News & Views from 465 California Street

One-Term Obama?

Clint Reilly

As I watched the funeral mass of Senator Edward Kennedy on television, a strange but not entirely unrelated thought crossed my mind:

Is it possible that Barack Obama will be a one term president?

It was little more than a year ago that Kennedy issued a ringing endorsement of Obama’s improbable presidential campaign. Kennedy was struck by Obama’s ability to motivate young Americans and he believed that the young senator offered a chance to heal the political divisions that had been tearing the country apart.

Today, the Liberal Lion has been laid to rest and Obama now finds himself in exactly the kind of divisive political dogfights that defined Kennedy’s accomplished career.

The point seems clear: A message of unity and inspiration may have been good for a landslide victory in November and a few months of 70-percent approval ratings, but it probably won’t be strong enough to pass health care, energy and education reform.

At least that’s what the numbers are saying. Obama’s job approval rating now hovers at 50 percent and prognosticators are predicting double-digit Republican gains in next year’s midterm congressional elections.

To be fair, Obama has been victimized by an unfortunate chain of events.

First, he was forced to write a multi-trillion-dollar check to bail out banks, auto companies and insurance behemoths, and to save the economy from imminent collapse. Obama had to spend his hard won political capital to save America from the sins of George W. Bush, Ronald Reagan and a generation of anti-government ideologues whose hands-off policies nearly precipitated another Great Depression.

Second, this ungodly expenditure of taxpayer money to save special interests from their self-inflicted wounds has angered Middle America and eroded Obama’s support among blue state independents.

Third, the huge deficits created to finance the bailouts have revived the credibility of conservative attacks on the profligacy of “Big Government,” as specious as they may be.

Fourth, Obama is facing a divisive national debate over health care reform. His lack of firm leadership and his wavering on a government-run insurance program has offended his liberal base and confounded the young idealists who invested their hopes and dreams in Obama during the campaign. More damaging, Obama’s lack of leadership has left a vacuum in the debate that has been exploited by right-wing demagogues intent on destroying the president’s agenda.

Finally, the war in Afghanistan threatens to ensnare Obama in the same contradictions that plagued George W. Bush: How do you measure success in Afghanistan? What is our exit strategy?

To confront these problems, Obama needs to discard vague appeals to hope, peace, post- partisanship and transformational change. He needs to take real positions and defend them.

Kennedy’s legacy offers Obama a valuable lesson in this regard. Born the year before Franklin Delano Roosevelt took office, Kennedy ended up becoming the most eloquent contemporary voice for New Deal liberalism. He was an uncompromising advocate for using government’s power to help people. During the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s he was the caricature Republicans conjured to paint a poisonous picture of government pandering to the poor and minorities at the expense of the white working class, middle class taxpayers and small businesses.

And yet he never altered his message or lowered his voice.

It would be too easy to say that Obama can triumph by emulating Kennedy’s fearless liberalism. He governs in a cautious era where voters are skeptical of both government and business. Progress is promised by technology, medicine and education – not government handouts. Money is tight. Jobs are scarce. The economic growth of nations like China challenges our own.

Still, President Obama must take real stands. Failure to do so and deliver on his promises could have grave implications for 2012. Does he have what it takes? The outcome of the health care battle will offer a big clue.

Comments (24)

  • You must think your readers are idiot’s. In regards to the article you wrote on Tuesday 9/09. President Obama was not forced to do anything. If he was maybe he shouldn’t be the President. The deregulation in the banking and home loan requirements is what started and set up this economic mess. This had a domino effect on the entire market. President Clinton was President when this happened.

    Posted by: Lisa L. | September 8th, 2009 at 1:01 pm

  • The best part of your article was its title which is a
    growing possibility that I hope and pray comes to be. I disagree with
    many of your comments such as the sins of Bush and Reagan when in
    truth most of Obama’s current problems and decreasing popularity are
    his sins, self-inflected and embellished by misguided liberals such
    as Kennedy, Barney Franks, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. You should
    give credit where credit is due

    Posted by: Forrest | September 8th, 2009 at 1:01 pm

  • Thank you for your voice of reason every week. Keep up the good work!

    Posted by: Cindy | September 8th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

  • I suggest you read Dr. Sowell’s column of today (partial


    Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass
    the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately,
    then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for
    years– more specifically, until the year after the next Presidential

    If this is such an urgently needed program, why wait for years to put
    it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why
    not let them experience those benefits before the next Presidential

    If it is not urgent that the legislation goes into effect
    immediately, then why don’t we have time to go through the normal
    process of holding Congressional hearings on the pros and cons,
    accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What
    sense does it make to “hurry up and wait” on something that is
    literally a matter of life and death?

    Posted by: F. Potter | September 8th, 2009 at 1:02 pm

  • Your boy obama is way in over his head. He has a sneaky dishonest plan to
    transform our country trying to bypass the democratic process. that
    qualifies him as a domestic terrorist. If we can’t have a real in depth
    discussion I don’t want it. I’m exercising my right as a sovereign citizen
    to say NO SALE! The government is there to implement things the citizens
    need, not us as subjects here to serve the government. I dont care how
    worthy the goals may appear its still my choice to say no. Leave me alone.
    That should be the end of it! Proud Free American Citizen Not A Subject
    Thanks, Kurt

    Posted by: Kurt | September 8th, 2009 at 1:03 pm

  • “Obama had to spend his hard one political capital to save America from
    the sins or George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan….” Come on. Barney
    Frank and congress made it easier for Americans to own homes. When
    banks and Wall Street trusted those Americans to make good on the money they borrowed to get a piece of the American dream they got burned. That is how we got to this point. People did no pay their mortgages. Simple as that.

    Obama is going to bankrupt the nation. Forget healthcare, focus on
    jobs. FYI, less than half of the stimulus money has been dispersed so
    how has he had to spend it all? The unions crippled the automakers.

    Posted by: Tyler B. | September 8th, 2009 at 1:03 pm

  • The majority of Americans are not stupid. The Republicans have lost huge amounts of credibility by deliberately polarizing issues that cry out for reform…and you want Obama to contribute to that polarization? Much better, I think, is to see him step in to guide the decision process in a timely (not our call), calm way after having given people of all persuasions their say. It is sad for me to see how self-styled pundits, like yourself, use the fear of failure to give faux substance to their writings. R. Foster

    Posted by: R. Foster | September 8th, 2009 at 1:11 pm

  • the disastrous subprime mortgage policy is what started the economic freefall.Can you tell me how geo. w bush and ron. reagan had anything to do with this/.?you blamed them in your 9/8/09 column so give the facts.Also B Frank and C Dodd are said by someto have instituted this sub-prime mortgage loan and the democrats are trying to cover it up. Let me hear your coments. George O

    Posted by: George O. | September 8th, 2009 at 1:38 pm

  • Wow! I love how Republicans hope for Obama to fail (“waterloo”)… make ignorant remarks and lies with no factual proof to back it up. I wish the right wingers would be real and explain what they really feel. Pure 1950′s racism. They can’t stand to see a black man as President. (Glenn Beck called him a “racist, with a deep seeded hatred for white Americans)…um Glenn, Obama is half white. To answer Mr. Reilly..Obama will make fools of the Republican “scare-tactics.” He started today with his education speech. Even Newt Gingrich admitted he was wrong for stirring up controversy after readin it. And Obama will make a fiery, articulate, and inspiring health care adress tonight …ultimately getting the public option. Sorry Republicans our President is halk black and yes, poor people will get insurance. Stop your hatred and get back to for humanity.

    Posted by: Jarod Flores | September 8th, 2009 at 2:02 pm

  • “Yes” to your question. The signs were there from the outset for anyone
    not drinking the Obama Kool Aid. The day after Jimmy Carter defeated
    Gerald Ford, Henry Kissinger predicted Carter’s one term presidency. I could cite Carter’s takeover of the White House tennis court reservations as the best clue to what Kissinger was talking about. At least to Carter’s credit, he wasn’t deceitful. Obama, in contrast, to his campaign sloganeering–is as close to a pure political animal as I’ve ever seen. He has no substance or political courage. People are starting to figure him out. The liberals hated Reagan–but the Soviets knew they were in trouble when Reagan fired the air controllers. … . Those not drinking the Kool Aid understood from the start that Obama did not favor the “Afghanistan War” for any other reason than to gain political separation from Bush, McCain, and Hillary. Now he’s stuck with Afghanistan—and won’t have the political courage to follow through to victory. It’ll be total quagmire–or ignominious defeat there–by 2012 because of Obama’s timidity and half-way measures.

    As an American, I don’t like to see our country fail–but as Kissinger suggested, we do get ourselves back on track. And you’re right on health care. While that was one issue Obama is sincere on, everybody knows his secret plan is “Single Payer”–yet another sign of lack of
    forthrightness. Its a helluva thing that the people hold politicians to what they say, eh?

    Onward & Upward, Don F

    Posted by: Don F. | September 8th, 2009 at 2:38 pm

  • there is only one thing right about your article of today, dated
    9/8/09 is Obama will be a 1 term President.

    Otherwise the rest of your article was propaganda crap. If you don’t like your Union Wage, Government pay, or Non-Profit status, quit, start your own company and work like me 12-18 hours a day and pay half your income to the bloated , wasteful, lying, cheating, corrupt government of yours, not mine.



    Reason, Reality, Self-Reliant, right Member of Society.

    Posted by: Kelly | September 8th, 2009 at 2:39 pm

  • As Senator Moynihan noted “You are entitled to your own opinions ; but not your own facts .”…..Therefore should I believe your opinions or my lying eyes and ears.

    The credit mess was not a fault of Reagan or Bush but in a large part due to Clinton policies which basically ensured that traditional credit measures
    were discarded . It was done by fiat with the Attorney General threatening legal actions against lending institutions ………This stuff is on You tube and you can view the original comments………As for Kennedy I prayed for his recovery twice a day from the point I first heard of his illness until his passing…….That said I think he was a despicable person and will spend a very long time in purgatory….The man , at the very least , was guilty of manslaughter ,ruined peoples lives with impunity and was an opportunist………By the way perhaps it escaped your attention but recent polls show people claim to be a conservative by a 2 to 1 majority over liberals……You can sell your failed philosophy in the Bay Area however it will be soundly rejected by the common sense , hard-working folks across the country….

    Also probably the majority of economists agree New Deal measures did little to extricate the country from the Great Depression……..Every one knows the more you Socialists want to build big goverment the more you are defunding private enterprise and true job creation…..I could go on and on but I have limited typing skills…….Anyhow enjoy whatever you are smoking cuz it must be gooooood!!

    Posted by: Schapelli | September 8th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

  • Your column is really provocative and informative, and right on target from
    my point of view. Please keep it up.

    Regarding a one-term Obama — this is a real possibility. I happen to
    consider president Obama as a real gift to the country, a “national
    treasure” (as some in the press recently called his wife Michelle), a rare
    combination of eloquence, intelligence, respect for our constitution and
    legal system, coupled with a determination to push through some badly needed reforms. But he faces some really tough problems, most of which is coming from a powerful, cynical right-wing press. The easy way out for him would be to just play out his term with platitudes coupled with surprise when disasters occur, the way GW Bush did. He’s not made that way, and I think he will find a way to bring about his vision of healing America.

    Can he drag the public kicking and screaming into the 21st century? Or will
    they insist on living in what amounts to a nineteenth century Dickensian

    Let’s face it — the average American still believes that Saddam Hussein was hiding nuclear weapons; that the Iraq war was justified; that we need to be fighting Al-Qaeda as though it were a state; the earth is about 4,000 years old; and Noah’s flood carved the Grand Canyon. The general ignorance regarding how our government operates is similarly depressing.

    I also despair at the general ignorance of the principle of economics by the
    public, and how fiercely they seem to defend their ignorance (“Keep the
    government out of my Medicare”, for example).

    For health insurance to work for us all, we need both of the following: (1)
    general coverage of everyone, with some level premium charged to each
    person, regardless of their current or expected health condition, and (2)
    regulation of the health insurance industry to prevent any provider from
    cherry-picking the healthy by rejecting applicants and/or refusing to pay
    large claims later.

    Why? On point (1), if people can choose to be insured or not, most seem
    willing to choose not to be insured if money is tight. We reason (usually
    with some justification) that food on the table, or paying the rent, is more
    important than keeping up payments to some company for a health condition that may or may not occur. We seem willing to gamble with our health, thinking that someone will get cancer or diabetes, and that’s sad, but it’ll never happen to me! Is this also why so many chunk dollars into the slots at Las Vegas? We might also look at the experience of our grandparents, who (by and large) reached retirement with no major health problem. We then reason — suppose I reach age 70 and haven’t spent a day in the hospital, with few visits to a doctor, I would very likely look back on all that money spent on insurance premiums, and wonder why I spent it.

    My point is that reasonable insurance premiums require a large pool of
    people, young and old, healthy and unhealthy, in order to support the large
    cost of unexpected medical emergencies. In short, people will cherry-pick
    insurance, and try to buy only when they (and the insurer) knows that they need it, and not when they appear to be healthy. A “choice” option will let the healthy opt out, and the unhealthy want insurance. This will drive up premiums or cause insurance companies to reject applicants on the grounds of pre-existing conditions, age, or other issues.

    The lack of health insurance also has the perverse outcome of leading to
    poor preventive treatment and catching indicators of trouble in time to deal with the pending trouble. In my case, it turned out that I had symptoms of thyroid cancer through certain blood test markers. I wasn’t aware of any problem, but after more tests (radioactive iodine injections followed by some chest scans), I was on the path to serious lung cancer. Waiting until I felt short of breath, then discovering that I needed lung replacement surgery, or facing death, would have been the consequences of not getting regular checkups from my physician. How many people really appreciate this, or are willing to take chances with their health? My reading is — most people.

    On point (2), if ordinary people are not permitted to cherry-pick health
    insurance, each insuror must similarly be prevented from cherry-picking
    clients. What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Letting
    insurance companies be selective about their clients, or set a premium level that depends on the client’s perceived health will result in what we now have — high premiums, denial of claims, limitations on total medical
    expenses, and refusal of applicants with “pre-existing conditions”. An
    insurance company is not an individual with a heart, it is a business, and
    it must be profitable or it cannot survive. If some choose to accept all comers without regard to their health, while their competitors are permitted to discriminate, only the latter will survive. Each insurance company therefore needs a guarantee that their competitors will abide by their own constraints — only the federal government can impose such a constraint.

    Coupling health insurance to employment is clearly a bad idea. This worked
    well enough in the times of full employment, and a rising economy. It’s
    failing us badly now. Add to that the trend of employers to not offer
    health insurance benefits, and we have our current national disgrace. Here, we need to compare an employer “A” providing health benefits to a competitor “B” who is not. “A” must either have some competitive edge over “B”, or must charge higher prices than “B”. Their customers don’t care whether one provides health insurance or not — that’s not obvious. The end result is that “A” will lose business and eventually fail.

    Obama’s plan therefore requires every company to provide a minimal health
    insurance plan for its employees, or pay a tax (per employee) if they don’t.
    The tax would go into paying for health insurance for the employees.

    The GOP claims that this tax will cause small businesses to fail. I don’t
    buy that, or, perhaps better, if employers are expected to provide health
    insurance, the government needs to guarantee that every company provides such a plan. Obama’s plan therefore levels the business playing field, and keeps in place employer-based insurance in a way that also protects all employees.

    I don’t know how to get these ideas across on a picket sign. The issues are subtle, but president Obama clearly understands the principles — or appears to. He seems to be getting wobbly on a government insurance option. I’m looking forward to his speech Wednesday to see where he intends to take this. Sad that it’s in the hands of a clutch of blue-dog Democrats, who need some backbone surgery.

    One last comment. While I was growing up in the depression years, the idea was you elected someone to Congress or the presidency, then you followed his/her leadership. It never occurred to my family to get out on the sidewalk with signs in a desperate attempt to make their representative conform to their ideas. We have a representative government, not a democracy. I’d like to see our representatives study the issues, hear all the arguments, then make up his/her own mind without much regard for the mob sentiment. I suppose that makes me hopelessly out of touch with reality, but it seems to me that’s the only hope for us all — to somehow regain trust in the integrity and wisdom of our representatives.

    William B

    Posted by: William B. | September 8th, 2009 at 3:27 pm

  • Mr. Reilly,

    For quite some time now I’ve seen your “opinion pieces” in the Vallejo Times Herald, a poor excuse for a newspaper, but the only source of info within this hopelessly Democratic Party stronghold. Vallejo’s long history of being a shipyard base, union intensive, racially diverse, below average income, intellectually void and now bankrupt city filled with over paid, inept civil servants makes Vallejo a natural for the description of “Democratic Stronghold”.

    Some of your recent offerings “Stop Bashing Government”, the passing of the “Lion”, Ted Kennedy & “One-Term Obama ?” have caught my attention. It’s really quite amusing reading. Honestly, it’s the best written verbiage in the newspaper regardless my level of agreement of the content. And, I guess it’s OK for you to keep blaming Ronald Reagan (the greatest president in my lifetime, 58 yrs. & just my opinion) for things you don’t like if I can still blame FDR for the beginning of the welfare state as we know it. I wasn’t even alive when he was president, but if it were ever said that “Money (not religion) is the opiate of the masses”, I’d believe he would get the credit for it.

    The reason I continue to read viewpoints opposed to my own is my belief that, using radio as an example, somewhere between KPFA radio Berkeley and Hot Talk 560 lies the truth. But the propaganda that is spewing from both sides on all issues has reached a toxicity level ultimately fatal to the Nation. The degree of toxicity, regardless of party in power of any branch at the Federal level, as I measure it, is the rapidity with which personal freedom of choice is disappearing . Also, the manipulative “management” of the flow of information and its lack of integrity is frightening.

    The impending death of newspapers as an informational medium must be a reason for celebration within every level of government. The Fourth Estate was the only way to keep government honest, to any degree, but now, those who report the news, share free time with those who make it. So then, how can what we read now even be believed?

    So, I choose to take issue with some of your offerings and observations by
    forwarding to you some ” inbox ” items I get. I do this just to ensure that you get information that may make you think that there ARE other sides to your beliefs.

    By the way, I have been a long time member of the rapidly growing number of voters aligned with the Party of Independents. You are free to choose to spin these e-mails as you would like as that is your task as the occasional campaign manager for Democratic Party hopefuls.

    Posted by: John A. S. | September 8th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

  • One term only if the Republicans can field someone with a centrist message that does not reflect the insanity of the current Republican dogma. And I write as a registered Republican who voted for Obama.

    Kennedy had the luxury of “Kennedy’s legacy” because he was always the clear preference of the voters in Massachusetts. ?Obama has no such majority support as a slam dunk. ?


    Allan J.

    Posted by: Allan J. | September 8th, 2009 at 4:52 pm

  • I remember during the presidential campaign the furor about how Obama didn’t fight back and was doomed. He’s not dumb. Hang tight and keep working for what we fought hard to get…an Obama presidency.

    Posted by: melinda maginn | September 8th, 2009 at 5:12 pm

  • Your column today seems to have generated a lot of responses, some of them rational.

    Mr. Obama presented himself to the voters as a candidate who would bring real change to the office for which he was running. I believed what he and his supporters said, and voted for him. He’s the first candidate I have voted for who won since Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

    I am disappointed in the President’s actions so far, particularly his appointment of Timothy Geithner as Treasury Secretary. Additionally, his announcement that he intends to re-nominate Mr. Bernanke as chairman of the Federal Reserve is, to me, a signal that the Executive branch is planning on “business as usual” at the Federal level. My perspective is that these two people (and many others) are the ones who got this country into the current economic mess, and are not likely to take any actions that would offend the banksters or those on Wall Street.

    Others on this site like to blame Democrats or Republicans for various things that have happened over the years; however, both parties appear, to me, to be feeding at the same corporate trough. Whoever may be the next President, Mr. Obama or someone else, it seems unlikely to me that the current (or next) President can or will wrest control of the government from corporations.

    Posted by: Joel | September 8th, 2009 at 9:59 pm

  • Hi! I was surfing and found your blog post… nice! I love your blog. :) Cheers! Sandra. R.

    Posted by: sandra742 | September 9th, 2009 at 7:22 am

  • I just wanted to say how much I appreciate reading your column. After reading the letters to the editor in the CC Times I am usually so fed up with the direction that this country is going that I need to read your column for the basic fact that my brain might explode if I don’t get a dose of sanity very quickly. Your column is ripe with facts…something that alludes the wingnuts in our media. I appreciate your objectivity and lack of distortion. Your column this morning was disappointing merely for the reason that you may well be right. Our country is sinking and swirling into a black hole of ignorance. We are surrounded by Birthers and now Deathers. We are crowded with people who do not want their children to hear from the president of the united states that they should get an education.We are afraid of same sex marriage when their divorce rate if far lower then straight couples and they have children because they want them. And people actually listen to Sarah Palin. Given all this it is going to be very hard for Obama to get re-lected for a second term. In six months he has been tarred and feathered by the right wingers and they aren’t going to let up till Democracy is destroyed. They would rather this country go down in flames then give a democrat a chance to improve our states. I will keep signing petitions and go to health care rallys. I will continue to write our congressman and senators and hopefully some vestiges of
    logic and reason will prevail.

    Keep it up….and thank you.

    Jan W

    Posted by: Jan W. | September 9th, 2009 at 9:33 am

  • I’m an Obama fan. It’s a bit too soon to try and write him off as a one term. No one really expected the 70% approval rating to stay forever.

    Interesting that you blamed the Bush and Reagan for the anti-government ideologues.

    Wasn’t there a two-term liberal Democrat in office with a Democrat Congress in between?

    Housing collapse, one of the major causes of the financial fiasco….perhaps you should look at the history that led us to no-down loans, no income verification required. Both parties participated with Barney Frank in the lead…not indicating that he is the only guilty one. Both groups participated.

    Ted Kennedy….the Lion. Hope Mary Jo feels that way. His actions there, his personal life style, say it all.

    Posted by: JFelix | September 9th, 2009 at 9:34 am

  • I can see it now in 2012, the Republican party’s nominee saying at their convention…”Ask yourself, are YOU better off now than you were 4 years ago?” I think it will really boil down to “it’s the Economy again, stupid”? And Healthcare reform will also be part of that.

    As much as that worked for Ronnie the “Great Communicator” (the 4 years better off rhetorical question), it isn’t going to work if their best candidate is Bobby Jindal. I don’t see anyone mounting a serious threat to what We the People Dems have. We have Barack, Joe, Nancy, Hillary, and a list of more worthy and competent candidates. Plus, the Millenials (the “youth vote”), that is, the 18-29 voting demographic that voted 68% for Barack and 30% for Sen. McCain is overwhelmingly (and increasingly) slightly left-of-center. There was a resurgence of democracy at work in this last epic election as many young voters went to the polls in droves never before seen since the election of 1960 (JFK/Nixon). What the young voters realized is that if they were not exercising their right to vote in a participatory democracy then their future would be at risk with a former President’s party and those policies of compounded failures that ultimately affect future generations, uhhh, THEM. Politics is about self-interest. POLICY should be about the public interest.

    “Generation We” is what the press dubs them, and according to exit poll writer Eric Greenberg, the Sub-30 youth (i call them the “rock ‘n’ roll, Wii-playing, text messaging, internet surfer voting bloc”) group likens themselves to simply “Gen-We”. That is, No “We”, no “I”.,8599,1700525,00.html

    What is impressive is that voting demographic (the “Millenials”) will increase in 2016 to 95 miillion voters. Because Gen-We was somewhat apathetic in the 2004 and 2000 race, they allowed a former President in 2000 win by the hair of his chinny-chin-chin, by the narrowest of margins in a state in which his brother was Governor (Florida’s Jeb Bush). Al Gore, who i admire, conceded in consideration of the Nation’s unity. What followed was 8 years of unfettered, unabated, free-for-all cronyism and capitalism. To be fair, we shouldn’t label Dems responsible for this, Nor should we label all Republicans responsible for that. There are good and bad apples in every bunch, we all know that. But here’s a pretty good list of the movers and “shakers” that rattled the economy and are partially to blame for the financial crisis (global). I agree with Time’s list but think it was unfair to put any blame on former 2-time President Bill Clinton. He just loved his country (and left a budget surplus) and wanted to include Republicans (by signing off on the Gramm-Leach-Bliley drafted Bill/Act on Nov. 12, 1999…it passed by a majority in both the Senate and the House of Reps) EVEN though they tried to smear him with that Monica Lewinsky dalliance which he apologized for and Hillary forgave him for. That says a lot about…Hillary.,28804,1877351_1877350_1877339,00.html

    As for Barack being a one-term President? It doesn’t matter either way. Hillary or Nancy will WIN. At least if our algorhythms work better the next time around and we will have more of them to disseminate Democratic truth from Republican fiction come 2012, 2016, or beyond. But the real movement is always grassroots. We saw that. And of course, the Millenials/ “Gen-We” group continues to vote slightly left of center. The youth vote came out in droves, Let’s keep it that way.

    Posted by: Don Nguyen | September 9th, 2009 at 12:55 pm

  • where is the comment i submitted!?

    Posted by: Jarod Flores | September 10th, 2009 at 10:00 am

  • Clint,

    I agree. Obama is in bed with the rich folks—gives billions to AIG; they in turn give out bonuses and give big bash retreats costing millions. His excuse: wants to save the economy. FDR did the same thing and the economy got worse. FDR’s WWII saved him.

    Now our leader wants us to follow him into a medical health care Little Big Horn. The Chicoms have warned him to stop printing money. He’s not listening. If things get worse down the road I’m sure he will blame Bush or Reagan or maybe Lincoln.

    Hank R

    Posted by: Hank R | September 10th, 2009 at 10:30 am

  • I think last night’s speech might give one pause about a One Term Obama.

    Posted by: melinda maginn | September 10th, 2009 at 12:16 pm

Add a Comment


Home   |   Blog   |   Legal   |   Contact