Obama campaign 'has lost its mojo': Willie Brown

[c1ue]

An interesting comment from a pretty astute politician...

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...#ixzz1w5NMG8uo

The president's trip to the Bay Area last week made it painfully clear that the Barack Obama re-election campaign has lost its mojo.

There was no life, no personality, no memorable line or moment and no real enthusiasm in the entire fundraising foray. In short, there was no buzz.

It was like a summer rerun of a show that wasn't very interesting to begin with.

Worse yet, Obama sounded like he was playing catch-up to Mitt Romney. I can't think of anything that should have him in that role, but he's acting like the underdog.

Obama was more than a candidate last time out. He was a popular and cultural phenomenon. A rock star. But the trouble with rock stars is that they drop like a rock once fans conclude they are "over."

The trick in politics is not to be a one-hit wonder, but to be more like the Grateful Dead. Jerry and the boys were never what you'd call stars, but their Deadheads were legion and good days or bad, they always turned out in record numbers.

[doom&gloom]

Re: Obama campaign 'has lost its mojo': Willie Brown



This clown has more mojo than the Obama team.

[jpetr48]

Re: Obama campaign 'has lost its mojo': Willie Brown

This is from Bloomberg news. I am not saying this is an Obama thing only rather symptomatic of why we are in a gridlock. Unless Bloomberg is not reporting all, this lack of accountability will be one of the root causes when we look back for the decline of the US as a geopolitical leader. Not a meaty read but worth getting is the book, the Debt Bomb that speaks to the terminal disease of self interest at the cost of the country. Just my opinion, but when a president is allowed or thinks he can make these statements to the masses, either he is beyond arrogance and/or his base is in a coma state.http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...an-fever-.html

[Finster]

Re: Obama campaign 'has lost its mojo': Willie Brown

Today's speech was disappointing, but not surprising. The economy is the biggest issue, and probably most Americans can't answer in the affirmative whether they are better off than they were four years ago. Of course Obama would want to distance himself as much as possible from the economy. Just be honest and don't to try and pass off a campaign event as a head of state appearance.

But in truth, it really isn't his economy. We wouldn't let him take credit for it if things were going well. Sure, his policies have been headwinds at the margin, but the most troublesome stuff has been backloaded into the next four years. More to the point, the state of the economy at any given point in time is much more the product of administrations past than present. Just for example, Social Security and Medicare, a couple of big economic problems still brewing, are products of the Roosevelt and Johnson administrations. Not to mention those other two federal branches, the legislative and the judiciary. We don't run a monarchy here. It may be that in the public's mind, the current president is representative of the economy, but we're not here just to reinforce the public's ignorance.

So which administration is most to blame for the current sorry state of the economy? The Obama administration? No. The Bush administration? No. Clinton? No, not even Bill Clinton's. Look first to the Greenspan administration. That's where the bubbles came from, and as day leads to night, bubbles lead to busts.