It takes two to tango.  To think any President is so omnipotent that just being reasonable is enough to persuade the loyal opposition.  This is fantasy land.  Even in his own party the "Blue Dogs" sided with Republicans.  The real responsibility falls with the electorate and those they send to Congress.  The President was elected by a clear majority of the people. This did not matter to Tea Partiers or indignant Senate leader Mitch McConnell.  Their formula was not to enact a program that the people voted for but rather just to obstruct.  The Bush administration had depleted federal funds to a point it was going to take years to make it up without creating revenue to balance those books.  Further a housing bubble pushed the price of homes in a lackluster economy beyond what people could pay.  When this stream of money was cut off the financial casino realized they had bet on the wrong horse.  They themselves were caught short when they had to pay their clients without further income and declining house prices.  It was so large that the layoffs and dried up credit plunged the nation into a recession with no ability for government to respond without borrowing to stop the economic suffering that had been unleashed.  Good leadership only works if there is good followership.  Such shannanigans and breach of trust dismissing social responsibility and worshipping the idol of a quick buck led to disaster.  As Pogo noted, "We have met the enemy and it is us."  Mr. Romney thinks those that have plenty will invest in their fellow citizens if given more tax breaks.  However they are presently taxed at the lowest rate in years and are sitting on 1.5 trillion dollars of idle cash.  They don't seem to understand their obligation to maintain a society instead of driving it back to the caves.  Money is a medium of exchange, not wall decoration or a trophy.  If they have any patriotic fervor they should get off their tush, take a little risk on the most productive workers on Earth.  Time will tell if they get any pangs of conscience that maybe their quest for piles of green backs had caused their fellow countrymen undue suffering.  

*************************Obama was not transformed. People have finally realized that he ment what he said  ------"We will FUNDAMENTALLY CHANG AMERICA" *****************We do not want socialism. We want to make our own futures and not depend on government .  ***We LIKE small business. ****Margaret Thatcher is quoted as saying " The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of OTHER PEOPLES MONEY"*****

The jobs that Obama has looked to create are government jobs. These jobs are not sustainable as they are paid for by the taxpayer. We need a stimulus plan on jobs that creates jobs in the private sector. We need a plan for small business to more easily hire new workers. We do not need the government to pay for these jobs. We need the government to relax rules to make things easier. Obama has failed with his socialistic efforts to increase the size of government. His "trickle up poverty" plan has failed and we need a new President and a new direction. The community organizer should be replaced with the business man. The guy who has been on the public dole his whole life needs to be replaced by the guy that has never been on the public dole. The guy that has never created a job or has needed to meet a payroll should be replaced by a guy that is familiar with those tasks. We are headed for a financial cliff and need to act swiftly to at least make the landing softer.

This is the most coddling review of the president's frst term that could ever be published.  He is not a victim, as this piece implies.  He was simply in over his head, and not nearly qualified to hold the office of president.  That led to many miscues, it led to him diminishing the office by acting so peevishly and unpresidential toward those who disagree.  Lastly, his policies were very, very bad.  Like most Americans, I too was amazed at the speech he gave in Boston in 2004.  But upon closer examination, he would have been well served to wait a decade or more before running for president.  Clearly, his time in the senate was done to prepare for a run. But if he worked hard a legislator, and earned some actual accomplishments, he would have been a top contender for the 2016 election.  Too bad the country fell for him so early, because he may have been a very good president.

Obama has overseen an economic recovery despite the Republicans in Congress who put party above country.  Romney/Ryan would return us to the failed policies of George W. Bush.  It took Bush eight years to create this mess.  We need to give Obama four more years to straighten it out!

Romney beating Obama to New Orleans is the perfect example of differences we'll see.  You won't see Romney spending 100+ days on the golf course.  You won't see him hosting a celebrity festival in the White House every other weekend.  He's wonky and stiff, and all business. Vote Mitt in 2012 unless you want 4 more years like the last 4.

Obama succeeded in stabilizing this country from a free-fall in spite of the destructive anti-American politics of the Republicans. The problem with the Democrats is they need to learn more from the Republican playbook with a much more hardball, radical attack against against them. The same Republican politics led to Bush, 9-11, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and the Democrats need to be more forceful about making clear what Republican leadership means. Do you want another 9-11, another Iraq? Do you want another Wall Street collapse, another mortgage crisis? Then vote for Romney, because this is a sure way to get it. Republicans could care less about the well-being and future of this country, they're only interested in their own short-term gain of money and power.  

Obama is not the victim, he is the perpetrator.  This country is going absolutely nowhere until you understand that.

“They were afraid of talking us into worse troubles,’’ said Frank. “He made a mistake by soft-pedaling. He held back from fully blaming Bush and talking about how bad things were.’’

Yes, I agree, and I said that at the time (you can check my comments).

Fixing the political process is extremely difficult. It's like fixing GM. GM would be still where it was, losing market share, building cars with poor performance, poor reliability, and poor aesthetics, if it weren't for the bankruptcy. GM would continue to be mediocre and getting a little bit more behind every year. (Reports are that GM is a far healthier company now, and that their cars are much improved.)

What needs to happen to fix the political process is that there needs to be new rules, in Congress, and in the political process in general. We are now locked into both a set of rules and laws, and a "culture" -- a set of conventions and attitudes, that result in politics being as it is. But the laws, rules, and culture provide benefits and power, and to change them is to redistribute power, and to redistribute it more to "the people" as a whole (which takes it away from current groups with vested interests). WHAT changes need to be made and HOW that could be done are difficult questions. The answers are not obvious. They COULD become obvious if there was a forum to explore changes and involve "we the people". Think of what happens after some unusual disaster. The pundits try to become instant experts (what have "we" learned, the experts are trotted out, and the people get immersed in the press coverage as the subject gets beaten to death.)

The process could be changed if "we the people" were clear on HOW it should be changed (which is a hugely difficult requirement) and also were willing to give up selfish benefits (and provincial power) for improvements for eveyone (another hugely difficult requirement).

The English seem to have a better handle on principles and are better able to articulate ideas. I think the BBC is a huge contributor, with its explorative and educational approach. The US should create something similar. But, how about a reality show (or game show) that adopts sets of rules that change. It's interesting because it's a game, but it's educational because the rules create an environment that the participants creatively respond to. It would be both exciting AND educational.

His first term will be his last term!

TheSystemWorked wote, "By Obama's actions and words we know he is quite possibly the most mean-spirited President in the history of the United States."

This is one of the stupidest comments I have seen so far, and, knowing that you are NOT stupid, I can only think that you are manufacturing this stuff per an agenda, ie, you are a phony (and probably a "plant"). I will skip reading your posts in the future...

This article points up two areas where I've long felt Team Obama has needed to focus: 1. I've long felt the President has not utilized effectively his "bully pulpit" to engage the public in his battles with Congress. This has allowed his opponents to more easily scuttle his proposals while (disingenuously?) claiming his proposals aren't working. (That claim has merit only if the proposals are implemented and THEN they don't work.) 2. The White House arguably should have been more directive with Congress regarding key initiatives. One can put too much emphasis on compromise. It is a managerial tool, not a policy goal unto itself. [NEW PARAGRAPH] A point of interest for me this election season will be searching for clues the President has picked up on these points.

A monumental failure.