*** Official Barack Obama FBG campaign headquarters *** (2 Viewers)

[adonis]

Hard to believe that he's getting elected today.

Do I need to go out and vote?

Hah, good point. Corrected.

 

[culdeus]

I agree it's way too much money considering the circumstances. Do we know how much of it is private money and money left over from his campaign?

You can't use campaign funds and the rest of it is private donations. I think the taxpayer pays for the security detail though I could be dead wrong on that.

 

[Urinal Mint]

I'm seething over all my taxpayer money that's being burned on this thing.Just seems a little strange to spend damn near 200 million dollars on his coronation when we're in the middle of "the greatest economic disaster since the depression".

The string section kept playing while the Titanic sank, too

 

[Urinal Mint]

Perhaps he'll be able to single-handedly speak and symbolize this nation out of a credit-drowned tailspin.

 

[mex]

Come on. Even you hardest of hardcore obama guys have to admit this #### is a bit much.

You're seething over this aren't you?

I'm seething over all my taxpayer money that's being burned on this thing.Just seems a little strange to spend damn near 200 million dollars on his coronation when we're in the middle of "the greatest economic disaster since the depression".

so you seethe every 4 years? Why even have another inauguration for a second term?

 

[Statorama]

Come on. Even you hardest of hardcore obama guys have to admit this #### is a bit much.

You're seething over this aren't you?

I'm seething over all my taxpayer money that's being burned on this thing.Just seems a little strange to spend damn near 200 million dollars on his coronation when we're in the middle of "the greatest economic disaster since the depression".

so you seethe every 4 years? Why even have another inauguration for a second term?

W was able to get inaugurated with $40 million. While even that number seems excessive to me, paying 4 times that amount seems completely out of whack.

 

[whitem0nkey]

I happy to hear him say Non-believers in his speech, we can be citizens again.

 

[NorvilleBarnes]

Well it's official. President Obama.

This has been a great thread.

Thanks for all the work and the links Adonis.

 

[adonis]

Well it's official. President Obama.This has been a great thread. Thanks for all the work and the links Adonis.

it's been fun. Now what?

 

[goonsquad]

Well it's official. President Obama.This has been a great thread. Thanks for all the work and the links Adonis.

it's been fun. Now what?

You should have the honor of posting "/thread" here, then start the ***OFFICIAL Obama Administration thread***

 

[commisholio]

Well it's official. President Obama.This has been a great thread. Thanks for all the work and the links Adonis.

:whoosh: Thanks, Adonis. This was a really fun thread. Absolutely amazing to see it culminate in today.

 

[Pooch]

Adonis put a lot of hard work into this thread. I agree that it's time to close it down and start the ***Official Obama Administration*** thread.

Well done sir.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

I Adonis.

 

[shining path]

FOX NEWS!!!!

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

This is cool.

The country's new robots.txt file

Here's a small and nerdy measure of the huge change in the executive branch of the US government today. Here's the robots.txt file from whitehouse.gov yesterday:

User-agent: *

Disallow: /cgi-bin

Disallow: /search

Disallow: /query.html

Disallow: /omb/search

Disallow: /omb/query.html

Disallow: /expectmore/search

Disallow: /expectmore/query.html

Disallow: /results/search

Disallow: /results/query.html

Disallow: /earmarks/search

Disallow: /earmarks/query.html

Disallow: /help

Disallow: /360pics/text

Disallow: /911/911day/text

Disallow: /911/heroes/text

And it goes on like that for almost 2400 lines! Here's the new Obamafied robots.txt file:

User-agent: *

Disallow: /includes/

That's it! BTW, the robots.txt file tells search engines what to include and not include in their indexes.

 

[saintfool]

translation, maurile?

 

[Grape Ape]

There's going to be a lot of gold to mine in this thread over the next 4 years.

Enjoy the irreversable damage Obama is doing to the economy.

 

[trogg78]

There's going to be a lot of gold to mine in this thread over the next 4 years.Enjoy the irreversable damage Obama is doing to the economy.

The world is coming to and end[/sandwichboard]

 

[Statorama]

Obama's biggest campaign contributor, George Soros, makes billions during financial crisis

Hmmmm....almost like he had some inside information or something....

Just seems weird that people that invested in Obama are seeing financial windfalls after his election.

Rahm Emmanuel: A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

 

[wadegarrett]

Obama's biggest campaign contributor, George Soros, makes billions during financial crisis

Hmmmm....almost like he had some inside information or something....

Just seems weird that people that invested in Obama are seeing financial windfalls after his election.

Rahm Emmanuel: A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-rahm-emanuel-profit-26-mar26,0,5682373.story ://http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...5682373.story ://http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...5682373.story

 

[CrossEyed]

But, but, but...it was George Bush's fault.

 

[The Commish]

Obama's biggest campaign contributor, George Soros, makes billions during financial crisis

Hmmmm....almost like he had some inside information or something....

Just seems weird that people that invested in Obama are seeing financial windfalls after his election.

Rahm Emmanuel: A crisis is a terrible thing to waste.

I'd be lying if I said I haven't enjoyed some extra during this hard time. Granted, I haven't made billions, but I have taken advantage of the financial crisis to position myself for some greater success in the future and have been relatively successful during the crisis as well. If he's broken laws, etc, go get him, but it's stupid to fault someone for taking advantage of this "crisis" legally.

 

[Statorama]

John McCain was right

Barack Obama used to get very upset about federal budget deficits. Denouncing an "orgy of spending and enormous deficits," he turned to John McCain during their presidential debates last fall and said, "We have had, over the last eight years, the biggest increases in deficit spending and national debt in our history…Now we have a half-trillion deficit annually…and Sen. McCain voted for four out of five of those George Bush budgets."

That was then. Now, President Obama is asking lawmakers to vote for a budget with a deficit three times the size of the one that so disturbed candidate Obama just a few months ago. And Obama foresees, for years to come, deficits that dwarf those he felt so passionately about way, way back in 2008.

Everywhere you go on Capitol Hill, you hear echoes of the last campaign's spending debate. So on Thursday morning, as the budget fight raged, I asked McCain about the president's seemingly forgotten concern about deficits. McCain doesn't like to rehash the campaign -- "The one thing Americans don't like is a sore loser," he told me -- but when I read him Obama's quote from the debate, he said, "Well, there are a number of statements that were made by then-candidate Obama which have not translated into his policies."

That's an understatement. The deficit issue could be one of the most, if not the most, consequential of Obama's unkept campaign promises. Just how consequential was made clear last week in a little-noticed conference call featuring Budget Director Peter Orszag. Orszag was trying to explain to reporters how the Obama administration calculated its rather rosy forecasts for economic growth. Near the end of the call, he was asked whether deficits along the lines of those predicted by the Congressional Budget Office are sustainable."

Orszag at first dodged the question, saying he was sure the final Obama budget will "reflect a fiscally sustainable path." But the questioner persisted: Are those deficits sustainable? Relenting, Orszag said such deficits, in the range of five percent of the Gross Domestic Product, "would lead to rising debt-to-GDP ratios in a manner that would ultimately not be sustainable."

The simple version of that is: If the Congressional Budget Office projections are correct, we're headed for hell in a handbasket.

I asked McCain what might happen if Obama and Orszag get their way. First, the U.S. could have to print a lot of new money, "running the huge risk of inflation and returning to the situation of the 1970s, only far worse," McCain said. The second option is to raise taxes.

Just this week, former Clinton budget director Alice Rivlin conceded that Obama's budget could present a "scary scenario" that would "raise deficits to unsustainable levels well after the economy recovers." The solution, she wrote, is higher taxes, and not just for the richest of the rich.

Of course, that's what McCain said during the campaign. And it's what the much-maligned Joe the Plumber said, too. Remember when he took so much flak for objecting to Obama's plan to raise taxes only on those Americans making more than $250,000 a year? Joe didn't make anything near that, the critics said, so why was he worrying?

The point was not that Joe made that much, or that anybody at McCain's rallies made that much -- the vast majority didn't. The point was that Obama was promising so many things that to pay for them he would eventually have to raise taxes on people making far less than $250,000. Look out, McCain warned -- someday he'll come after you.

And now that's where we appear to be headed. At some point, Obama will likely have to bow to those in his party who say he must raise taxes if he wants to pay for health care and other expensive initiatives.

Some skeptics believe that was the plan all along. McCain wouldn't go that far, but when I brought up the idea, he did sound a bit suspicious. "Well, you set up a situation that puts spending at an unprecedented amount of GDP, and then you turn around and say, 'Of course we're going to have to raise taxes to pay for this,'" McCain told me. "I'm not saying it was their plan, but it certainly was inevitable."

 

[Statorama]

Epic Fail.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Yep, b/c nothing changed between the summer of 2008 and the present. It's now obvious that all along Barack Obama was secretly plotting to spend billions of dollars bailing out AIG and propping up the the US financial system.

Fool me once...

 

[The Commish]

Epic Fail.

Criteria?

 

[goonsquad]

Epic Fail.

Criteria?

His criteria is whatever bait will get you to bite.

 

[Statorama]

Yep, b/c nothing changed between the summer of 2008 and the present.

Things have gotten much, much worse.(if you'd like me to cite the deficit, debt, and unemployment numbers, let me know)

 

[Go DC Yourself]

Yep, b/c nothing changed between the summer of 2008 and the present.

Things have gotten much, much worse.(if you'd like me to cite the deficit, debt, and unemployment numbers, let me know)

Yep, numbers similar to '81. In fact, things got so bad by '82 it was a shoo-in for President Mondale in '84. Good times.

 

[kaa]

Yep, b/c nothing changed between the summer of 2008 and the present.

Things have gotten much, much worse.(if you'd like me to cite the deficit, debt, and unemployment numbers, let me know)

Yep, numbers similar to '81. In fact, things got so bad by '82 it was a shoo-in for President Mondale in '84. Good times.

Obama has far too many pitfalls to avoid.1. IF unemployment significantly drops in Obama's first term AND2. IF inflation does not take off (particularly the price of oil) AND3. IF the national debt doesn't spur a debt revolt AND4. IF Afghanistan doesn't become such a big issue that the antiwar left tears apart the democratic partyThen Obama may be able to get a second term. Realistically, just one of these issues can ruin Obama. I think we are guaranteed to hit a new all-time high in the price of oil by 2012. That alone will cause Obama's approval rating to crater, just like it did to Bush43 and just like it did to Tony Blair in the UK. High gasoline prices act as a reminder in EVERYONE'S daily life that the country is headed in the wrong direction. And we're already seeing some agitation within the democrat party over Afghanistan. Maybe the left think its a "nuanaced view" to say because Reagan's fortunes turned around from 1982 to 1984, that the same could happen to Obama. I think when you take a closer look at what lies before this President, that is not a realistic expectation.And then to top it all off, Obama has burned his sizable mandate on the issue of health care, which will have no impact on any of these 4 major issues. That was pretty stupid.

 

[kaa]

Obama has far too many pitfalls to avoid.

But nobody, anywhere wants anything, at all, to do with the conservatives/republicans. That isnt changing, its getting worse and worse every day.

Actually I've seen some polling data that suggests the American public doesn't simply switch from one party to another. They seem to go independent first, and then switch to the other party later. I saw data that showed the number of voters who claimed to be independent swelled in the months preceeding the growth of the number of people who said they were democrats a couple years ago. Lately we're seeing the independent vote grow again - but this time at the expense of the democrat base. If the pattern holds, over the next year they should begin to move into the republican party.Of course, the republican party doesn't need to have a bigger base. They just need their base to vote republican, and for the independents to vote for them.

 

[Chadstroma]

over the next year they should begin to move into the republican party.

You are dreaming. Noone wants anything to do with the conservatives/republicans. Nothing.

He may be dreaming but you are in a coma if you really believe that drivel you are spewing.

 

[Death Bytes]

over the next year they should begin to move into the republican party.

You are dreaming. Noone wants anything to do with the conservatives/republicans. Nothing.

Yeah, they suck.

 

[Chadstroma]

over the next year they should begin to move into the republican party.

You are dreaming. Noone wants anything to do with the conservatives/republicans. Nothing.

He may be dreaming but you are in a coma if you really believe that drivel you are spewing.

Except for the part that republicans are slipping among every category except "churchgoers". In 2001 it was 50/50 among Dems and Repubes. Now its like 54/38.

People want nothing to do with conservative/republicans.

Except for the old white brigade which now makes up 2/3 of whats left of the entire party.

Keep telling yourself that over and over again if it helps you to deal with your paranoia and get to bed at night.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

over the next year they should begin to move into the republican party.

You are dreaming. Noone wants anything to do with the conservatives/republicans. Nothing.

He may be dreaming but you are in a coma if you really believe that drivel you are spewing.

Except for the part that republicans are slipping among every category except "churchgoers". In 2001 it was 50/50 among Dems and Repubes. Now its like 54/38.

People want nothing to do with conservative/republicans.

Except for the old white brigade which now makes up 2/3 of whats left of the entire party.

Keep telling yourself that over and over again if it helps you to deal with your paranoia and get to bed at night.

So you don't think the GOP is demographically challenged right now?

 

[kaa]

You are dreaming. Noone wants anything to do with the conservatives/republicans. Nothing.

He may be dreaming but you are in a coma if you really believe that drivel you are spewing.

Except for the part that republicans are slipping among every category except "churchgoers". In 2001 it was 50/50 among Dems and Repubes. Now its like 54/38.

People want nothing to do with conservative/republicans.

Except for the old white brigade which now makes up 2/3 of whats left of the entire party.

Keep telling yourself that over and over again if it helps you to deal with your paranoia and get to bed at night.

So you don't think the GOP is demographically challenged right now?

I don't think so. Look at someone like Nate Silver. Very analytical, but he really came into the scene very recently, in 2007. He's got a lot of interesting ideas on the demographics but I bet he hasn't followed the process very closely for too long. I suspect when the tide turns against the democrats, people like that will probably lose interest and focus on something else. Just look at David Dodds as an in-house FFA example. He was getting pretty interested in the process when it looked like Obama was a big winner and the democrats were getting control of everything. A year ago DD was starting quite a few threads about politics. He doesn't talk much about politics now, though, which speaks volumes about how pessimistic he is growing about the democrats' situation.

There's been a lot of bluster from the democrats but it won't last.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

So you don't think the GOP is demographically challenged right now?

I don't think so. Look at someone like Nate Silver. Very analytical, but he really came into the scene very recently, in 2007. He's got a lot of interesting ideas on the demographics but I bet he hasn't followed the process very closely for too long. I suspect when the tide turns against the democrats, people like that will probably lose interest and focus on something else. Just look at David Dodds as an in-house FFA example. He was getting pretty interested in the process when it looked like Obama was a big winner and the democrats were getting control of everything. A year ago DD was starting quite a few threads about politics. He doesn't talk much about politics now, though, which speaks volumes about how pessimistic he is growing about the democrats' situation.There's been a lot of bluster from the democrats but it won't last.

So the reasoning behind your disagreement is that Nate Silver will get bored and that Dodds might be pessimistic about the "Democrats' situation". Good stuff, brother.

 

[kaa]

So you don't think the GOP is demographically challenged right now?

I don't think so. Look at someone like Nate Silver. Very analytical, but he really came into the scene very recently, in 2007. He's got a lot of interesting ideas on the demographics but I bet he hasn't followed the process very closely for too long. I suspect when the tide turns against the democrats, people like that will probably lose interest and focus on something else. Just look at David Dodds as an in-house FFA example. He was getting pretty interested in the process when it looked like Obama was a big winner and the democrats were getting control of everything. A year ago DD was starting quite a few threads about politics. He doesn't talk much about politics now, though, which speaks volumes about how pessimistic he is growing about the democrats' situation.There's been a lot of bluster from the democrats but it won't last.

So the reasoning behind your disagreement is that Nate Silver will get bored and that Dodds might be pessimistic about the "Democrats' situation". Good stuff, brother.

As of right now, Nate Silver views the 2010 as turning into a wave election for the GOP. The demographics today are tilting to the right. He's got it at about a 30% chance the GOP retakes the House in 2010, which would be a very big win because it would require picking up about 50 seats. And those odds are growing. I'm just noting he's getting less and less interested in talking about elections, or the debt, or the economy, and is pretty much stuck on health care and gutter politics. He seems pretty miserable. As for Dodds, well, he doesn't talk politics much at all.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

So you don't think the GOP is demographically challenged right now?

I don't think so. Look at someone like Nate Silver. Very analytical, but he really came into the scene very recently, in 2007. He's got a lot of interesting ideas on the demographics but I bet he hasn't followed the process very closely for too long. I suspect when the tide turns against the democrats, people like that will probably lose interest and focus on something else. Just look at David Dodds as an in-house FFA example. He was getting pretty interested in the process when it looked like Obama was a big winner and the democrats were getting control of everything. A year ago DD was starting quite a few threads about politics. He doesn't talk much about politics now, though, which speaks volumes about how pessimistic he is growing about the democrats' situation.There's been a lot of bluster from the democrats but it won't last.

So the reasoning behind your disagreement is that Nate Silver will get bored and that Dodds might be pessimistic about the "Democrats' situation". Good stuff, brother.

As of right now, Nate Silver views the 2010 as turning into a wave election for the GOP. The demographics today are tilting to the right. He's got it at about a 30% chance the GOP retakes the House in 2010, which would be a very big win because it would require picking up about 50 seats. And those odds are growing. I'm just noting he's getting less and less interested in talking about elections, or the debt, or the economy, and is pretty much stuck on health care and gutter politics. He seems pretty miserable. As for Dodds, well, he doesn't talk politics much at all.

Not that I don't believe you about the 30% thing, but do you have a link? I'd like to see that reasoning.But just for the record, accusing Nate Silver (a stats geek of unimaginable proportions) of "gutter politics" is simply ridiculous.

 

[tommyGunZ]

As of right now, Nate Silver views the 2010 as turning into a wave election for the GOP. The demographics today are tilting to the right. He's got it at about a 30% chance the GOP retakes the House in 2010, which would be a very big win because it would require picking up about 50 seats. And those odds are growing. I'm just noting he's getting less and less interested in talking about elections, or the debt, or the economy, and is pretty much stuck on health care and gutter politics. He seems pretty miserable. As for Dodds, well, he doesn't talk politics much at all.

This is like saying Mel Kiper is getting less and less interested in the NFL draft now because he's not putting out daily articles and mock drafts like he does in the days/weeks leading up to the draft. The next elections are 12 months away - Silver is using his statistical analysis to monitor the current political environment.

 

[tommyGunZ]

So you don't think the GOP is demographically challenged right now?

I don't think so.

This goes against all common logic. Let's see how you support such a crazy idea.

Look at someone like Nate Silver. Very analytical, but he really came into the scene very recently, in 2007. He's got a lot of interesting ideas on the demographics but I bet he hasn't followed the process very closely for too long. I suspect when the tide turns against the democrats, people like that will probably lose interest and focus on something else. Just look at David Dodds as an in-house FFA example. He was getting pretty interested in the process when it looked like Obama was a big winner and the democrats were getting control of everything. A year ago DD was starting quite a few threads about politics. He doesn't talk much about politics now, though, which speaks volumes about how pessimistic he is growing about the democrats' situation.There's been a lot of bluster from the democrats but it won't last.

Your support for your idea that the GOP isn't demographically challenged is your perception that Nate Silver and David Dodds aren't talking politics quite as much as they did in November of 2008? WTF?

 

[kaa]

So you don't think the GOP is demographically challenged right now?

I don't think so.

This goes against all common logic. Let's see how you support such a crazy idea.

Look at someone like Nate Silver. Very analytical, but he really came into the scene very recently, in 2007. He's got a lot of interesting ideas on the demographics but I bet he hasn't followed the process very closely for too long. I suspect when the tide turns against the democrats, people like that will probably lose interest and focus on something else. Just look at David Dodds as an in-house FFA example. He was getting pretty interested in the process when it looked like Obama was a big winner and the democrats were getting control of everything. A year ago DD was starting quite a few threads about politics. He doesn't talk much about politics now, though, which speaks volumes about how pessimistic he is growing about the democrats' situation.There's been a lot of bluster from the democrats but it won't last.

Your support for your idea that the GOP isn't demographically challenged is your perception that Nate Silver and David Dodds aren't talking politics quite as much as they did in November of 2008? WTF?

Wave elections don't build for political parties that are demographically challenged, unless your definition of demographically challenged is so watered-down that its essentially meaningless.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

So you don't think the GOP is demographically challenged right now?

I don't think so.

This goes against all common logic. Let's see how you support such a crazy idea.

Look at someone like Nate Silver. Very analytical, but he really came into the scene very recently, in 2007. He's got a lot of interesting ideas on the demographics but I bet he hasn't followed the process very closely for too long. I suspect when the tide turns against the democrats, people like that will probably lose interest and focus on something else. Just look at David Dodds as an in-house FFA example. He was getting pretty interested in the process when it looked like Obama was a big winner and the democrats were getting control of everything. A year ago DD was starting quite a few threads about politics. He doesn't talk much about politics now, though, which speaks volumes about how pessimistic he is growing about the democrats' situation.There's been a lot of bluster from the democrats but it won't last.

Your support for your idea that the GOP isn't demographically challenged is your perception that Nate Silver and David Dodds aren't talking politics quite as much as they did in November of 2008? WTF?

Wave elections don't build for political parties that are demographically challenged, unless your definition of demographically challenged is so watered-down that its essentially meaningless.

OK young people, blacks, and Hispanics are increasingly moving toward the hard left of the Democratic party. And they're the only demographics that are growing in this country.So explain again how the Republicans are not demographically challenged. Are they getting young people with their homophobic hysteria? Are they getting Hispanics with their anti-immigration rhetoric? Are they getting blacks by constantly attacking a black president as wholly un-American?Please tell me where the Republicans are gaining ground.

 

[Statorama]

Yep, b/c nothing changed between the summer of 2008 and the present.

Things have gotten much, much worse.(if you'd like me to cite the deficit, debt, and unemployment numbers, let me know)

Yep, numbers similar to '81. In fact, things got so bad by '82 it was a shoo-in for President Mondale in '84. Good times.

Reagan wasn't fighting instant news sources and things like blogs and twitter. When Obama F's up, we all know about it and it becomes the talking point of the day.

 

[Homer J Simpson]

Yep, b/c nothing changed between the summer of 2008 and the present.

Things have gotten much, much worse.(if you'd like me to cite the deficit, debt, and unemployment numbers, let me know)

Yep, numbers similar to '81. In fact, things got so bad by '82 it was a shoo-in for President Mondale in '84. Good times.

Reagan wasn't fighting instant news sources and things like blogs and twitter. When Obama F's up, we all know about it and it becomes the talking point of the day.

I would agree, but the Republicans really don't have a single candidate that can hang with Obama.

 

[Go DC Yourself]

Yep, b/c nothing changed between the summer of 2008 and the present.

Things have gotten much, much worse.(if you'd like me to cite the deficit, debt, and unemployment numbers, let me know)

Yep, numbers similar to '81. In fact, things got so bad by '82 it was a shoo-in for President Mondale in '84. Good times.

Reagan wasn't fighting instant news sources and things like blogs and twitter. When Obama F's up, we all know about it and it becomes the talking point of the day.

I would agree, but the Republicans really don't have a single candidate that can hang with Obama.

The only people that read blogs and tweats have pretty much already made up their minds and look for ones that confirm their beliefs. Independents go with the general news media flow. Look at last week, Obama hemoraging support on health care reform efforts, gives a good speech, numbers start trending up. Because some independents came back. That group will be all over the map several times before Nov. 2012.Far more damage will be done to the eventual Republican candidate in 2012 by the many televised debates the party will hold in 2011-12, because the candidates will all be trying to win over the Limbaugh/Beck wing of the party. So far we've seen Jindal do damage that won't be undone for a decade trying to do so responding to Obama, and Palin, Huck and Pawlenty all pander to that wing with death panels, et al. What you haven't seen is Romney do so. My guess is that he will win as the representative of the GOP establishment, unless the crazies coalesce early and in large numbers behind Huckabee.

 

[saintfool]

As of right now, Nate Silver views the 2010 as turning into a wave election for the GOP. The demographics today are tilting to the right. He's got it at about a 30% chance the GOP retakes the House in 2010, which would be a very big win because it would require picking up about 50 seats. And those odds are growing. I'm just noting he's getting less and less interested in talking about elections, or the debt, or the economy, and is pretty much stuck on health care and gutter politics. He seems pretty miserable. As for Dodds, well, he doesn't talk politics much at all.

if it's all the same to you, i'd rather Dodds himself speak for himself in these circumstances. i find it more than a little presumptuous on your part to infer any meaning behind what dodds may or may not be doing.

 

[adonis]

It's doubtful even I would've predicted such a successful presidency at this point in his tenure. The list of accomplishments he's tacked on in the first half of his time in office has been quite impressive. Sure, debt is high, and the economy still needs help, unemployment is high, and there are other outstanding issues, but I seriously see that he is getting things done.

Health care reform, financial reform, quite a lot of things moving forward in the stimulus bill (ARRA, one of which funds part of what I work on, which is electronic medical records - funding to move it forward with the newly released meaningful use standards, etc)...some really good stuff going on. And now he's winding down action in Iraq, got sanctions against Iran, the gulf spill seems to be at the very worst not getting any worse.

On the way could be a new energy bill, and I think he wants to tackle immigration reform as well. He's certainly ambitious, and he's not the "leftist" president many thought he'd be (I was fairly sure he'd be more centrist, although independents aren't terribly happy).

But looking back over what he's accomplished thus far, I'm fairly content, and I think public perception of the stuff he's doing is seriously lagging, like with many good presidents. If the economy picks back up, Obama is going to be riding a huge wave of popular suppport. If not, he's unlikely to be re-elected, but still, odds are he'll be remembered as having done a great job.

Figured I'd bump this old thread with ruminations on where we're at now, versus what I would have imagined back during the campaign.

 

[SofaKings]

jesus

 

[timschochet]

Perceptions are certainly going to be different here. Most conservatives and Republicans that I know believe he has been one of the worst presidents ever. No surprise there, you could predict this from the beginning. Many true progressives that I know believe he has been weak and disappointing. Again, that is somewhat predictable. And liberal Democrats not quite in the far Left category, such as Adonis, are going to be very pleased.

That leaves the general public who doesn't belong to any of these groups, including myself. About 25% of us are politically interested independents, and we are generally concerned by the big spending and unemployment. The other 75% aren't paying attention to politics, probably won't vote this November, and won't even start to focus on politics until the summer of 2012. At that point unless the Republicans have managed to produce someone with enough charisma to challenge Obama, he's going to be re-elected. Since I don't see that person on the landscape, I would bet a great deal of money that Obama will be re-elected rather easily.