It also depends on the media coverage of said unemployment. It’s one thing to be a victim of circumstance, it’s another when people point to you as responsible for circumstance.
If the story can be sold that Obama is responsible for double digit unemployment while plying trillions to save banksters with whom he has not regulated strongly by the time of elections, it’s going to be ugly.
The wishy washy DLC democratic mainstream is poison, and I’m not the only one saying it. http://www.truthout.org/1111099
Obama ran on Change. It’s not going to be hard to craft a cynical message of “Change? For the worse, if any.”
If the story can be sold that Obama is responsible for double digit unemployment while plying trillions to save banksters with whom he has not regulated strongly by the time of elections, it’s going to be ugly.
You do realize he’s probably going to be running against a Republican, yes?
Brad, Republicans can oppose the way the banks were greased — many did, as did many Democrats — and unemployment knows no political favour, really, because both sides can use it.
If the sort of attacks Dylan Ratigan makes on MSNBC — that Obama has employed people to solve the problems originating on Wall Street who are themselves too deep in with the people that caused the problems — stick, then it won’t matter whose been championing deregulation. Like Bush, he’d have committed the worse sin of all, looking incompetent (which isn’t enough to lose an election on its own, as we learnt in 2004, for all that I think it should be, but it surely doesn’t help).
*Apparently.
Comment by Brad — 11/13/2009 @ 5:51 pm
It also depends on the media coverage of said unemployment. It’s one thing to be a victim of circumstance, it’s another when people point to you as responsible for circumstance.
If the story can be sold that Obama is responsible for double digit unemployment while plying trillions to save banksters with whom he has not regulated strongly by the time of elections, it’s going to be ugly.
The wishy washy DLC democratic mainstream is poison, and I’m not the only one saying it.
http://www.truthout.org/1111099
Obama ran on Change. It’s not going to be hard to craft a cynical message of “Change? For the worse, if any.”
Comment by thimbles — 11/14/2009 @ 11:08 pm
More likely: “Change. Can you spare some?”
Comment by Rojas — 11/15/2009 @ 12:40 am
You do realize he’s probably going to be running against a Republican, yes?
Comment by Brad — 11/15/2009 @ 3:56 am
Followed by “Yes, we got canned.”
Comment by thimbles — 11/15/2009 @ 12:12 pm
Brad, Republicans can oppose the way the banks were greased — many did, as did many Democrats — and unemployment knows no political favour, really, because both sides can use it.
If the sort of attacks Dylan Ratigan makes on MSNBC — that Obama has employed people to solve the problems originating on Wall Street who are themselves too deep in with the people that caused the problems — stick, then it won’t matter whose been championing deregulation. Like Bush, he’d have committed the worse sin of all, looking incompetent (which isn’t enough to lose an election on its own, as we learnt in 2004, for all that I think it should be, but it surely doesn’t help).
Comment by Adam — 11/15/2009 @ 12:28 pm