Thread: Chicago Tribune: "Why Obama should withdraw and not seek a second term"

The remarkable conclusion most Democrats have now come to: Barack Obama is incapable of saving the economy!

It seems as if the Democrats have deep regreats they did not choose Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama to run against Republican John MaCain for Commander in Chief!

"When Ronald Reagan ran for re-election in 1984, his slogan was "Morning in America." For Barack Obama, it's more like midnight in a coal mine.

The sputtering economy is about to stall out, unemployment is high, his jobs program may not pass, foreclosures are rampant and the poor guy can't even sneak a cigarette."

His approval rating is at its lowest level ever. His party just lost two House elections — one in a district it had held for 88 consecutive years. He's staked his future on the jobs bill, which most Americans don't think would work.

The vultures are starting to circle. Former White House spokesman Bill Burton said that unless Obama can rally the Democratic base, which is disillusioned with him, "it's going to be impossible for the president to win." Democratic consultant James Carville had one word of advice for Obama: "Panic."

But there is good news for the president. I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election. He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he's willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013.

That might be the sensible thing to do. It's hard for a president to win a second term when unemployment is painfully high. If the economy were in full rebound mode, Obama might win anyway. But it isn't, and it may fall into a second recession — in which case voters will decide his middle name is Hoover, not Hussein. Why not leave of his own volition instead of waiting to get the ax?

It's not as though there is much enticement to stick around. Presidents who win re-election have generally found, wrote John Fortier and Norman Ornstein in their 2007 book, "Second-Term Blues," that "their second terms did not measure up to their first."

Presidential encores are generally a bog of frustration, exhaustion and embarrassment. They are famous for lowest moments rather than finest hours. Richard Nixon was forced to resign in disgrace, Reagan had the Iran-Contra scandal, and Bill Clinton made the unfortunate acquaintance of Monica Lewinsky.

Administration officials get weary after four years and leave in droves. The junior varsity has to be put into service. New ideas are hard to come by.

Someone said that when a man is smitten with a beautiful woman, he should remember that somebody somewhere is tired of her. Likewise, the most inspiring presidents get stale after years of constant overexposure.

In the event he wins, Obama could find himself with Republicans in control of both houses of Congress. Then he will long for the good old days of 2011. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker John Boehner will bound out of bed each day eager to make his life miserable.

Besides avoiding this indignity, Obama might do his party a big favor. In hard times, voters have a powerful urge to punish incumbents. He could slake this thirst by stepping aside and taking the blame. Then someone less reviled could replace him at the top of the ticket.

Source: Steve Chapman: Why Obama should withdraw - Chicago Tribune

If he cares about his party he will retire. He is the mother of all albatrosses.

Originally Posted by daddio

If he cares about his party he will retire. He is the mother of all albatrosses.

You are very correct, daddio.

However, Obama's huge ego won't permit him to step aside. We're in for another full year of constant and stepped up campaigning and attacks, while he continues to make the national economy worse off.

He's committing political suicide and taking the proud Democratic party with him straight over the precipice to doom.

By the way, the inside rumors are he smokes like a chimney, and drinks to much, is slothful and unkempt, preferring watching sports on the video monitor in his private office.

Originally Posted by James Cessna

By the way, the inside rumors are he smokes like a chimney, and drinks to much, is slothful and unkempt, preferring watching sports on the video monitor in his private office.

Got any links to that? Or did you just make that up?

And so... it comes to this.

This (deciding not to run) is perhaps the only thing left in his control. In everything else events have, and will continue to, overtake him.

The question is, who would the democrats pick to replace him. It is not Obama himself that is loathed by the rational public, but his policies, policies that are backed to the hilt by the rest of the democrats. The Blue Dogs dropped like flies in 2010, and the rest are set to be driven from the Senate next year. Pretty soon you'll be left with just Bernie Sanders and Denis Kusinich.

Hillary is doing a very good job of pretending not to be interested, but I've heard that before.

But does anyone really think that she would do different?

Originally Posted by Commodore

Hillary is doing a very good job of pretending not to be interested, but I've heard that before.

But does anyone really think that she would do different?

For better or worse, Hillary would not be so inept...

Originally Posted by tsquare

For better or worse, Hillary would not be so inept...

Are you implying that with just a little more polish, Obama's turds would be better swallowed by the public?

Originally Posted by Commodore

Are you implying that with just a little more polish, Obama's turds would be better swallowed by the public?

I have to admit, that's an interesting way to put it.

In short, I don't think so. I think the electorate, at least those that are paying any attention at all, see him and his policies for what they are, and the results that they have brought, so he's being evaluated for the results of his record, which is a fair enough thing to do.

Originally Posted by eohrnberger

I have to admit, that's an interesting way to put it.

In short, I don't think so. I think the electorate, at least those that are paying any attention at all, see him and his policies for what they are, and the results that they have brought, so he's being evaluated for the results of his record, which is a fair enough thing to do.

I agree, it's not the level of salesmenship, it's the substance. And there would be no substantive difference between the Obama administration and a second Clinton administration.