jman-

Unfortunately (for you at least, I have a different opinion but that's not the point), unless Obama decides not to run again, I highly doubt you're going to see anyone challenge him. With Obama winning some 95% of the African American vote, and 67% of the Hispanic vote as well as some 66% of the 18-29 year old demographic I can't imagine the Democratic leadership would allow Hillary to run against him. They can't afford to lose those overwhelming numbers especially since as of now, independents are beginning to move away from him.

why do people care so much about who the next president will be? whoever wins we will still be debating the same things we have during obama's term etc.

as long as obi never becomes president i'm ok with the rest of them ;)

well if Obi becomes president at least we'll be having these discussions on the White House Forum! : )

@jman... it's clear that ObiWan called a Obama a lame duck and a failure before he's reached the 2 year mark of his first term. I'm all for holding officials to a high standard, but throwing those labels around before the midterms is an insult. We could easily have the "Who will be the 45 President?" without automatically assuming that #45 starts in 2013.

I agree 100% yayager. There's no saying Obama won't be reelected and in fact, I believe he will be. And calling him a lame duck is actually quite wrong. While Obi (and I) may disagree with WHAT he's doing, you can't deny that he's getting things done.

I am of the opinion that whoever the next President ends up being will ultimately matter very little until some sort of dramatic change happens to the American Political system.

Where is your Nick Clegg!?!?! ^^

FS-

Unfortunately you're probably right. While the 2 parties bicker back and forth about issues, very little actually changes. Now that Health Care Reform has passed, it will be like Social Security/Medicare. It will never go away and there's nothing anyone can really do about it. Until our politicians stop bickering and trying to score political points by insulting the other side, nothing will get accomplished that will truly be a compromise for this country.

Side note: I blame the media partly for the nasty partisan atmosphere in Washington. If it wasn't for cameras and the media following senators and reps around 24/7 and recording their every word, they might actually be willing to work together without fear that it'll be plastered on the news or the internet in an hour.

"they might actually be willing to work together"

If politicians had valid incentives for working together and serving the interests of the American people at large, I am sure they would. Unfortunately, the political system and nature of the political discourse means that the ruling class (er, I mean politicans) act in their own interest, and can get away with it.

This has been the state of affairs for almost a hundred years. The only thing that makes me somewhat optimistic is that a growing majority of people have realized that government is not always working in their best interest (unlike people in previous decades) though sadly many still cling to a partisan read of government affairs.

eg. "Oh, but the nice proggies and dems aren't really like that!! It's the rethuglicans fault that Obama can't stop the police state, close guantanamo, end the wars, or cut the military budget!!"

-or-

"The socialists are the one's ruining America!! The stimulus is Obama's fault, and once we get rid of the evil Dems all will be right in America again!!"

Both of these points of view are dangerously ignorant of the reality of the situation. The two political parties are both dangerously illiberal, statist, militaristic, corporatist, and believe that they have a moral authority over the American populace. Everything else is just window dressing.

It is a big cliche to say that the two parties are the same, but it's a cliche because it's true.

Thus, even if a 'tea party' candidate is a loon, a little racist (looking at you Rand), and isn't intimately familiar with the channels of power or influence (a good thing) I still view them as a vastly superior choice to whatever piece of filth is churned out by the Republican or Democratic party machines.

Anyone who wants government to enforce, to build, and to control less than it currently does is always a better candidate.

The main danger of course, and the reason that no third party has ever existed for long in America, is that the nature of the political system edges out anyone who comes in third. If nothing changes, groups like the tea party will either be subsumed by the Republicans, or replace and become them, with all of the hypocrtical trappings that go with the modern right.

FS -

You're absolutely right. The government doesn't work for the people anymore, the government works for itself. Nothing pisses me off more than when politicians stop trying to do their job (improve the US) in order to run for reelection. I mean, come on! The House gets elected every 2 years, and it seems like some of them start campaigning right after they get elected! I feel (and I believe many Americans do) that we have lost our country to the "ruling elite" as you so wisely put it. The politicians are dangerously out of touch with America and America is dangerously out of touch with its own government. Until the people fully wake up and realize that "big brother" government is only watching out for the people just enough to stay in power, nothing is going to change.

I want to see a business man (ala Ross Perot but without his whacked out conspiracy theories) run on a thirs party ticket. Say Bill Gates and Warren Buffett. We need someone who actually knows how to turn a profit in charge. the problem is these guys make so much more than the President and all of Congress put together that it would be both a great personal sacrifice just as it is for everyone in that office, as well as a great financial sacrifice for them.

Draug-

Unfortunately even IF a business man ran and was willing to make the sacrifice, it probably wouldn't matter. Ross Perot won 19% of the vote in 1992, and yet he won 0 electoral votes. One out of five Americans wanted him as President and yet he didn't even get off the ground in terms of "real" electoral votes. Until the system is changed to get rid of the antiquated electoral college, I fear a third party candidate who offers real political change will not be a viable option.

That, drano, is the reason why I view people like tea party organisers, though they may be misguided in many ways, as a positive sign.

Nothing makes me happier than people who are pissed at the government apparatus and then get up to do something about it.

Sure, some of them seem racist, sure some of them seem a tad partisan, sure some tea party groups appear to be in danger of becoming pawns to the Republicans. But the discussing, the demonstrating, the organising.... that is what I like to see.

Just like the grass roots campaigning for the Obama campaign was somewhat positive. Too bad they were working for him. :(

FS -

How are things in Britain? (I assume you live there from the Nick Clegg comment) Do you see things like Tea Party groups?

I too see the Tea Party as a very big positive sign. There's nothing worse than people blindly following a political machine simply because "well we've always voted Democrat" or "I'm conservative so I always vote Republican". The people of America need to stand up and say "this is OUR country, not yours" to the politicians. It's been far too long since the people truly had their voice, for too long the political machines hypnotized the masses and stole the voice of the people.

Little American History: Our beloved President Washington himself delivered a stern warning against partisanship, it's about time people started listening to him again.

I reckon the next US head of state should be King George VII (currently known as Prince Charles). For two many years members of the European aristocracies have been treated as second class citizens across the pond, occasionally allowed to visit and even settle, but with never any prospect of elected office. Can we overturn this hideous prejudice that has for so long plagued the great nation of the USA? Yes we can!

Not without a consitutional amendment. The office of the President is only available to native born Americans. Hence, Governator Ahnuld can't be President.

Octavious, you better watch out, we have a lot more Tea Partiers now than in 1773! : )

Frankly, the more tied up and less effective the Federal Government (and State governments for that matter) the better for the country and everyone in it.
The biggest danger is a single party holding the Presidency, the House majority and 60+ seats in the Senate.
From ObiObi's earlier post regarding taxes:
You get roads, hospitals, buildings, policemen, firemen, police and fire departments, public schools (OK, maybe that's only a half-credit here, they're so lousy), and a military to keep you safe.
How much of politician's time, effort and PAC spending goes into these core government functions?
A better question, how much of the gov't's BUDGET goes into these core functions? You know the ones that everyone agrees are the responsibility of a responsible (if not necessarily responsive) government?
Its when you get to the items that are tied to re-electing these bozos - tax loopholes, pork barrel projects, constituency favors, income redistribution, blah blah blah that you get the media coverage on time, money and slick politics.

What I'm not getting re-elected? I thought that I was doing a heck of a job. I mean I've got my boot up BP's ass. The economic collapse was Bush's fault not mine (I didn't really favor the bail out but it was clear I wasn't getting elected unless I went along with it). I suspected it wouldn't really work and that it was just another way for the greedy bastards who sold derivatives to line their pockets further with bonus monies paid by the working class but what the hell I'm in now.

I'd like to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan but we still haven't been able to find that bastard Bin Laden and despite spending BILLIONS of dollars rebuilding the camel farms we destroyed no one is willing to rat him out. It would be so much easier finding him if he were Italian -- those Mafia guys roll all of the time.

As for health care, whoo hoo! I got that one passed you gotta give me credit for that! Now homeless people can wait for 7 freaking hours in the emergency rooms just like all the other US Citizens! Democracy at its finest.

And another win for me... with this oil spill in the gulf no one is complaining about our ineffectiveness in stopping the Mexicans/Columbians and Canadians from backpacking cocaine and pot across our borders in record quantities.

+2 for me!

Also if that idiot cracker Bush could get in for 2 terms I gotta be a shoe in.

No I'm Canadian, but I have a soft spot in my heart for the Liberal Democrats despite differing fundamentally on several of their core issues.

Here at least, there is little in the way of something comparable to the tea party movement. Several years ago our riding had a legitimate 'freedom party' candidate who advocated for reducing government's role in education, health care, etc. and eliminating trade & agricultural subsidies, but he was soundly destroyed. (Being socially conservative, he alienated all the libertarians, and being fiscally conservative he alienated everyone else).

Canada is very much an established party system, though we do have our third parties, coalition governments and independents from time to time. Still, we are subject to pointless partisan hackery, increas of government power, representative farce, lack of proportional representation and ignorant government leadership as much as the next country. I think Canadian politics are definitely preferable to American politics, but not dramatically.

What a racist and offensive statement at the end. Iw as so enjoying your post to that point Mr. President. But then you go getting racist. Fuck you, shit-stained asshole!

As far as Obama being a lame duck president... I think it's far far too early to think that. Reagan had very similar approval levels at this point in his presidency and look how he won in a landslide in '84. I've heard it said that as far as major legislation passed, Obama is ahead of most presidents at this point. So... a couple of years to see how the legislation works out and we could be looking at a lame duck... or a landslide re-election. I understand how the right feels he's doomed... I thought the same way about Reagan... and Bush after he attacked Iraq... but it takes a majority to think that way - on election day... not just a significant minority for it to matter for the purposes of the election.

"shit-stained"
"BarrackObama"

http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/30815/PATIENCE+AND+WISDOM/

*strike that

http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_gifs/1120/THAT+S+RACIST/

I don't know who will step up to lead the Republicans in 2012. I do know that if the Republicans can't unite under a common leader, and secure the Tea Party/Libertarian vote, the Dems might have a chance in 2010. The Tea Party, the GOP, and the Libertarians need to ally against a common enemy: The Democrats. They can sort out the factions within conservatism later. Right now, conservatives need to focus on stopping everything the Dems are trying to pass, and kick every Dem possible out of Washington in November. If conservatives and libertarians can unite, the left is, well, screwed.

@Draugnar, I didn't realize that "cracker" was such a hot-button racist term... indeed I thought it was on a similar level to "damned yankee" (an insult, yes, but not highly charged). One aspect that occurs to me is that n***** often is used most often to denigrate the entire race... cracker, on the other hand (in my experience) means specifically ignorant (and usually poor), reactionary (and usually racist), southern whites. By "usually" I don't mean that these people usually *are* those things... but I mean, that is usually what the insult is aimed at. BTW, the only commonality with Bush is him being "southern" (there's some debate as to this) and white... so it's a pretty poor descriptor for him. ...for sake of comparison, I take damned yankee to mean ignorant, cold-hearted, mean, provisional, and selfish northern (usually white) biased against southerners. Why do I specify white? Because in my experience, a southerner looking for an insult against a person of another race will commonly go to the race issue rather than insulting the regional-cultural difference. ...most unfortunately. (and you don't strike me as the kind to do that). Anyway, hope you don't mind my inquiry - no offense is intended.

Also - the post in question infers that Obama would say something like that... which is insulting to him (Obama), actually. ...I'm figuring the poster was trying to stay "in character".

"this thread is NOT an Obama-bashing thread"

...followed by...

"he has failed. He's been utterly ineffective"

Obiwan stop watching Fox News or old Billy´O, your brain suffers from that :-)

I don't see how the Libertarians have any common ground with the Republicans at this point. The Republicans continue to anti-libertarian on social/personal freedom issues and have proven themselves to be anti-libertarian on fiscal issues. The Dems can at least show a strong pro-libertarian view on the former. The question in my mind is how long the Libertarians will continue to accept the Republican spin that the GOP is for "small responsible government" - the GOP haven't been provably for small government since Hoover (not that that worked out so well). To my mind the Libs have two valid choices: vote for the Dems because at least they'll get part of what they want, or vote for a Libertarian Party candidate. If they do the former they might just swing their party into relevance, but they surely would get the attention of the GOP - and create a bargaining point where now they are simply being ignored and taken for a ride.

If you don't think race is a factor in the Tea Party, imagine what would be said if crowds of armed black men held rallies where they talked about assassinating politicians and starting a revolution.

Anyway...the Republicans have a number of electable candidates, but if they don't turn around they will refuse to nominate any of them. The only Republicans who can win the nomination and then beat Obama are people we aren't thinking about...because everyone we're thinking about has had to take sides for or against the far right media, which destroys them at one or another step of the process.

Yeah. Modern conservatism isn't libertarian. Conservatives are more than willing to USE the libertarians to get elected.

In the same way that for the last 20-30 years, the conservatives have used the religious right to win elections. The part that I can't help but be amused by is how the religious right has taken over, and is destroying the Republican party.

The issue is, the religious conservatives want to use the government to regulate people's personal lives, and the libertarians (at least in theory) don't.

So there is no coalition between libertarians and the conservatives... except for the libertarians being duped and sold out once the election is won.