"That's not leadership - that's salesmanship!" - President Obama

[kentuck]

The President's comment about Mitt Romney in the last debate.

The President is right. It's "salesmanship".

But if you cannot sell your own program and achievements, you do not deserve another term.

If this campaign wants to get back on the right track, they are going to have to spend less time trying to define Mitt Romney and Big Bird and more time defining their own record.

It's been four years since George W Bush left office and we have spent the last 4 years trying to save this country and get it back on track. As Bill Clinton said at the Convention, no President, not Barack Obama, not Mitt Romney, not even Bill Clinton could clean up the mess that was left in just one term. Perhaps that is where you want to start Barack?

We knew it was bad when George W Bush and Hank Paulson, the Treasury Secretary, walked out in front of the cameras to tell the American people that if they did not get $700 billion dollars in a few days, the entire economic system could collapse. That would include the stock market and the big banks. It was bad news. It was not a simple recession.

By the time Barack Obama was sworn into office, we were losing 800,000 jobs per month! This was millions of jobs over just a few months time. This is what you have to remind people about, Mr President.

Many Americans had their savings in 401K's and in the stock market. The market was dropping like a rock. By the time this Administration was able to stabilize the markets, it had gone down to about 6500. People were losing their life savings! The stock market today is more than double that and people have regained most of their savings from the collapse of Wall Street. This is what you need to say, Mr President. Forget about Big Bird.

Not only are we not losing 800,000 jobs per month, we gained 114,000 jobs last month and we are back on the way to a recovery. Those numbers are not great but we were in a mess.

Do not be deceived by slick talking Republicans that want to double down on trickle-down and give more tax cuts to the wealthy and cut back on regulations that we have put in place so we do not go through another collapse like we had in 2008. Not only do they want to cut taxes by 20% for everyone, they want to increase defense spending by $2 trillion dollars! They don't have the money for Social Security or Medicare but they have the money to spend on defense contractors and taxcuts. Tell it like it is Mr President. The times are too serious to be playing games with these jobs-destroying Republicans.

This is the message the campaign must get on if they are going to win this election. It's time to get their heads out of their asses.

[No Elephants]

1. Obama did mention during the debate how bad things were when he took over.

Every time Obama makes a speech he repeats how bad things were when he took office. And he did that during the debazte as well.

Besides, it was less than four damned years ago and voters were not on Mars in September 2008. If anything caught the attemtion of the American voter, it was the bailout. Anyone who does not remember four years ago is beyond help anyway.

Yes, Obama should very briefly review conditions in 2008.

What President Obama failed to do sufficiently during the debate, IMO, was hold Romney's prior statements against Romney's debate slippin' and slidin'.

Obama is right that Romney was not exhibiting leadership during the debate has not during his campaign. Romney has never exhibited leadership during any campaign. However, I see no reason to insult honest sales people. Romney lied repeatedly. He will say anything to try to win an election. Not every sales person does that. Kennedy found ways to make that point about Romney when he debated Romney.

Obama seems to have gotten bad advice from his campaign people about debating. (Then again, maybe not.)

Obama also let Romney portray him (and his Vice President) as a child telling the same lie over and over and over and hoping to fool a wise parent like Romney, when it was Romney who was lying.

In his opening and closing statements and the body of his debate, Romney followed the old rule: Tell 'em what you are going to tell them (opening statement, then tell them what you want them to know (body of the dehate), then tell 'em what you just told 'em (closing statement).

In his closing statement, Obama said something like, "Four years ago I promised I would fight for you every day, a promise Romney (who tonight compared my VP and me with lying children with no effective rebuttal from me), and, ir re--elected, I promise to the same in the next four years."

Wowza.

Obama has to do better overall in his next debate, period. He has to emphasize his successses in the past four years, not simply restate how bad things were when he took office. He has to show he has a plan for the next four years than he can actually execute, as opposed hiding behind Congress. And he has to show that he can think on his feet, including when Romney lies and distorts.

As for the statement of Clinton (aka slick Willie) that you quoted, it was nice of Clinton to thrown himself under the bus to help Obama. However, his claim that no one could have gotten out us out that mess in four years, including his predecessors (implied: and no one else who is living or has ever lived) was ridiculous. It was entirely devoid of facts and, certainly as to some of his predecessors, was an outright lie, which, of course, Bubba knew when he said it.

Consider resident Washington, who took office under hideous financial circumstances, a "few" other problems, and no precedent whatever to learn from.

And President Roosevelt (FDR, certainly, maybe Teddy too), who took office during a Depression made worse by Hoover's wilful ignorance. FDR, also with zero blueprint to follow, did so much in his first 100 days alone that the practice of discussing a President's first 100 days was invented and became "a thing."

Maybe no one else who is on the planet now or ever was on the planet could have have totally turned things around in four years. Maybe yes, maybe no. We will never know. But that does not say that no one on the planet could not have done a hell of a lot better tnan Obama has done.

Fortunately, Obama does not have to run against Washington or FDR or some of our great Presidents. He has to run only against lying Romney who can't even visit England without having an aide make a racist remark and then himself insulting the entire country. And Obama has about a billion to do that. It should be a cake walk.

[Enthusiast]

2. Nice.

[No Elephants]

5. Thank you.

Very nice of you to overlook the many errors in the post, like typos and unfinished sentences. sigh.

Anyway, thanks for seeing the forest and not all the mistaken trees.

[Enthusiast]

3. I agree that if the President is interested in

being reelected he has to stop playing games. Yes, he needs to sell our position. But first, he has to adopt our position.

The President apparently fails to recognize the dangerous and destructive nature of the right side of the American political spectrum. I would suggest the President crack a history book. Any Democrat that expresses admiration for Reagan is simply short on facts. Has President Obama never heard of Iran Contra? The President, in my mind, has repeatedly betrayed a fundamental lack of knowledge of 20th Century right wing politics. Why would you play nice with a ruthless enemy that would literally rip your heart out? I guess first you need to see them as the "enemy". The President remains a mystery to me.

[No Elephants]

4. It is not only Obama.

Then entire Party, at least on the national level, has gone Third Way and No Labels.

The only FDR Democrat I can think of in the Senate is Bernie Sanders--and he is not a member of the Democratic Party.

To the contrary, when he ran for re-election as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont, the Democrats got tothether with the Republicans and, together, they backed a single candidate against him.


He won anyway. :-)


In the House, there are still some, like Rangel. But, most of them are his age or near it (and look what they did to him, despite his age). So, it shouldn't be long before Democrats entirely and finally rid themselves of liberal officeholders on the federal level. I am not sure if there are any on the state and local levels.

The Governor of Massachusetts is a Clintonite who is Obama's campaign co-chair and the mayor of Boston is an odd cross between the old Democratic machine style and the greatest booster of "public private pahtnahships."