percent GDP. France and almost all European systems cap malpractice awards so trial lawyers do not have the gravy train they do in the U.S.

Want to know whats wrong with the U,S system. Grab a Newsweek or Time magazine from America, or any popular magazine past or current say ten years will do. look at the ads for pharmaceuticals....say Lipitor or such. 90 percent of the ad is wasted ink on all the side effects, precautions, conditions, allergies and on and on with the drug. Why, to protect the maker of the drug from lawsuits. Watch a drug commercial in America, you will get 15 seconds on what it can do for you and 45 seconds of the same warnings to CYA the maker. Obamacare does nothing absolutely nothing to curb that waste of airtime and ink, space and airtime that could actually be used to maybe promote some other medicines and products so they coud actually compete for the lowest price. Obamacare takes an already bloated legal nightmare of our healthcare system, adds even more bureaucratic bloat on top of it and has the gall to claim it is going to lower costs. No wonder most Americans hate it and smells B.S when they saw the reform he was talking about,

You want reform, get our costs inline with France first at 12 percent GDP, then since we are already use to 16 percent GDP you can maybe raise it 2 percent GDP as a two percent set aside to help subsidy the uninsured to an now affordable policy instead of the crap Obamacare is peddling.

You fix gthe system we have in place first to bend down the cost curve through real reform and market competition, not through Obamacare which just makes a bad situation ten times worse.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

How is it possible for Obama todo more damage in 2yrs than GW had done in 8. -Even Zimbabwe doesn't decay at this rate. =People need to stop voting for these globalists and their fiat terrorist banker backers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thanks for bringing up the Mississippi of Europe, Sailwind

So you are basically saying that Greece is a poor backwater, more so than the rest of Europe. But they are a socialist country, and aren't they all supposed to be equal. So, I am interested in your comparisons of Portugal, Spain, and Ireland. What states do they compare with?

Hillary or Webb? Pure hallucination of the LSD type.

@yabits, you'll be saying something differnt around the June/July timeframe when Hillary resigns. Just look at her handling of Libya. Do you think RR would have let Al Haig or Shultz lead the way when he got entangled with Libya, like Obama has had Hiliary being on the forefront?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry; thought I was done for the night, but couldn't let this go:

Watch a drug commercial in America, you will get 15 seconds on what it can do for you and 45 seconds of the same warnings to CYA the maker. Obamacare does nothing absolutely nothing to curb that waste of airtime and ink, space and airtime that could actually be used to maybe promote some other medicines and products so they coud actually compete for the lowest price.

Airtime and ink wastage is undoubtedly the least of all threats to US healthcare, unless it is that wasted to drugs that are not needed or lifestyles that are harmful. And don't you think it's a bit bizarre that med pushers advertise? - I would trust my doctor to choose appropriate medicine for whatever condition I had far more than I would trust my ability to spot some cool new drug advertised in Time. Big Pharma pushes expensive drugs for imaginary illnesses on a population misinformed that they are educated about pharmaceuticals. For this, their executives receive multi-million dollar salaries dwarfing even the highest government salaries. And then there are the insurance companies and the HMOs, all for-profit, all with fiduciary intent at odds with the clientele they serve, all with compensation bloated far out of comparison with most anything but the finance industry. And to this is where you would entrust the US health system?

Obama's plan is admittedly imperfect; it is an interim stem on the way to a single-payer system that allows negotiation with pharmaceutical companies for discounts on bulk drug purchases - a system most modern countries already have in place. And we're talking modern countries here, not Greece.

By the way, Alphaape, Portugal is analogous to Colorado, Spain to California, and Ireland to New York State.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

you'll be saying something differnt around the June/July timeframe when Hillary resigns. Just look at her handling of Libya.

I will carefully note your prediction down, however....

I will be saying the same thing: Some Republicans must be having serious delusions if they imagine the Democrats throwing President Obama overboard, and their being able to run against "Hillarycare" in 2012. I have no hope that Republicans who are crazy today will gain some sanity or common sense by July.

The Republican appeal to African-American voters, in their fantasy scenario, will be something along the lines of: "Look at those Democrats; they betrayed you by throwing Obama under the bus. You really want to show up to vote for them?"

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By the way, Alphaape, Portugal is analogous to Colorado, Spain to California, and Ireland to New York State.

I laughed at the comparison of Spain to California. Unlike the others, that one actually fits fairly well. Not in terms of economy or size, but rather, Spain went green, and bankrupt, California is trying to green and is already bankrupt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I will carefully note your prediction down, however....

Here is my prediction. If HRC resigns to run, I'd say not only she, but the Dems have a shot in 2012. If its Obama up against some nameless dog, they're done. Obama is a guaranteed loser in 2012.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Inflation will be the key, and it'll provide the great electoral mood for the 2012 election. If the Americans-- that's OBAMA supporters-- started fashioning WIN-like button just ahead of the election then I think the Prez will lose.

QE2 it seems is doing the job, at least in the US, in moderating prices. There's no doubt, in my mind, about that.

But high oil prices will start to bite US consumers, and OBAMA may well wish this is just a temporary thing.

Even if the Prez becomes the first ever candidate to raise a billion dollar war chest--and no one doubts it won't help-- the shape of the real economy may well determine his re-election chances.

After all, come 2012, the incumbent is still Barack OBAMA. And the buck stops with him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If HRC resigns to run, I'd say not only she, but the Dems have a shot in 2012.

That would be a fundraising nightmare for the Dems. But it will sure delight the GOP.

We'll see.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

That would be a fundraising nightmare for the Dems. But it will sure delight the GOP.

She gives them their best shot to win. As for the GOP, I suspect they'd much rather go up against a proven extremist like Obama. All they have to do is point to the many examples of incompetence and corruption, with Hillary though, they would have to try to blame Obamas foreign policy on her. Something which would be difficult, though not impossible to do. However all the domestic stuff that acts like an anchor on Obama, wouldn't hurt her, and thats a huge positive. It would be a tossup in my opinion. HRC has a shot against a Republican, Obama doesn't have a prayer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

She gives them their best shot to win.

Hardly convincing argument considering... she isn't the president.

Anyways...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As for the GOP, I suspect they'd much rather go up against a proven extremist like Obama.

LOL! And who will the GOP put up against who real wackos term an "extremist?" Someone who is extremist AND bats**t crazy like Michele Bachmann?

Bachmann is doing well in Iowa, doing very well in raising money, and could very well knock Pawlenty out of the race. She's far loonier than Howard Dean ever could be on his worst day. If she becomes the front runner, watch the adults in the Republican Party start to scramble to find a genuinely acceptable candidate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

She's far loonier than Howard Dean ever could be on his worst day. If she becomes the front runner, watch the adults in the Republican Party start to scramble to find a genuinely acceptable candidate.

I dunno about that.

Ms BACHMANN's grand strategy would be (or should be) to position herself as the heir of Compassionate Conservatism brand. Unfortunately Haley BARBOUR seems to be doing a much favorable job than her on winning GW's many wealthy friends.

She's out there and outspoken though, and that could be an asset for the GOP in keeping conservative firebrands satisfy. But obviously not if you want to go further than the seat warmer chargé d'affaires.

If she nails Mitt ROMNEY during the early stage of the campaign, that may put her on the top 3 come primaries. Her conservative message had been pretty much consistent, another plus when courting conservative folks.

Within the GOP, I really only see 3 or 4 candidates that are genuine...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Could the majority of Americans possibly be dumb enough to re-elect Barack Obama as president? We'll find out next year!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LOL! And who will the GOP put up against who real wackos term an "extremist?" Someone who is extremist AND bats**t crazy like Michele Bachmann?

Compared to Obama, she looks moderate. The trouble with trying to paint her or anyone as extremist, is one of baggage. Obama is a proven incompetent, and is so corrupt, he makes Bush's presidency look clean by comparison. Add in his extremism on so many issues, and to put it simply, unless Republicans put up some moronic racist like David Duke, they are going to win against Obama. If Dems bring in a different candidate, one without his baggage, who can make a somewhat believable claim to being moderate, depending on the Republican candidate, I'd say the Dems have a shot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

depending on the Republican candidate, I'd say the Dems have a shot.

Actually Molinir, they're going to have shot with Obama. The Media is going to savage whoever the Republicans nominate regardless, and continue to carry Obama's water. Just look at the first two paragraphs of this article.

asking a divided, anxious electorate to let him finish the job they gave him in 2008.

Subtle "stay the course message"

He’s getting an early start against a Republican field that’s still undefined, but he’s saddled with an ailing economy that isn’t working for millions of voters

He saddled,,,,subtle message inherited it from Bush and gosh darn it what can you do.

He's got a shot alright, lapdog media will see to it and give the Republican nominee "The Palin Treatment" full bore.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

18 months is an eternity in American politics.

Obama has declared his bid because 'campaign mode' is his only strength.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Could the majority of Americans possibly be dumb enough to re-elect Barack Obama as president?

In 2012 it's not about America being smart or dumb. It's about the Republicans coming up with a viable candidate that resonates with the American public. They know they are not going to be able to continue the attack campaigns and verbally charged scare and panic tactics. They will have to come up with solutions to the numerous problems facing America. I would put my money on a relatively young, moderate, "new" person to give Obama the best run for his money.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Inflation is going to hit hard and wide around June or so.

Challengers from either party who can out-debate Obama on jobs and wealth creation - i.e. just about anyone - have the chance to emerge victorious.

The race is wide open.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

During candidate Obama's first campaign, I witnessed comments from Republican supporters that refered to Democrats keeping African-American voters on "plantations." I also observed the comments directed towards Colin Powell in his support of Obama's campaign. Nearly everything relating to Obama's former pastor was pandering, by the very definition of the word.

I am certain we'll see more of the same during the coming campaign as well.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

During candidate Obama's first campaign, I witnessed comments from Republican supporters that refered to Democrats keeping African-American voters on "plantations."

@yabits, I have heard this, but more so from blacks who have been fed up with the Dems who are keeping blacks on plantations. The fact that Colin Powell, who is a card carrying Rep. could vote for Obama shows a lot more than what high profile Dems would do. At least he was able to cast his support based on what he believed was a better candidate (note I said what he believed).

If Obama has an "easy victory" within his party, and the GOP will not be able to stand up to him, why is he going to a fund raiser in SF with a cover charge of $30K per person. If he is so popular among his party and the rest of the nation, he shouldn't need that big of a war chest to get his message across.

Fundraisers of this type this far ahead can mean only one thing, he knows that he will have a tough fight ahead of him. It will be toughest among his own party. He may be able to outspend anyone now, but those candidates who don't have the funds will make their points by not supporting him (if they are elected persons) and not showing full support to his programs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Inflation is going to hit hard and wide around June or so. Challengers from either party who can out-debate Obama on jobs and wealth creation - i.e. just about anyone - have the chance to emerge victorious. The race is wide open.

Real economy could determine the 2012. So watch out for those WIN buttons.

Inflation wise, it's all about 3 letters, O-I-L. BERNANKE's QE2 had been tremendous in slowing down price hikes, at least in America, even as economists think otherwise. So long as inflation's moderated, and I think for a good while it'd be the case in the United States, general mood will still be positive.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Obama has an "easy victory" within his party, and the GOP will not be able to stand up to him, why is he going to a fund raiser in SF with a cover charge of $30K per person.

I would thought it's strategic, and a unifying message saying "I'am the candidate"-- the only candidate for the Democrats.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am certain we'll see more of the same during the coming campaign as well.

I know I will get tired of it all by 2012, but it will be intersting to see who will come out at the end. As many have posted here, Obama was an unknown this time in 2007. And for those who say he is without flaw, Bush 41 had just come off a victory in the first Gulf War, and the economy was picking up, he looked unbeatable and look what happened to him.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I know I will get tired of it all by 2012, but it will be intersting to see who will come out at the end.

Yep, season's rather early. Hope everyone wears comfortable shoes =/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Funny how the winger community is cheering for Clinton, there is only one person that they hate more than Obama and that is Clinton. So hilarious how the ill informed just continue to chase their own tail ends around and around. Same old WMD in Iraq crowd thinking.

If Hillary does run in 2012 it will be for VP with Obama. If that happens game over. Not just in 2012, but in 2016 and 2020 as well. The USA will have sane leadership for a generation. Like when FDR was President after yet another republican depression.

No demo is going to run against Obama in 2012. Period. And Sarah Palin and the republican band of seven dwarfs pose zero threat to Obama. Zero. No matter who the VP candidate for Obama is in 2012.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

' During candidate Obama's first campaign, I witnessed comments from Republican supporters that refered to Democrats keeping African-American voters on "plantations." '

Yes, Yabits, it's a shame Obama gave our opponents ideas as corrosive and divisive as that.But then, when he described the relationship between Democrats (as he perceived the party) and the African-American community in such terms (in Dreams From My Father) his goal was the much more modest one of one day becoming mayor of Chicago,like his hero Harold Washington.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Hillary does run in 2012 it will be for VP with Obama.

Agreed,

President Obama seems to have no problem throwing folks underneath the bus, just ask Reverend Wright. I'm sure it wouldn't suprise Joe Biden to be looking at the underneath of a Greyhound steered by Obama in 2012.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Obama has an "easy victory" within his party, and the GOP will not be able to stand up to him, why is he going to a fund raiser in SF with a cover charge of $30K per person.

That is terrible logic. First, President Obama will enjoy an easy victory within his party. The going will be tougher in the national contest, and the war chest will be needed for that race. I have not seen anyone among the Republicans who can defeat him, however. But that doesn't mean it's going to be a cakewalk.

Fundraisers of this type this far ahead can mean only one thing, he knows that he will have a tough fight ahead of him. It will be toughest among his own party.

If you think it will be toughest among the Democrats, you simply don't know the Democrats. I have no idea where you are getting your information from, but they are telling you that Hillary or Webb are going to make runs against President Obama, you should chuck them for more reliable and intelligent sources.

Nearly 80% of Democrats want President Obama to be re-nominated, and there's no sane party member who would challenge him with those kinds of numbers.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And for those who say he is without flaw, Bush 41 had just come off a victory in the first Gulf War, and the economy was picking up, he looked unbeatable and look what happened to him.

Yes, the Republicans divided in the presence of the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot. Many were so upset over Bush's responsibleness in raising tax revenues that they decided to help the country by cutting off their collective nose to spite their face.

That led to President Clinton, an even larger tax hike -- and a balanced federal budget by the end of the 90s -- with the economy having created millions of jobs and an inflation rate under 4%.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If Hillary does run in 2012 it will be for VP with Obama.

Guess what the "official" and "limited-edition" OBAMA-BIDEN reelection campaign t-shirt's (US$30) already out. But that shouldn't stop Clintonistas from praying it'll be Hillary's turn come 2016.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

But then, when he described the relationship between Democrats (as he perceived the party) and the African-American community in such terms (in Dreams From My Father) his goal was the much more modest one

The gross falsehood in the above sentence comes with the words "as he perceived the party." In Obama's book, the passage -- misinterpreted or purposely misportrayed by Republicans -- recounted the experience of Obama's listening to what was being said in a local barbershop about the Democratic Party in Chicago before Harold Washington. Since Obama's interest in entering politics happened during the Washington and post-Washington years, Obama could not have perceived the party as did the older men who recalled how things were long before Obama arrived in Chicago.

Of course, the Chicago party permanently changed after Washington, and those who wanted to continue to practice plantation politics became Reagan "Democrats."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And Sarah Palin and the republican band of seven dwarfs pose zero threat to Obama. Zero.

Wait and see for the nos by summer. OBAMA's fundraising schedules look quite busy, and the GOPs only starting to shop around.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurcronium: "the republican band of seven dwarfs"

Where do you get this garbage?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

President Obama seems to have no problem throwing folks underneath the bus, just ask Reverend Wright. I'm sure it wouldn't suprise Joe Biden...

Wow. Had to go back over three years to find someone who the Obama campaign jettisoned -- and rightfully so. You couldn't provide another example, could you?

As for running mate, it's really up to the candidate. The attitude that a current VP is entitled to stay second on the ticket is just that: an example of entitlement mentality as practiced by Republicans. The Democrats have the prerogative to form the best ticket they are capable of to lead the executive branch for another four years.

Should Biden be dropped from the ticket, he'll enjoy a very comfortable retirement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If that happens game over. Not just in 2012, but in 2016 and 2020 as well.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the people who gave the nation George W. Bush. They're out there in droves.

"the republican band of seven dwarfs"

Intellectually, the dwarfs look down on them.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Never underestimate the stupidity of the people who gave the nation George W. Bush.

Goodness me, like these people actually care what you think of them.

Should Biden be dropped from the ticket, he'll enjoy a very comfortable retirement.

Where do you get this garbage, Mr Yabits?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Never underestimate the stupidity of the people who gave the nation George W. Bush. They're out there in droves."

Uh, yabits, the people who gave the nation George W. Bush were George H.W. and Barbara Bush. But if you mean the people who voted for Bush, they were geniuses compared to those who voted for Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Should Biden be dropped from the ticket..."

Why should he be dropped from the ticket? Wasn't he a great VP choice?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Had to go back over three years to find someone who the Obama campaign jettisoned -- and rightfully so. You couldn't provide another example, could you?

Greg Craig, Anthony K. "Van" Jones, Shirley Sherrod (tossed her so fast it would make your head spin).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why should he be dropped from the ticket? Wasn't he a great VP choice?

Sure was. In 2008. But it doesn't preclude the possibility that there could be a better choice for 2012. I believe if Hillary wanted it, she would obviously bring a lot more strength to the ticket than would Biden.

Frankly, I'm surprised that a "genius" wouldn't see that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nearly 80% of Democrats want President Obama to be re-nominated, and there's no sane party member who would challenge him with those kinds of numbers.

@yabits: Why do you think Obama named the female Congressman from FL as the new head of the DNC? Trying to prevent Hillary from gaining momentum. He named a woman and is cutting her off "at the pass" so to speak. You seem to forget, many women felt "betrayed" by Oprah when she threw her support behind Obama. Normally with Oprah, any chance to bash a man (especially a Black man, just look at her films), and you would have expected her to back Hillary. But she felt color was stronger than gender.

You may think this idea sounds far fetched, but when you study these things closely, you will see that they make some sense. If not, then why did the Dems make the statement that the GOP picked Michael Steele back to head the GOP when Obama was elected.

I don't think that there is as much unity in the Dem party as you think. AFter all, look how some of the Dems are starting to vote in the House on issues. Also, some of the Dems that did get elected in 2010 were going on the campaign of "not being for Obamacare." And for that matter, many Dems who were running in 2010 tried to distance themselves from Obama as much as possible when his poll numbers were going down.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Greg Craig, Anthony K. "Van" Jones, Shirley Sherrod (tossed her so fast it would make your head spin).

I want to thank you for running in and proving the point I made earlier: Whenever a Democrat resigns or is forced out for any reason, a Republican will come along and say their leadership threw them under a bus. So if the Democrats were to somehow jettison President Obama from his re-election bid, it is certain that Republicans would look to pander to African-American voters with that fact. At that point, Reverend Wright, Van Jones, and Shirley Sherrod would join Obama as "victims" of the Democrats, rather than how Republicans are USING them now -- as victims of Obama.

This is hypocrisy at its finest from the Republicans.

For the record, Craig resigned because it was seen he could not do his job effectively. Any person who is not a hypocrite would not expect an employer to be 100% correct on his/her hiring decisions, nor begrudge them from asking for their resignation if found to be unfit for the task.

Jones resigned after being unable to perform effectively in the face of a Republican smear campaign. Sherrod was unjustly fired after she was slandered by a Republican blogger -- a crime for which she has sued and will almost certainly win her case.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nearly 80% of Democrats want President Obama to be re-nominated, and there's no sane party member who would challenge him with those kinds of numbers.

@yabits: TO prove my point, and intersting article from NY Daily News tells part of the story"

*"Obama will be speaking Wednesday for the first time at the annual convention of the National Action Network and standing with its founder, the Rev. Al Sharpton - whom the President largely ignored before his 2008 election.

The symbolic speech at the Sheraton in midtown - coming just days after the President held two events in Harlem - indicates that Obama, who is battling slipping poll numbers, is trying to bolster his standing among African-Americans, political scientists said.

"It proves again that 2012 will be very different than 2008," said Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia. "Then, Obama was very wary of the race issue and of being labeled as a 'black candidate.'"

"But some of the enthusiasm surrounding that election has faded," said Sabato. "He needs an injection of energy and Sharpton can provide some of that, at least in the black community."

Obama and Sharpton have always been uneasy partners."*

I guess it will not be as easy as you think.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits

"Never underestimate the stupidity of the people who gave the nation George W. Bush. They're out there in droves."

I couldn't agree more.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I guess it will not be as easy as you think.

The entire post shows the conniving nature of Obama's and the Democrats' opponents. No matter what President Obama does, it's used against him to feed the Republican fix for trash thinking and writing.

So, if President Obama makes no overtures to the African-American community in his bid for re-election, he'll be accused by Republicans of taking the black vote for granted. So he shows up to "inject some energy" and his detractors use that against him.

Unlike his detractors, President Obama is no fool. He had to know that nothing could turn the nation around from the deep dive that the Bush regime had put it into, and that all his efforts to turn things around would be opposed at every turn by the party mainly responsible for the mess in the first place. Nevertheless, much to the dismay of Republicans, and certianly no thanks to them, the nation is steadily improving on nearly all fronts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits: "it doesn't preclude the possibility that there could be a better choice ( for the Democratic VP ) in 2012"

Heck, there are far better choices for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2012 than Barack Obama.

"much to the dismay of Republicans, and certianly no thanks to them, the nation is steadily improving on all fronts"

Ha ha ha ha! yabits, thanks for the laugh! yabits, look up what the national debt was when Bush left office and what it be now, and what the unemployment rate was when Bush left office and what it be now.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"It proves again that 2012 will be very different than 2008," said Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia. "Then, Obama was very wary of the race issue and of being labeled as a 'black candidate.'"

Thanks, Alphaape, for the quote. And I agree.

But one thing though, during the last primaries most black leaders within the Democratic Party were either backing Hillary Rodham CLINTON or were playing the three-candidate-monte. Support for Barack OBAMA, from prominent blacks, had always been muted at least during the onset.

So far, OBAMA's campaign performance could be considered smooth. He started early, is raising funds early. The GOP and the Republicans-- and I have great respect for many of these American conservatives-- would prove irresistible opponents. But it's hard to beat incumbents. And the GOP may well advise its supporters that beating OBAMA will not be a walk in the park.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obvious problem with the incumbency is that the buck stops with the Gov't running the show.

Foreign policy wise, there's trade. And the Prez is championing trade much like GW did during his reelection campaign. The APEC meeting could provide a resolute backdrop for US foreign policy for OBAMA's second term. He already pledged full support for Trans-Pac FTA, and support from many nations had been unyielding.

Economy--particularly inflation-- may be the key, and it'll provide the great electoral mood for the upcoming election. If OBAMA supporters started fashioning WIN-like button just ahead of the election then I think there might be a chance he'd lose.

Big Ben's QE2 is doing an incredible job, at least for America's sake, in moderating prices and lowering inflation. Jobs for Americans may soon be coming and I predict better unemployment news in the coming months. Other factors though like high oil prices could potentially play a role, and OBAMA may well wish this is just a temporary thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

look up what the national debt was when Bush left office and what it be now, and what the unemployment rate was when Bush left office and what it be now.

Check above. But I agree, it could be a race about the economy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

So, if President Obama makes no overtures to the African-American community in his bid for re-election, he'll be accused by Republicans of taking the black vote for granted. So he shows up to "inject some energy" and his detractors use that against him.

@yabits: last election he had 90% of the black vote. Now, he will have to work for it like every other candidate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

last election he had 90% of the black vote. Now, he will have to work for it like every other candidate.

The problem with the logic is this: On the Democratic side, there will be no other candidates who will try to unseat their incumbent president. I understand that you've made the prediction that Hillary, or Webb, or some other candidate not yet identified will run against him, but I don't believe that is dealing with reality. Especially with 70-80% of Democrats wanting him to be re-elected.

Which leaves the national election. I seriously doubt that the Democratic candidate will "have to work" for the African-American vote "like every" Republican candidate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I think this time will be my first time voting and it'll be voting him out. The problem isn't that he's incompetent. The problem is that he doesn't even know he's incompetent. Now that I think about it, I really miss the exchange rate (dollar to yen) during the Bush era.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nevertheless, much to the dismay of Republicans, and certianly no thanks to them, the nation is steadily improving on nearly all fronts.

Agreed, That shellacking he took in the mid-terms losing Democratic seats in historic proportions in the House, Senate and State races things and his being forced to extend the Bush era tax rates, things are looking a bit better after the disaster of his first two years and a Democratic super majority. And when Obamacare gets repealed we can really get things finally back on track again.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Which leaves the national election. I seriously doubt that the Democratic candidate will "have to work" for the African-American vote "like every" Republican candidate.

And with that, we come back around to the old "plantation syndrome" that blacks have with the Dems. Why shouldn't a Dem candidate have to work for the black vote. Just because he has a (D) in his title does not give him my automatic vote. A candidate should be elected on where they stand on the issues, and not just becuase a group of people have always voted for that party.

I still think that Obama will have a rough primary ahead. Whomever decides to run against him, will probably have the backing of those Dems who got ousted in 2010. I am sure many are bitter at their loss, and an Obama loss in 2012 would be a way for them to get back into the political arena.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I still think that Obama will have a rough primary ahead. Whomever decides to run against him, will probably have the backing of those Dems who got ousted in 2010. I am sure many are bitter at their loss, and an Obama loss in 2012 would be a way for them to get back into the political arena.

As a conservative republican, all I can say is, for me, its better if Obama gets the Dem nomination again. There is no one better to run against then someone with a proven record like him. Proven incompetent, proven corrupt, proven to be not a leader. It doesn't matter who the Republicans put up against him, even with the media pushing hard for him like they did in 2008, the people aren't going to buy a second term for this moron.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Why shouldn't a Dem candidate have to work for the black vote.

You are leaving out a key portion that would make the sentence true. A Dem candidate certainly has to work for African-American votes simply because many voters may elect to sit home on election day. A Dem candidate, and this certainly applies to Barack Obama's re-election effort, doesn't have to work nearly as hard as a Republican. To help understand why that is, google Mehlman and apology.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I still think that Obama will have a rough primary ahead. Whomever decides to run against him, will probably have the backing of those Dems who got ousted in 2010.

I will note that down and add it to your prediction. My prediction is that you are so far off base, it's not funny.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Molenir: Proven incompetent, proven corrupt, proven to be not a leader. It doesn't matter who the Republicans put up against him, even with the media pushing hard for him like they did in 2008, the people aren't going to buy a second term for this moron.

Anything is possible. He could suddenly find himself involved in a sex scandal tomorrow. You just don't really know.

But I'm curious as to the position you're speaking from. I don't think people would agree with your assessment unless they are on the far right. Those on the far left might be disappointed to learn that Obama is really a moderate but he'll have their vote anyway since they'll never vote Republican. As for everyone else in the middle I seriously doubt they view Obama as a corrupt criminal.

The Republicans are going through an identity crisis right now and that will trump anything Obama has done or will do. Just look at the budget situation. Republicans are torn between radical campaign promises and the the reality of the situation. Any candidate who doesn't follow the Tea Party line will lose their support, and any candidate who follows the Tea Party line too much will lose the support of a lot of moderates. Look at the juggling act Boehner is unsuccessfully doing. Any Republican candidate will be in that position come election time unless they figure out a solution. Their best shot would be to focus on the economy and they can't seem form any kind of agreement within their own party.

They're a fragmented group and they'll be going up against someone who has largely followed Bush's policies on Iraq, Afghanistan, tax cuts, tribunals, and a few other issues. It often seems that Republicans are forced to criticize Obama for things that they actually support, such as Libya. Their messages tends to be, "He's doing the right thing the wrong way" and that's not really the best message you can give during an election.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I will note that down and add it to your prediction. My prediction is that you are so far off base, it's not funny.

@yabits: in the 2008 election Obama carried 28 states to McCain's 22. Since the '08 election, the GOP has gained governorship of 25 states, most notalbly VA and NJ and IN and OH, which are key swing states. That means that there has been a shift in the voting electorate.

Also, since these states changed, it wasn't that the GOP grew in numbers, but the independents who had in 2008 would have most likely voted for Obama changed their vote from the Dem to the GOP, since they probably thought along the lines that a vote for a Dem candidate would be an approval for Obama, and frankly he is losing that independent vote which he needs.

You are correct in saying that the hard core Dems will vote for Obama in the primaries, but some of those independents who will vote in a Dem primary will probably not vote for Obama this time. A lot of this depends on who the Reps put up also.

So before you continue with your snide comments (which you probably pick up from watching MSNBC), take a look at the facts and try to make an informed comment.

You are leaving out a key portion that would make the sentence true. A Dem candidate certainly has to work for African-American votes simply because many voters may elect to sit home on election day.

Black voter turnout was high back in 2008. This was also one of the reasons why the Prop 8 (gay marriage) failed in CA. Believe it or not, Blacks tend to vote more conservative on issues, even if they vote Democratic. Don't believe it. Look at the protests that ensued after the failure of Prop 8. The left tried to place the blame on Morman groups from Utah and their ads and their influence, but look at the poll results from CA on 2008 on how blacks in CA voted on that issue. But the thing the Dems didn't do was go after the black leaders and voters on voting against it. It would have cut their base off (in terms of black voter support).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Laguna tells me "I'm a private businessman with two children, one with asthma, and I pay about 60,000 yen a month for insurance in Japan; in the US, I'd be lucky to find any private insurer to cover my family at all. "

Why not move to Cuba if you believe their healthcare is on par with what you coould get in the US?60, 000 yen would go a long way.You could fund healthcare for entire families of Cubans.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

in the 2008 election Obama carried 28 states to McCain's 22. Since the '08 election, the GOP has gained governorship of 25 states, most notalbly VA and NJ and IN and OH, which are key swing states. That means that there has been a shift in the voting electorate.

You keep talking about primaries and the tough time Obama is going to have in them, and then bring up general election stats to try to prove your point. I am sure that when the primaries happen and your prediction that Obama is going to have a tough time in them against mythical Democratic challengers is proven wrong, you will continue to bring up general election stats.

take a look at the facts and try to make an informed comment.

What facts? You have offered only baseless speculation, before going way off topic on black voters and CA Prop 8.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I am sure that when the primaries happen and your prediction that Obama is going to have a tough time in them against mythical Democratic challengers is proven wrong,

I actually agree with Yabits. The Democrats will rally around him as their party leader. He has proven that he can deliver the votes for Democratic candidates time and time again. His programs are so popular with the general electorate that every single Democrat last campaign cycle mentioned Obamacare and their proud vote for it in every campaign ad. Come 2012 they'll be begging for him to be on the same stage with them just like the mid-terms. He can deliver! Just ask John Corzine in New Jersey, Creigh Deeds in Virginia and, of course, Martha Coakley in Massachusetts. Oh and the 64 Democratic house seats lost in November.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

His programs are so popular with the general electorate that every single Democrat last campaign cycle mentioned Obamacare and their proud vote for it in every campaign ad.

@yabits, primaries do matter. Byt the time Nov 2012 rolls around the image of the candiates will be set. How they fare in the primaries will set the tone. If Obama is seen to have difficulty in the early primaries, then whomever will go against him in the Dem party will cast doubt for the independent voters in the general election who would probably vote for him, but are reminded by his opponents on his failed policies.

I will admit, this will give a GOP win only if they don't nominate a polarizing figure like Palin on their ticket, which will bring out the far left people who disagree with Obama and those moderate Dems who would vote for someone other than a Dem, but not with Palin as a choice.

As to his popularity at supporting contending candidates, in my home state (AR) Sen. Blanche Lincoln needed the support of Obama and he and his wife made campaign stops in AR to support her. Her ads featured her voting for Obamacare. End result, she lost to a Rep. in 2010. I don't think the Obama brand will have as much luster as it did in 2008.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Only the deluded and the republicans would spin yarns about Obama not winning it 2012. These head in the sand folks guaranteed a McCain victory, instead we got a landslide victory for Obama. Thank you so much Palin for making that happen.

Obama in 2012 will get credit for fixing the bush trainwreck economy and for protecting the country from the big banks and insurance companies that bankroll the republican party. This will be 1996 all over again. No one wants the republicans to have all the keys to the country again, we would all be driven off a cliff yet again.

Right now the republicans are close to shutting down the government yet again, like back in 94. The results will be the same, heads will roll in the republican party. Just ask Newt. First they want to destroy the country and then they destroy their own party.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I believe that the ongoing events in Wisconsin are now setting the tone and momentum for the election campaign of 2012. Now the independents and moderates are seeing the vileness and unfairness of taking bread off of the tables of hard-working people to give it away as more tax breaks for the wealthy, the tide is turning against the Republicans. (A Republican candidate for the WI Supreme Court had a 35-point lead against his unknown Democratic opponent just a few months ago. Yesterday's election results show the Democrat winning that contest by a very slim margin.)

The Affordable Health Care Act, or AHCA, is something that's been a godsend for small businesses like the one I own, and I am very grateful to President Obama and the Democrats for fighting for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"explosive growth of Democratic-leaning Hispanics"

Amnesty! Si!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"35% of people in an AP poll say the country is heading in the right direction"

That means 65% don't. What's up with that?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I guess Mr. Obama's idea of change Did mean something, After all-! I got "Change" back when I Paid for my "Happy" Meal! as to your query I am One of the 65% -and can't wait for this Entitled Person to Leave Office !

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As for everyone else in the middle I seriously doubt they view Obama as a corrupt criminal.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. Obama himself is not a corrupt criminal, he's an incompetent president yes, but not a criminal. Its not him thats corrupt, but rather his administration. However you add in his constant consulting with union thugs, his oh so non-transparent administration, despite the promise... It adds up to something that stinks pretty badly. I don't doubt that the average person sees things simply aren't right. And as for his competence, anyone can look and see this. Its not a left/right thing. Its been demonstrated on too many levels his entire presidency. From his incompetent handling of the oil spill, to his waffling on Afghanistan, his timidity in dealing with Iran, his mis-steps with Russia, to the entire middle east policy. And thats just his foreign policy. His domestic policies are even worse. Even with the media trying to spin him as being a moderate, the average voter is a bit smarter then that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I fear Obama will be the worst thing to happen to our party.At the state level,last Novemeber,we lost in historic numbers.Basically,our minor league was wiped out.Without a clear move to the middle by the people now leading the party I think we are looking at a replay of Carter 1980. The price of gas is what has me most worried.And President Obama flippantly telling folks yesterady that "maybe you ought to think about a trade-in" isn'tgoing to help.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Somebody,I think it was blogger Mickey Kaus,pointed out that unfortunately for the strategists around Obama it is (for now) still impossible to prevent Americans from voting with their feet - -

There are eight states with no state income tax .They grew 18% in the last decade.States with (including D. C.) grew 8%.

22 states have these so-called "right-to-work laws". They grew 15% in the last decade.Other states grew 6%.

Collective bargaining plays a part in the shift,I am afraid to say.The 16 states where collective bargaining with public employees and public sector unions is not required saw 15% population growth in the last decade, compared to 7% growth elsewhere.

I think this is lost on Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I fear Obama will be the worst thing to happen to our party.At the state level,last Novemeber,we lost in historic numbers.Basically,our minor league was wiped out.Without a clear move to the middle by the people now leading the party I think we are looking at a replay of Carter 1980.

@Lieberman2012. Good points. When I try to get this out to the likes of some on the blog, I get the "I must be out of my mind" rants. The failure of the Dems is going to be just like the failure of the GOP in 2008. They were so concerned about the House/Senate/WH that they decided to forgo those local elections in the statehouses, which led them to be seen as uncaring and aloof from what the rest of America was facing. The Dems are doing the same thing. Believing that they will keep the WH withoug focusing on the smaller elections and getting their message for the lower elections, as we saw in 2010 will cut them off.

People seem to forget, Obama ran a great campaign in 2008 against the GOP, but in the Dem primary he still had to go all the way with his machine. This time there will be some Dems who will want him replaced and he will have a struggle.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - What facts? You have offered only baseless speculation, before going way off topic on black voters and CA Prop 8.

Several California newspapers reported that in the 2008 election there was a larger than usual black voter turn out in California and 70 percent of those black voters voted to ban same-sex marriages in California.

Alphaape got the story right.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - Yesterday's election results show the Democrat winning that contest by a very slim margin.

No. The election results show nothing of the kind. You need to wait for the vote totals to be certified before claiming that a 7,000 vote loss is actually a Democrat/union victory.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Several California newspapers reported that in the 2008 election there was a larger than usual black voter turn out in California and 70 percent of those black voters voted to ban same-sex marriages in California.

You completely missed the point by following the off-topic non-sequitur. AlphaApe thinks President Obama will be challenged in the Democratic primary and hasn't put up anything credible to back that up that assertion. It has nothing to with CA Prop 8.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The election results show nothing of the kind. You need to wait for the vote totals to be certified before claiming that a 7,000 vote loss is actually a Democrat/union victory.

A Republican Party caucus member who is the county clerk of the county, and someone who has failed audits relating to security of the voting process just happens to "find" enough votes to avoid a recall. Her excuse is that she "forgot" to register the votes.

Not exactly the kind of behavior which advances the perception of people towards the Republican Party -- and will help fuel ire towards President Obama's opponents.

Meanwhile, the disapproval ratings for Republican governors in Wisconsin, Florida, Michigan and Ohio are climbing and climbing fast. Note that these are all key states for the Democrats in 2012.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Looks like President Obama won't have the truly looney Glen Beck doing his crazy thing from his Fox podium. Too crazy for Fox -- that's really saying something.

If Obama's Republican opponent will be the Lipton-string looney Michele Bachmann, it may have been necessary to remove Beck to avoid the inevitable comparisons as to who is crazier.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The expected $4.00+ USD per gallon of gasoline will finish off Obama's re-election efforts. He forgot to repeat his campaign promise that, "energy prices must skyrocket" in his email notice to his 13 million supports in a country of 310 BILLION people.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

in a country of 310 BILLION people.

Not quite. How are you on radiation levels? :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The expected $4.00+ USD per gallon of gasoline will finish off Obama's re-election efforts

Only if Americans believe that they would never get that high under Republicans. Wait a sec...they WERE that high under Bush back in 2007.

Obama has a perfect counter: End the tax subsidies to oil companies. I'm waiting for the Republicans to explain to the American people why it's in their interests to give multi-billion dollar oil companies tax breaks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The expected $4.00+ USD per gallon of gasoline

Nothing expected about it now. People living in several areas of the U.S. are now paying that price.

they WERE that high under Bush back in 2007.

Heh, Americans were paying $1.87 a gallon for gas on the day Obama was sworn into office.

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yabits

A Republican Party caucus member who is the county clerk of the county, and someone who has failed audits relating to security of the voting process just happens to "find" enough votes to avoid a recall. Her excuse is that she "forgot" to register the votes.

You really should read the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal before you post.

At the news conference with Nickolaus, Ramona Kitzinger, the Democrat on the Waukesha County Board of Canvassers, said: "We went over everything and made sure all the numbers jibed up and they did. Those numbers jibed up and we're satisfied they're correct."

As a Democrat, she said, "I'm not going to stand here and tell you something that's not true."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama ran for election on the promise that "I'm not George W. Bush." Now he's running for re-election on the promise that "I'm not Barack Hussein Obama, either."

RR

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Heh, Americans were paying $1.87 a gallon for gas on the day Obama was sworn into office.

Nice of Bush and his team to cause a near meltdown of the US financial and economic system so that gas prices could go down from their 2007 peak of $4+ a gallon. Bush would never go after the billions in tax subsidies that American taxpayers award to oil companies. President Obama is going to do just that, while the Republicans look for a Dole-McCain type candidate to run against him, and perhaps give John Boo-hoo-ner the "help" he so obviously needs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama ran for election on the promise that "I'm not George W. Bush." Now he's running for re-election on the promise that "I'm not Barack Hussein Obama, either."

You should run a comedy club.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nothing expected about it now. People living in several areas of the U.S. are now paying that price

Agreed. I think high petrol prices concern everyone not just in the US.

On the plus side, the Fed's fiscal policy is doing its utmost best in slowing inflation. US economy would not have been luckier without it, and a less stressing environment would not have been foreseeable without these Fed fiscal policies.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

kyushujoe - Not quite. How are you on radiation levels? :)

Oops. That should read 310 million not billion. Of all the things that I've lost over the years, I miss my mind the most. :)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - Looks like President Obama won't have the truly looney Glen Beck doing his crazy thing from his Fox podium. Too crazy for Fox -- that's really saying something.

Beck's company and FOX are not renewing their contract for the "Glenn Beck" show. He wasn't fired or cancelled and will still finish out the rest of his contract. Olbermann was fired and was taken off that network immediately.

Beck will still appear on FOX in other formats.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Looks like President Obama won't have the truly looney Glen Beck doing his crazy thing from his Fox podium. Too crazy for Fox -- that's really saying something.

@yabits: HIs show still had more viewers than MSNBC had for any show.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It's unfortunate but from the pattern it does seem Obama will win. People are too blind to see that democrats=republican and Obama<=Bush. I'm not a fan of those parties nor do I care for recent candidates. Reason why I never voted. It's like choosing a lousy one over another. I couldn't tell who would do less damage to the country. Then there's this Obama fandom cult thing that's kind of creepy. I mean he just lies through his teeth like the others. The only difference is he lies more than the others while looking down to people (like he's above everyone). It all started with this fad on trashing Bush (because he's the easy blaming target. It was if people felt intelligent to say that Bush is stupid and it spread and spread like cancer.) The extreme negative bias toward Bush becomes the extreme positive bias for Obama. I would give Obama some points if he actually stops saying that he inherits the mess from the predecessor. He knew too damn well what he was getting into. And if Bush/Republicans weren't hated so much he wouldn't be where he is now. I think Obama should thank Bush for the presidency. Having said all that, I have to admit he did good on giving people the illusion that he "fixed" the economy. Obama sure "fixed" the economy, by pressing the button to print $14 trillion. I didn't think of that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

One thing Obama will not have, the "Oprah" factor.

Two things easily counter that example of cupidity: 1) Oprah doesn't need a show to have influence, and 2) incumbency easily makes up for whatever Obama might lose by not going on the Oprah show.

@yabits: Remember that exchange between you and I, well look what I found today:

*(NewsCore) - Oprah Winfrey, the queen of daytime television, will not be publicly endorsing President Barack Obama for re-election in 2012, a source told Pop Eater.

"For 2012, much has changed for Oprah," the source told Pop Eater. "She now has her own cable channel called OWN that has been struggling to find an audience -- she isn't going to do anything to alienate them."

"Unlike in 2008, when a drop in ratings didn't matter as much for the queen of TV, Oprah is now fighting every day to get people to tune into OWN," the source added, noting that while Winfrey will likely support Obama again, she will do so more privately.

"Helping a friend keep the most important job in the world is great, but making sure her OWN network thrives is now her priority," the source said.*

I guess whatever I was "smoking" as you said wsa pretty good stuff.

Her next move will be to interview Couric on her network, followed by Hillary when she resigns. Having done that, she will gain the female voters that she lost endorsing Obama over Hillary and back Hillary if she runs.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

HIs show still had more viewers than MSNBC had for any show.

A nutcase like Beck could get stupid conservatives to watch him. And we all know there's LOTS of those.

the source told Pop Eater.

When Oprah herself confirms it then I will believe it.

noting that while Winfrey will likely support Obama again

LOL!

I guess whatever I was "smoking" as you said wsa pretty good stuff.

The reference to smoking was not about Oprah, although it's clear that the smoking contributes to loss of memory. What it was about was your prediction that President Obama would be facing a major challenger in the 2012 primaries.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@yabits: The act that it came from that source does provide a level of verifaction that needs to be done, but the fact is true that Oprah's ratings have taken a nose dive. Say what you want, but the bottom line is that Oprah has invested too much in her business and her image, and will do anything to make sure that she is not labeled a joke. If that means not supporting a friend, then she will do it. Her bottom line is not so much about party loyalty, but the $$$.

Also, I found another story related to our similar post:

President Obama's approval ratings among black voters plummeted last month to their lowest levels ever, while his support among Hispanics took a tumble in the same period, according to a surprising new poll released yesterday.

Blacks continue to back him by a wide margin, with 85 percent of respondents saying they approved of him in the latest Gallup poll.

But that number dropped a hefty 5 percentage points from last month, marking the lowest rating among that core constituency that he's had since taking office.

He also dropped 5 points among Hispanics, sliding from 59 percent to 54, according to the poll. That number ties his July and August 2010 lows.

The one-two punch among two groups that helped usher him into the White House comes just after he announced the kickoff of his 2012 election campaign.

It also seems to confirm chatter that the commander-in-chief's sudden affinity for Al Sharpton is an attempt to shore up his African-American base.

As I said, Obama is starting to slip among his base. And if this continues to slide, then he will have a hard time in the Dem primary. Granted it is still early, but I am sure that it is a concern for him. If this wereJan 2012, it would be a lot more serious. But right now he should be able to reverse this, provided that Hillary doesn't take a chance and decide to run, or some other "Blue Dog" Dem sees that they have a chance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hillary was the only legit candidate other than Obama in 2008 and Obama out campaigned her. No republican can beat him now, that is why they are all so afraid to announce for the 2012 run. Most of the republican candidates are reality tv actors anyway. It will be entertaining however to see the retreads and the reality stars debate non-issues for months. In the end it will be embarrassing for all republicans, or for at least the ones that still a sense of shame left.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

He's for amnesty and even blacks want illegals to go home - polled at 68%. So, how's he going to get the black vote when even they know he's working for the UN not the US? I don't know for sure how they will vote, but some Asians are getting fed up with Democrats.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I hope Romney runs and wins.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The cartels are coming across and they just caught some Homeland Security personnel accepting a $5 million bribe. And Obama supports illegals. What an jerk.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama will be one-term.

Clinton is the only democrat elected to two terms since WW2.But that was between the collapse of the Soviet empire and 9-11, and back when Americans had no access to fair and balanced news and opinion via the net, talk radio, social networks, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

IronDome,

With Glen Beck getting fired from Fox Fake News this week the misinformed are going to be leaderless for a while. That is your fair and balanced network.

Clinton won in 96 because he balanced the budget after Reagan destroyed it with tax cuts for the rich (sound familiar?), he was smarter than anyone in the republican party and last the republicans ran Dole. The republicans do not have a candidate that can win in the general election today. None. 2012 may be another landslide for Obama.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

zurcronium - With Glen Beck getting fired from Fox Fake News this week the misinformed are going to be leaderless for a while. That is your fair and balanced network.

Speaking of "misinformation" - Beck wasn't "fired". Keith Olbermann was "fired" and forced off the air immeadiately. Beck's company and FOX aren't renewing their contract for the "Glen Beck show". Beck will still appear on the "Glen Beck show" until the end of his contract. There is NO indication that Beck won't have another FOX show, in a different format, at a later date and he will be appearing on other FOX shows. Unlike Olbermann who isn't welcome at his old station.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Speaking of "misinformation" - Beck wasn't "fired".

Sure... Beck went to Fox and begged them to take him off the air.

Keith Olbermann was "fired" and forced off the air immeadiately

Thus illustrating the difference between liberals and conservatives: Conservatives can't bring themselves to admit when one of their own cross so far out of bounds that their contract has to be terminated. There always has to be this element of "plausible deniability" to cover the truth.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

yabits - Sure... Beck went to Fox and begged them to take him off the air.

Hahahaha, that's not true either. Beck is still working at FOX and with FOX.

According to the announcement issued by both sides, Fox News and Beck's company, Mercury Radio Arts, will “work together to develop and produce a variety of television projects for air on the Fox News Channel as well as content for other platforms including Fox News’ digital properties."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"He's for amnesty and even blacks want illegals to go home - polled at 68%. So, how's he going to get the black vote when even they know he's working for the UN not the US? I don't know for sure how they will vote, but some Asians are getting fed up with Democrats."

Most American blacks are unaware that Obama's party is ready to sell them down the river, once amnesty is granted to the 15 million illegals in the country.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obomber (er President Obama) is a FLIP FLOPPER. He did NOT keep any of his main campaign promises. He brought SOCIALISM to Wall Street & BIG business. Yet they hardly pay any taxes & Joe Plumber & Sue Smith gets screwed every day. He's a disappointment to his wife's Afro American base.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Please DO NOT vote for Obama nor the GOP. The Prez fooled a lot of people ONCE...but hopefully not TWICE. Else shame on us all. And the GOP is CRAZY in a warped Christian-fundamentalist way. Forget em!

What we TRULY need is a viable 3rd PROGRESSIVE political party. It can be done. The focus should not be on ONE person to SAVE us, but on the WHOLE party itself - it's core values, it's promise to FOLLOW the Constitution to the letter, to END corporate lobbying IMMEDIATELY, to NOT bail out rich banks, etc. who caused this financial crises, etc.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

IronDome@

and even blacks want illegals to go home

Hey, thanks for the heads up on EVEN blacks and please post any info on ODD blacks as soon as you hear anything

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites