Sadly, Dan is right - Obama is a failure. Turns out he's more Jimmy Carter than Bill Clinton.

Nothing left to do now but to hand over the country to the Republicans and try again in 2016.

He sure as hell hasn't delivered for anybody from what I can see.

Oh, wait . . . I forgot the banks and insurance companies.

Can anyone account for the 787 billion dollars in stimulus?

Where is it?

Shut the FUCK up, John Bailo. Christ, you're worse than Will in Seattle. None of the stimulus money is unaccounted for. And Obama is not Jimmy Carter, and he's not a fucking failure, all right? Christ, you people are babies.

There is information about stimulus projects http://recovery.gov . I would prefer straightforward data and fewer badly designed interactive maps, but that's another story.

Fierce advocates! That's the key word. Use it everywhere, and you're safe.

He's okay I guess...

yeah- we would have been so much better off with Herbert Hoover McCain and VP Wackadoo Palin. Tax cuts anyone?

dan tho 'he' might deny it, has more in common with the tea baggers than with the Democratic and progressive side. Like a cry baby, unless 'he' gets what he wants he starts to whine and trash all that 'he' supposedly previously supported. Being spoiled and selfish seem to be his true ideals.

"Nothing left to do now but to hand over the country to the Republicans and try again in 2016."

Good luck with that. Let me know how Dennis Kucinich does in 2016.

and protecting out intellectual property from china omg thanks boss man.

I love how "Carter" has become synonymous with failure. A president who in the 70's who urged us to convert to renewable energy and stop funding hostile regimes in the Mideast, who brokered the Israel/Egypt peace deal, and has since earned the Nobel Peace Prize for his ongoing diplomatic efforts. HIs term was followed by the president who moved into the White House and took down the solar panels, ran up the biggest deficit in history (which is still snowballing,) presided over the sell-off of much of our country to those same hostile Middle Eastern interests and gave us the first in what would prove to be a series of regulatory lapses that led to trillion dollar bailouts: the Savings and Loan debacle. Oh, and also? Funded the Mujahideen.

You know whose name should be synonymous with failure? Reagan. But because Republicans are too stupid to bother with math or history, he's a bigger hero to them than Jesus. Because he made them feel good about themselves. The same people who are pretending to be so worried about "Obama's Deficit" revere Reagan as the greatest modern president without a hint of irony.

So evidently the way to get people to remember you as a Great President is to lie about everything, hand over everything in sight to your cronies, spend all your efforts on PR and to be a Republican.

Because Democrats always turn on their own.

@20

"But because Republicans are too stupid to bother with math or history..."

The dems are right there with them. Let's praise Bushes abuse of the Constitution as "getting things done" while simultaneously criticizing Obama for not doing anything at all, simply because what we want the most, which also happens to be the most complicated, is not accomplished in the first year.

@14: My favorite thing about him is how nine times out of ten he misspells "Gomorrah". Come to think of it, I can't think of a single time I've seen him spell it correctly!

Obama's been doing a decent job (not good, but decent) considering what he's had to work with. His chief failing has been his reluctance to quit trying to work with the Republicans and just get things done while they whine and pout. In essence: if he grows a metaphorical pair, whips the Democrats into shape, and basically continues the onward-and-upward trend that started with the State of the Union, he has the potential to get this country back on its feet. Of course, a third of the South will still hate him because he's black, but hey...

Quite simply, he's not proving to be the man I voted for. I don't like religious conservatives who want to legislate my bedroom activities, and I don't like lefty liberals who think my wallet is their property. I assumed that Obama was somewhere in the middle... a man with a legitimate "third way." He's proving to be nothing more than a squishy Pelosi-style liberal. Sure, he says all the right things, but his actions have shown me nothing.

I won't be fooled again.

While I'll make no apologies for Obama's lack of fierce advocacy in the human rights department (which has been aggravated by his own personal biases), he is still running up against the post-DeLayan GOP minority, a still-breathing (and hence diverse) Democratic majority--Progressives, mind you, who really are Republicans-lite, not liberal Democrats at all--and a procedural filibuster, which is obviously a broken rule (considering how often it's invoked, compared to how often stand-up filibusters were invoked prior to the procedural alternative).

Obama, or any democratic president (even Carter) doing absolutely nothing is better than a Republican president doing anything. Remember what happened the last time we elected a compassionate conservative; what do you think Palin, or anyone else is going to do? Democrats are merely moderate Republicans. True Demos don't have a party in office, since AstroTurf raises more campaign finances than grassroots. Members of the GOP, on the other hand are radical Republicans. They prefer the term staunch.

Does nobody else notice that the Republicans are just as happy to spend our tax dollars (and then those of our children's children's children) as the Dems? Or did you all just determine that a trillion-dollar regime change and financing big-church evangelism efforts was worth more than, say, changing our schools from prisons to learning centers, or developing alternative energy and electric cars? When Republicans lower your taxes (your meaning those who are rich enough to afford a plasma TV in each room), it just means your kids and their kids and their kids will end up paying more later, and at fucked-up interest rates.

Wow, Allegedly (@25, 26) you must be desperate.

I specify the worst Democratic president is better than the best GOP president, that the most egregious Democratic inactivity is better than the least egregious GOP activity, and you (guys) jump on the worst of our records.

Your faith in the Republicans is weaker than ours in the Democrats.

This is me enjoying your despair.

@28: You misunderstand me. I'm not arguing that Carter succeeded in his goals -- although I would argue that many of those goals were worthy and oddly prescient. But I'm arguing that Reagan, by giving rise to most of the serious crises that have faced our country in the last thirty years with his pinhead policy decisions and chronic misrepresentation of facts, should rightfully take his place as the worst president of the modern era, with the only possible rival to the scope of his spectacular wrong-headedness being the son of his VP, who applied the same political ideology eight years after it had proven to be a gigantic failure, only to find that it produced the exact same disastrous results the second time around.

That's all.

Carter, really the worst?

Read a fucking book, Allegedly. Your ignorance is showing.

This country has had some pretty fucking horrible presidents - so much so that calling either Carter or Reagan "the worst" only proves that you're not much of a student of history.

Now W on the other hand . . . he's up there on the short list.

@31: Reagan was bad not in that he fucked up the country but that Reaganomics set a precedent for all the trickle-down screw-the-poor bullshit that the Bushes hit us with. His faulty economic reasoning was the foundation stone for the ideas that got us into this current shitstorm.

@32: It is unclear what point you are attempting to make. What do those snippets prove?

Read my posts again, Allegedly. I never said Carter was the worst president. You just eagerly jumped on what was an unintended implication.

You've always had a syntax difficulty, Allegedly, and I thought you were intentionally playing dumb as a troll tactic.

Evidently, in this case, I was wrong; you really can't read.

Ah, but you re-expressed and vehemently agreed with it, Allegedly.

You don't get to blame me for leading you astray, Allegedly. If you thought Carter was the worst President ever, whether or not you think you're following my lead, you still need to brush up on American History. You still need to read a book or three.

That is, of course, if you have the ability to comprehend and retain the written word, Allegedly. The History and Biography channels might help.

Not likely, though; you've already shown strong resistance towards doing any research that might not confirm your current polarized biases. Isn't that right, Allegedly?

@37: I wouldn't say "snippy and churlish", Alleged. More like "cynical and biting". And Uriel-238's got every right to grind you into the dirt. When you make the stupid claims that you insist on subjecting us to, you open yourself up for the kind of pounding normally applied to a triple-cunted hooker on Half-Price Fridays. You spew an endless torrent of mechanics problems, humorless snickering, and low-hanging fruit held loosely together by a panicky denial of the possibility that someone may have just outsmarted you.
Good day, sir.
http://www.snorgtees.com/images/GoodDay_…