“he will need to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance”
So? What makes you think that would give him a second thought?
The quoted language in the headline is from Pat Caddell and Doug Shoen in a column at The Wall Street Journal urging Obama not to run for re-election for the sake of preserving the Democratic Party, The Hillary Moment:
When Harry Truman and Lyndon Johnson accepted the reality that they could not
effectively govern the nation if they sought re-election to the White House,
both men took the moral high ground and decided against running for a new term
as president. President Obama is facing a similar reality—and he must reach the
He should abandon his candidacy for re-election in favor of a clear
alternative, one capable not only of saving the Democratic Party, but more
important, of governing effectively and in a way that preserves the most
important of the president’s accomplishments. He should step aside for the one
candidate who would become, by acclamation, the nominee of the Democratic Party:
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton….
Put simply, it seems that the White House has concluded that if the president
cannot run on his record, he will need to wage the most negative campaign in
history to stand any chance
There has been such talk for months. The likelihood of it happening is remote, at best.
By the way, where has Obama been lately? Hmmm….
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
There has been talk for months of Obama’s need to wage the most negative campaign in history. What else can you do when you have presided over the highest unemployment since the Great Depression and have increased federal debt by 50% in less than four years? But if you look at his past record, Obama is not only is capable of this kind of campaign, but he does it without seeming to do it. Campaigning is the only thing that he and his team do well and they are aided a great deal by a press running interference.
Agreed. He runs negative campaigns behind the scenes (oppo research, using Axelrod’s media connections to publicly pressure candidates’ about their private lives, and get divorce records unsealed), while using conciliatory rhetoric (if not condescending) rhetoric on the stump.
Again, the media provided cover for him in not pressuring him to release medical records (for an admitted cocaine user), transcripts (which would go a long way in supporting the intellectual meme), allowing him to spin away: Rev. Wright, ACORN, his Illinois Senate record, his ties to lobby money BEFORE he ran for the Senate, being Blago’s right hand man for several years, Rezco, etc.
Hmm. Unfortunately if there’s one thing BO does well, it’s campaign.
“By the way, where has Obama been lately? Hmmm…”
He has been finishing his world tour! He’s been to every continent now except Antarctica in the three years since the election (note I did not say “since his inauguration”).
Obama will never step down. It is not about the party for him; it is about him.
And running a negative campaign is what he does best. Regardless of the 2008 campaign, that is what he did in Chicago, and for his Senate bid. That is why they want Romney, I believe. Romney is an easy target, and Obama would look like the “stable, solid” candidate who won’t waffle. (HA! but that is what he will try…..I think.)
It will disgust the American people even more if he does go negative, so I say, “Bring it!” It will only ensure his defeat, IMHO.
Especially if Newt is the nominee. 🙂
Newt will expose that tactic, and the rest, with ease and eloquence.
Oh, yeah! Bring it!!
Somehow, they apparently fail to recognize the nearly infinite irony in calling upon the most self-centered, narcissistic human ever to occupy the White House to behave selflessly.
And they were the same people calling him the messiah four years ago…
I’m not sure. I think *both* Clintons would give him a run for the money on that title…
About 90% of the federal debt is in short term bonds and inflation protected securities so we can’t inflate our way out of the debt. Right now we are probably at or near maximum debt since the fed has been buying all the excess bonds with printed money at almost the entirety of he new issues because it couldn’t be sold on the open market at current rates. The Feds response has been to sop up all that excess cash by paying banks to keep their deposits in their accounts and out of circulation.
I’m am pretty sure that this can’t go on much longer, so whoever wins the election is going to have to oversee the dismantling of the welfare state. I think Hillary knows this and wont run. obama is pretty dumb, so I guess he wants to get beat up and if he wins destroy what he loves
“destroy what he loves”? Obama intends to inflict as much damage on America as he can. If he gets a second term he can finish off the hated US.
Without a record to boast, negative is the only way he can go. To believe it will be anything different, not only is naive, it’s the same imbecilic thinking which allowed the GOP to fail to see him as a threat.
Be a one-term president? not as long as he can raise another billion dollars. Afterall, there are still plenty of billionaires who can write checks and he can pay them back with the 2013 budget.
Seriously… whichever candidate the GOP ends up with, that candidate would be best to not try to “contain” O’s damage. It is coming, and the MSM will only be more than happy to maintain their current level of “objectivity”. No… the candidate has to make O’s 3 year record the ONLY question on the table.
If he was a vampire, those three years would be garlic, holy water and a crucifix all rolled into one.
Make this about HIM and don’t get sidetracked.
Today’s Fortune Cookie:
“Let this November be the verdict for the past four Novembers”
Obama ain’t gonna step down. Visions of “der bunker” come to mind. He’ll stay in the White House until you pry his fingers from the Oval Office desk.
Couldn’t agree with you more.
Chris “Tingles” Matthew went nuclear on Obama saying that he needs to lay out a future, a plan that Democrats can rally behind for a second term .. just saying it’s more of the sam doesn’t cut it.
Given that Pres**ent Obama hasn’t really done anything on his own, except play golf and eat wagyu, I’m not holding my breath waiting for the “Blueprint of the American Future” by Barack “LightWorker” Obama.
You forgot Nixon in your firmament of those presidents who chose to resign when they realized they could no longer govern effectively. Except, I guess, his case was just ahead of the executioner.
@Am: You’re close to being correct. Except Nixon resigned to avoid being charged with crimes, of which he would have been convicted by any reasonable jury. Also, Truman and LBJ elected not to run again, so in that sense only they quit, resigned if you wish.
Also, I agree with others above that Obama could well decide to run for re-election since, IMHAO, he’s only partially achieved his goals of reducing this country to a much lower status. Heck, if he could get away with it, Obama would activate his concept of a civilian national security force; he’s got the nucleus of that CNSF with his SEIU purple shirts and other union thugs.
“Except Nixon resigned to avoid being charged with crimes, of which he would have been convicted by any reasonable jury.”
Not true…otherwise why would Ford pardon him?
@doubletap: Read your history! Nixon got his quid pro quo, his resignation, in return for Ford’s full pardon for any crimes related to Nixon’s acts while president.
Realize that the House of Representatives would have, most likely, impeached Nixon and he wanted to avoid that charge of particulars, so in that sense he was yet then to be charged except by the media and public sentiment related to that effort. The likely impeachment of Nixon was meant to remove him yet those stated charges would have been considered crimes under civil law.
Hillary Clinton is exhausted and burnt out. I doubt she would run even if BO did step down. That means there wouldn’t be an electable substitute. It would be a loss in any event for the Democratic party. A lot of strange editorials from the left of late.
Obama will be negative. But the majority of the stories reshaping his Presidency, arguing for his re-election, and going negative on Republicans, will be accomplished by the MSM, which will be downright vicious.
My sense is that Caddell and Shoen are to the Democrat Party what David Frum and Bruce Bartlett are to the Republican Party.
They’re all considered fringe kooks and attention whores by the base of their parties.
Though Caddell and Shoen deserve far more respect from Democrats than Frum and Bartlett should ever again deserve to receive from Republicans.
What inner storehouse of intellect, morality, grace or gentility has he been hiding that would cause him to even pause for a second of reflection before he launched into a 24/7 trumping of the race card on anything and everything said by any opponent?
When has any consideration for this country and it’s people stopped him from being a crass, lazy, self centered, egotistical, smarmy, smug and sneering dumbass who seems to think that he’s the smartest guy on the planet and that this country needs to apologize for it’s existence?
Pat Caddell, along with Zell Miller, are of the old democrat school. They are appalled by the way their party has evolved.
[…] “he will need to wage the most negative campaign in history to stand any chance” […]