The midterms not only dealt a big shock to Democrats but also sent a message to President Barack Obama. According to the new POLITICO Power and the People poll, only 26 percent of the public believes he will be reelected as president in 2012. Inside the Beltway, however, expectations are quite different, with D.C. elites saying he will have a second term by a reverse 2 to 1 margin. (49 percent say re-elected; 23 percent say not).I think it is too early to tell. For sure I would not count President Obama out at this point. There is a lot of time between now and when candidates have to get serious about putting together a campaign staff.
But, at this point it is Barack Obama's to lose. Smarter and more clever politicians than the current President have bowed out before a second campaign.
Looking at the Republican hopefuls one is not hopeful. One is not hopeful about the candidates and about the political pundits. Reporter Dan Balz, writing in The Washington Post, notes that there is "No clear favorite for 2012 GOP nomination".
In the Balz article it was past the jump and three paragraphs from the bottom that we get to folks who I think are serious possibilities. In fact, I would think the Republican Party may, in 2012, go with Governor Chris Christie at the top of the ticket and Governor Bobbie Jindal in the number two slot. That is just my opinion.
Before someone asks, no, I don't think former Governor Sarah Palin will be on the ticket, even though she has more experience than Senator Obama had when he was running. But, I think she will be around, stirring the pot, for some time to come.
Regards — Cliff
I swore I would do my best to ignore the near-constant tongue-bathing enjoyed by the beauty contestant from Wasilla here, but this one is nigh-on inexplicable:
ReplyDelete"more experienced"
That is, "more experienced" if you don't count law degrees complete statewide office terms and actually running for and being elected to national office, but you do count running the debt of a 5,000 person municipality to $25 million dollars, doing that even while applying a new 2% city sales tax and burning through $8 million dollars in additional federal earmarks, firing public safety employees for not being political supporters, obtaining a passport for the first time in 2006, signing the fattest spending budget in state history even while being #1 in per-capita federal earmark receipts, etc. etc. etc. (We won't count illegally refusing to fund rape kits and other affronts to human decency).
Of course, if the analysis is only to be extended to publicly-elected executive positions, you are technically correct that all those years as mayor and four years as governor stands unique in the analysis, but I'd point you back to the $5,000 per capital municipal debt despite the liberal exploitation of federal moneys to ask of what value has been that experience? ESPECIALLY in light of the gaping "foreign policy" gap where you're comparing a rube with a barely-creased and brand new passport against someone who speaks multiple languages and has actually lived outside the country?
Puh-leeeze.
I am not touting the experience of Ms Palin. I am merely commenting on Senator Obama's qualifications before January 2009.
ReplyDeleteRegards -- Cliff
It all hinges on who the Republicans/Tea Party nominate and that they don't bring discredit upon themselves the next two years in wrangling with the President as they lead the House and have a veto in the Senate. Today's SJ Mercury News is suggesting we watch Representative Dan Issa.
ReplyDeleteSenator Obama's qualifications summarized from my comment:
ReplyDelete1. A law degree, aka Columbia University and Harvard Law School, compared to incomplete terms at Hawaii Pacific University, North Idaho College and Matanuska-Susitina College before finally graduating from the University of Idaho after completing the infamous "five year plan".
2. Multiple and complete statewide office terms, aka eight years as state senator in the fifth most populous state in the country, as opposed to an aborted gubernatorial term in the fourth-LEAST populous state in the country.
3. Running for and being elected to national office, aka Senator from Illinois.
4. Possessed of a passport older than 2 years and used more than for one single trip outside of the country, aka actually living abroad instead of simply living in a state where one can possibly "see Russia".
5. Able to speak multiple languages.
"More experienced" is a joke the way you put it, in any other context than comparing being mayor of 5000 people on top of an aborted gubernatorial term to eight years as state senator and two more as national Senator, and even then it's an absolute stretch.
Kad
ReplyDeleteAre we talking State Senator "Voting Present"? Not an impressive performance.
As for Columbia, I am having over on the Friday after Thanksgiving a Columbia University Professor and his Professor wife. Wonderful people. Very bright people. But, I don't get the idea that going to Columbia gives you a big margin over people who went to some Cow College. The worst thing in George W Bush's resume was that he was a graduate of Harvard Business School.
There is a rumor that DoJ is making room to hire more graduates of East Coast Law Schools. Is this a good thing? Is this diversity?
But, back to the current President, I didn't find his resume that impressive.
On the other hand, I wasn't that excited about his Senate colleague, Senator John McCain.
For Lance, I am not sure Darrell Issa is high on my list, even if he is from Riverside County.
Regards — Cliff
Taking your tack, I'll point out that I'm not touting the experience of #44 either. You introduced a comparative between one inexperienced pol's resume and another, and claimed disparity. If you had said BO was "even less experienced than", I would have been happy with the implied acknowledgment that neither were. I object only to the possibility that you are intending to imply something different than that.
ReplyDelete