In the bottom of one of my drawers at home I’ve got this really cool grey T-shirt with a picture of Barack Obama and the words “Obama for yo Mama” written on it.

There's something depressingly familiar about that slogan. Picture: AFP

We’ll actually it’s not that cool anymore, which is why it’s now in the bottom of the drawer.

I never had a Kevin ’07 T-shirt but you can bet there are a lot of those sitting in cardboard boxes and stuffed in the back of cupboards these days too, destined for use only when washing the car or cleaning the bathroom.

I actually saw someone wearing a very faded Kevin ’07 number the other day but gave him the benefit of assuming it was some kind of ironic statement.

Julia Gillard should be grateful she didn’t qualify for a cool T-shirt.

It would have taken a graphic designer of considerable genius to turn “moving forward” into a logo anyone other than a tragic Labor Party hack would be prepared to wear on their chest.

“The real Julia” might have worked briefly, if it was teamed with a retro Redheads-style image – but the ink would barely have dried before that garment was consigned to the plastic bag headed to Vinnies.

In the two years since “Yes we can” was set to music and given the Scarlett Johansson treatment my Obama for yo Mama shirt has lost its edge.

Just how much it’s lost will start becoming clear by this time tomorrow, when US voters deliver their verdict, via the Congressional mid-term elections, on the man many thought for a brief minute would change the world.

It’s not going to be pretty.

On the weekend Obama even lost his temper with hecklers who tried to hijack his speech at a rally in Connecticut.

It was a far cry from the days of mid-2008 when the crowds at his campaign events looked a bit like religious congregations.

When he appeared on comedian Jon Stewart’s program last week the first-term President tried to explain how his administration had become the political victim of expectations so high they couldn’t possibly be met.

Stewart: “How did we go on two years from ‘hope and change, we are the people we’ve been looking for’ to ‘you’re not going to give them they keys are you?’?”

Obama: “Look, when I won and we started the transition and we looked at what was happening in the economy a whole bunch of my political folks came up and said ‘enjoy this now, because two years from now folks are going to be frustrated’. And that is in fact what’s happened.”

He went on to list a range of achievements including health care reform before conceding: “Over and over again we have moved forward an agenda that is making a difference in people’s lives each and every day. Now, is it enough? No. So I expect and I think most Democrats out there expect, that people want to see more progress.”

All of a sudden he sounded a bit like Julia Gillard.

There was about half a day when it seemed possible the words “Gillard” and “inspiration” belonged in the same sentence.

The morning she took the Prime Ministership I have to admit to being a bit overwhelmed we had our first female PM, years before I thought it would actually happen.

One or two columns appeared like the one from The Australian’s Caroline Overington, which ended with the call: “If you do nothing else today, call your mother. Say thank you.” I lot of women I know felt that way – for about five minutes.

But then before anyone could get swept up in anything resembling fervour Gillard debuted “moving forward” and the Light on the Hill fizzled out.

In an interview on Lateline on Friday night Laurie Oakes, who’s just released a book drawn from his long career in politics, declared ideology “dead.”

“The Labor Party and Liberal Party are interchangeable. I mean voters know that, everybody knows that; which is one of the reasons that people are now voting for the Greens, voting for the Independents…

“The two major Parties, I mean there is not a whisker between them. When Kevin Rudd won election, the 2007 election by pretending to be John Howard.

“Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott fought the last election by pretending not to believe in anything at all, promising not to do anything. We won’t do anything because it will cost money. It’s sort of pathetic, really.”

We now have a PM who recently informed us she’d rather be at home in a class room watching kids learn to read than at a NATO summit – which leads to expectations so incredibly low she’d have to stuff up monumentally to disappoint us while representing the country overseas.

As Oakes said – Gillard has already promised “not to do anything”, so if and when she doesn’t deliver anything voters can’t in all honesty pretend they’re surprised.

Kevin Rudd already demonstrated the perils of expectations, dropping from record approval ratings to the back bench in a matter of months.

Barack Obama might have killed the politics of inspiration stone dead. We’ll find out tomorrow.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

94 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Eric says:

      05:17am | 02/11/10

      Barack Obama always was a fake. He only got elected because the mainstream media became a conscious part of his campaign apparatus, and covered up his past.

      Some of us, of course, were not fooled by him in the first place. That’s because the Internet allows for alternative views, and the presentation of evidence.

      Now that the reality is no longer able to be hidden, people are reacting to Obama’s true agenda - with the results likely to be seen in tonight’s vote.

    • A Bob says:

      07:00am | 02/11/10

      What is Obama’s true agenda, Eric?

    • Tedd says:

      07:20am | 02/11/10

      Obama became President at the worst time ever, with the US in financial meltdown, Congress and the H’o'Reps in virtual gridlock, and with the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq stale.  They hype didn’t match the terrain.

      More-over, the expectations of Americans, as consumer-orientated as they are, are unrealistic.  It is ironic that the Democrats had several years before the mortgage-meltdown had pushed for easy home ownership that lead to the house-of-cards implosion.

    • A Bob says:

      07:51am | 02/11/10

      Tedd, if you back to the actual voting during the Clinton administration you’ll find it was overwhelmingly bipartisan. The Dems pushed it as social reform, the GOP as financial reform. They were both in it up to their necks.

    • Caveat emperor says:

      07:51am | 02/11/10

      Tedd is right.

      Anyone that expects a leader these days to fix everything is delusional.

      These days leaders are burdened by the groaning weight of midle class welfare and underfunded infrastructure.

      The GFC was the result of the US government guarasnteeing loans to people who could never afford to repay them. No surprise it collapsed.

      It’s the over-consumptive nature of the middle and lower classes and the over-expectation of what can be delivered that is the problem. Not the leaders.

    • Pete from Sydney says:

      08:00am | 02/11/10

      No chance Tory/Eric that economic conditions killed the reform agenda? Which was not caused by the Democrats by the way….Not to mention a concerted push by the media to discredit anything that Obama and indeed Gillard try to do to reform?

      Wait to the looney right takes the reins in America
      PS Laurie Oakes? Give me a break

    • Carter says:

      08:02am | 02/11/10

      Oh Eric, if only we were all as wise, noble and intelligent at you, we would be able to see through all sorts of things. Like politicians, Lois Lane’s lead underwear and that can in the pantry that lost its label weeks ago… I think it might be beans, but it could be pineapple.

      He got elected because he offered Americans the opportunity to believe that the soul sucking fear peddled by the Bush Administration was a thing of the past, and it largely is.

      The change he offered was never going to come overnight, and many of his greatest supporters acknowledged in the days and weeks following his victory that he was, to a certain extent, put on too high a pedestal and would suffer as a result when the change he offered didn’t come in 30 minutes or less or your pizza is free.

      Like Clinton (who also suffered a backlash in 1994) I suspect Obama will go down in history as, on the whole, a very good and effective President who, in his first term, did well considering the massive disadvantages handed to him by a GOP administration.

      Unlike Clinton, Eric, I ssupect that you will get a job working as a carnival clairvoyant on a pier somewhere.

    • Chester says:

      08:22am | 02/11/10

      Obama’s agenda is the same as any politician, the power and the glory, what else is there?

    • TimB says:

      08:24am | 02/11/10

      I thought his agenda was to gain access to the secret tunnel between the Oval Office and the Smithsonian, thus allowing him to steal the Hope Diamond.

      ...Right?

    • Ad1 says:

      09:14am | 02/11/10

      “The hype didn’t match the terrain” nice analogy, I can just imagine a sleek Lamborghini on a dirt road. It’s a nice car with great capabilities and one day we might be able to test it out on open roads… but right now everyone’s complaining that the car’s slow and the ride is way too bumpy.

    • Tom says:

      09:18am | 02/11/10

      @ Eric, want to be lied to. Obama obliged.

      People want to be conned. They want a messiah, someone who will make them feel good about the world. They want a vision (even if a falsity) and a moment to pretend that life will be beautiful. Unfortunately, it all passed too quickly. The cellulite, beer guts and wrinkles are still there.

    • Brad Coward says:

      01:05pm | 02/11/10

      I agree with Big Ted, those who expect the leader to fix everything are delusional.  Hence….those who voted for Rudd and Obama were delusional !

    • Not Pete from Sydney says:

      03:36pm | 02/11/10

      Tedd, can you please explain how the HoR and Senate was in deadlock with a Democrat majority in both????
      Obama was as much a victim of the Republican right as the fringe Dems who thought like Labour 07 we are her now an annointed to do whatever we want. AS much damage was done to him by his own party as the Republicans managed to score.

      Pete from Sydney, don’t claim media bias youy lightweight, CNN, MSNBC and the four majors in the US are as biased as the ABC and pro Obama as you like - stop drinking the Cool Aid when you dont like the outcome tiger.

      PS Pete from Sydney Essendon wont finish top 8

    • James N says:

      07:44am | 03/11/10

      Tedd, you are dead right. Americans demanded instant gratification. And further to your point about consumer orientation, Obama won his presidency on the strength of his well advertised campaign/sell—but he hadn’t advertised his achievements with quite the same ferocity.

      Meanwhile, the Republican hype machine has gone into overdrive, lumping as much media stink as possible onto the Democrats, and simultaneously maintaining a hardline combatative stance in Congress.

      It’s to the point where practically all we hear about in Australia is an overwhelming discontent with the Obama Administration.

      I’m impressed he’s gotten anything done at all. I recommend checking out the website “What the——has Obama done so far?” via Google. Warning: those sensitive to expletive words should avoid the website.

    • acotrel says:

      11:07am | 03/11/10

      ‘All of a sudden he sounded a bit like Julia Gillard.

      There was about half a day when it seemed possible the words “Gillard” and “inspiration” belonged in the same sentence.’

      Didn’t take you long to get to the poisonous crap?

    • James N says:

      11:38am | 03/11/10

      And Carter, you’re right, he likely will suffer a violent backlash due to unreasonable expectations, and like Clinton, will later be reflected on as a good president.

      I often wonder if one day Howard will be remembered as a greatly effective Prime Minister, in spite of his missteps. In the same way that most people agree that Keating was an effective Prime Minister, despite his repulsive personality.

    • Against the Man says:

      06:03am | 02/11/10

      Lets get it straight, Gillard 1st got the job by backstabbing Rudd, than she lost an election because not enough people voted for the party so she conned her way via the double agent Independents to be our 1st pseudo PM. Now the only way she can vindicate herself is to create and implement good policy for Australia, she has failed on both fronts. In decades to come this will be known as the government of Failure, a well deserved legacy.

    • Carter says:

      08:07am | 02/11/10

      Let’s be realistic, in order for Labor (and the nasty Gillard monster) to be kicked out, two things needed to happen:
      1. Enough people needed to be disappointed in Labor, and
      2. Enough people needed to believe that the Coalition was a viable alternative.

      Number one happened (to an extent, but not great enough) and quite simply number two just didn’t happen…

      Gillard has only been PM for a few months. There’s a reason paliamentary terms last years, @Against the Man, good policy CANNOT be implemented in a matter of months.

      You are exectly the sort of person who believes that Obama is useless because he hasn’t made widespread change in 18 months (despite the Iraq pull out, new strategy in Afghanistan, health care being far more accesible to millions in the US, falling unemployment, a rising (albeit slowly) economy…

      Can I also point out that you are railing against Gillard who is not a man? Therefore, shouldn’t your name be “Against the Woman”? Or are you being ironic? Or cliched?

    • For the woman says:

      08:32am | 02/11/10

      Lets get it straight, Abbott 1st got the job by backstabbing Turnbull, then he lost the election because not enough people voted for the coalition parties and then he failed to con the independents who, unlike the voters, had access to his dodgy costings and so he ended up on the opposition benches.  Now the only way he can vindicate his leadership of the Liberals is to do everything to destabilise and demonise the Gillard government and ensure that it is unable to implement any of its policies, regardless of their merit.  In decades to come no one will remember this failure of a politician.

    • Sally Q says:

      09:09am | 02/11/10

      I agree, Gillard and her government have failed. She was part of the previous government and has not been able to follow through with her role as PM in ensuring that good policy was ever created yet alone implemented. Why is Garrett or Roxon even still around to cause chaos. People who defend Gillard are blind to see that if this government lasts three years, it will be a wasted three years with nothing done and Australia sliding backwards as per usual under a Labor government.

    • Ryan says:

      09:29am | 02/11/10

      @For the woman: incorrect, Abbott got the job because the Australian people kicked up enough stink to FORCE him to oust Turnbull. If Turnbull had listened to the people who he supposedly represents he would still be there today. Now tell me how taking action to represent the views of the Australian people is the same as stabbing Kevin Rudd in a filthy, underhanded backroom deal with the enemy faction is the same thing. I know you Labor people are used to acting against the will of the people, in fact caring less what the people think, but really trying to compare the filthy tactics of a self serving backstabber to someone representing the will of the people is laughable at best.

    • TheRealDave says:

      09:56am | 02/11/10

      @Ryan, I’m sorry….the Australian people forced Turdball to be removed now?

      What are you smoking? Liberal Party propaganda sheets?

      You are kidding if you think ‘the Australian People’ has anything to do with who each party ‘elects’ to represent them.

      By your rationale ‘the Australian People’ forced the Labor Party to dump Krudd, who was spiralling rapidly in the polls, and forced Joolz to take the top gig.

      But, I guess that ridiculous scenario only applies in a positive light to the particular flavour of politics you support huh?

    • For the woman says:

      10:48am | 02/11/10

      @Ryan: you may have forgotten that Rudd’s approval ratings had taken a nose dive, so on your logic Labor was carrying out “the will of the people” in removing Rudd.  Obviously “the Australian people” (Qld excluded) didn’t reward Abbott for “representing” their will and he remains seated on the opposition bench.  Time to move forward.

    • Ryan says:

      12:57pm | 02/11/10

      @TheRealDave: you have a short memory, Turnbull was ready to support the ETS with Rudd, the Australian public through people power did what had to be done and put direct pressure on their local members, to ensure this did not happen, Tony Abbott stepped up to the plate and saved us all from that rort. I agree Rudd had taken a nose dive in the polls, there was no urgency or specific issue at hand and there certainly wasn’t the same pressure from the public to oust Rudd, he just wan’t very popular on the day. Like it or not Rudd would have performed better in the past election than Gillard did, Gillard just jumped at the opportunity to pull a dirty trick on someone who trusted her, for no reason other than her own personal gain, again showing that the Labor party doesn’t give a stuff about us working class battlers but instead are too busy making themselves rich and stabbing each other in the back for it. One thing we do know for certain from that whole escapade, not even the Labor politicians can trust each other, we certainly cannot trust them!

    • Liz says:

      06:25am | 02/11/10

      Keving 07’s playing a different game he needs watching!

    • Macca says:

      06:31am | 02/11/10

      I might lean to the conservative side of politics here in Australia, but the rise of the Tea Party is somewhat confusing and disturbing.

      Barack Obama had a great vision for America. He lacks the capability to make such a vision a reality

    • Reilly James says:

      07:56am | 02/11/10

      Now isnt that just like Kev?  Same thing!

    • Nafe says:

      08:14am | 02/11/10

      How is the rise of the Tea Party “confusing and disturbing”?

    • Peter says:

      08:40am | 02/11/10

      What is it about low taxes and budget surplusses you hate, Macca?

      That’s what the Tea Party Movement is all about.  Fiscal responsibility.  Nothing else.  And anyone who says differently is either ignorant or misleading Leftists.  Or the media.  But I repeat myself.

    • iansand says:

      09:05am | 02/11/10

      Peter - I may be misled by the media, but I get the distinct impression that the Tea Party agenda can be summed up in one word - “Against”.

    • Ryan says:

      09:09am | 02/11/10

      @Macca: no unfortunately he is just like Gillard, a lot of BS, backstabbing, lying and hot air, followed by zero delivery.

    • A Bob says:

      09:44am | 02/11/10

      The GOP can be summed up as “against”. The Tea Partiers are a more diverse lot. It got started as a response to the TARP program started by Bush and continued by Obama. They were sick of the bail-outs, and there have been quire a few prior to the TARP, the US domestic airlines for one. But TARP was huge and originally came with no strings attached. This broke the camels back.

      Since then, a lot of hanger-on have pitched their tents under the same banner, and a few of them are nothing more than disturbing opportunists. The guy who was sending bestiality porn emails is one, not to mention FOX News…

      But the GOP has endorsed many of them, simply because their own candidates have failed and anything is better than a Democrat (in their eyes.).

    • Sven Gali says:

      10:05am | 02/11/10

      Allow Christopher Hitchens to clarify then, Macca >

      http://www.slate.com/id/2265515/

      Australia was years ahead of this curve. Anyone remember One Nation ?

    • MarK says:

      10:35am | 02/11/10

      @iansand - as usual you are misled

    • The Badger says:

      11:29am | 02/11/10

      iansand - You are right.
      The republican / tea party are the people Abbott has taken the lead from in developing his party of NO ideology and no policies.
      He realized this would be the best way forward because taking action for all Australians interfered with his divisive style of politics.

      I like the Bush poster that is not allowed to be linked to here that has a picture of Bush and says: I F#@ked you all - but thanks for blaming the black guy.

      These parties are part of the global war mongering conservatives that brought you the GFC and privatized your world for their business mates.

    • Super D says:

      06:45am | 02/11/10

      Don’t worry Tors, in 15-20 years or so another progressive leader with an empty mantra will emerge to harness the frustration of young ideologues unhappy with the notion of incremental change that has served the western world so well for several centuries.

      You can rest assured that when this occurs the media will be so caught up in the “fresh” approach that they will ensure expectations inflate to the point that they can never possibly be met.

    • Carter says:

      08:10am | 02/11/10

      Progressive change? Sort of like evolution, yeah? It’ll happen in thousands of years?

      The Howard Government was in power for 11 years. It made some incredibly good (and swift) reforms in it’s first term and a half. Then just stopped (not even progressive change, just benefiting from fear campaigns, ‘divide and conquer’ and an inneffective opposition…

      Reform means just that, reforming policy and government. Not peddling the same old as something new…

    • Old Clive says:

      06:56am | 02/11/10

      Nothing comes from nothing, and that is what we are getting, and it is all we can look forward too,two ,to, 2,tutu. And pleeeasse get rid of the first bloke on these overseas trips he looks like the drone that he is, look at me , his body language matches hearse, they are a good match, but politics ain’t the sport.

    • BillfromBendigo says:

      07:08am | 02/11/10

      A classic example really of what happens when the public are fooled into accepting “spin” over substance, and we’ve a loooooong way to go before it can be changed!

    • Gregg says:

      07:13am | 02/11/10

      That woman on Obamas left shoulder with the red tinge Afro may not be Julia in disguise learning about moving daggers forward but there are more definite goings on.

      For instance, with
      ” “The Labor Party and Liberal Party are interchangeable. I mean voters know that, everybody knows that; which is one of the reasons that people are now voting for the Greens, voting for the Independents…

      Oakes can make those silly statements and only the tragic Labor Party hacks may believe there’s only a whisker in
      . $43B ++++ for a broadband and all the hype surrounding it.
      . Taxing our best and about only industry to the extent it may eventually be best so
      . Generally being so managerially inept to bring in knee jerk actions that have cost the country billions.
      All from your beloved and faded Kev007/737, and !!!!!!!
      ” Kevin Rudd won election, the 2007 election by pretending to be John Howard.”
      Kevin Rudd won because he put a more conservative face to Labor even if it was a facade, and not just because of that for there was:
      . Work Choices
      . Iraq
      . An ageing PM who had not bowed out and led a party in more than somewhat dissaray.

      Oakes himself is something of an ageing fuddy duddy and I really wonder why anybody has ever felt he has had some mojo, perhaps all those Labor party hacks again trumpeting his every word!
      ” Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott fought the last election by pretending not to believe in anything at all, promising not to do anything. We won’t do anything because it will cost money. It’s sort of pathetic, really.”

      As for not doing anything because it will cost money, with the nations’ bank statement well and truly in the red, courtesy of you know who, one way of fiscal responsibility is to rein in excessive spending and super taxes that endanger the golden egg goose.

      And that is pathetic!!!!!

    • Joan says:

      07:47am | 02/11/10

      T-shirts bought on promises made, then unfuflilled will have a short shelf life. Cause, belief, action, the rebel- death in action -for your cause make for a more lasting T- shirt.- the Che Guevara T`s still sells… here in Australia .

    • Spanky McDoogleberry says:

      07:55am | 02/11/10

      Obama is what happens when someone decides to play race politics. You end up with a completely unqualified, not terribly intelligent, extremely lazy (the bloke plays golf every day instead of working) person in charge of a country just because he is half-black and can deliver a pretty speech (but only with a teleprompter in sight, he’s a bumbling idiot without one). You reap what you sow. Luckily, the Democrats have seen their faults and they won’t pre-select the fool for a second term.

    • iansand says:

      09:08am | 02/11/10

      No Spanky McDoogleberry .  George W Bush is no longer the President (and I never knew he was half black).  They have a new one now.  A bloke called Obama.

    • iansand says:

      09:08am | 02/11/10

      No Spanky McDoogleberry .  George W Bush is no longer the President (and I never knew he was half black).  They have a new one now.  A bloke called Obama.

    • Romli065 says:

      09:41am | 02/11/10

      Well that’s just hogwash Spanky Mcdoogleberry!  “Completely unqualified” - are you serious??  I suppose you think that George W. Bush was more qualified, right?  Or better still, I bet you think that Sarah Palin would make a great president.  You’re an idiot.

    • George Washington says:

      10:21am | 02/11/10

      @Romli - G W Bush was far more qualified for the job than Obama. For one thing, he had been a State Governor, so he had executive experience. Also, he was a jet fighter pilot, which requires great skill and competence to survive.

      Obama, by contrast, had never held a real job in his life prior to 2009. He got everything handed to him by affirmative action. Now he’s way out of his depth, and it shows.

    • Zeta says:

      11:04am | 02/11/10

      @ George Washington - Bush flew F-102s for the National Guard. He barely showed up to classes and his apptitude scores were woeful, that’s a matter of public record, his military records have been released. He was in the National Guard for just six years, was pilot after two, and transferred to non-active duty for his last 3 years - so he was a pilot for just 1 year. He never flew a combat mission, he never flew outside the airspace of Texas and Alabama.

      If you had a choice between someone who had everything handed to them by affirmative action, or someone who had everything handed to them by their Dad who happened to be Director of the CIA, would you really go with the drunkard who signed more Texan death warrants than Ulysses S. Grant?

    • Spanky McDoogleberry says:

      11:31am | 02/11/10

      Obama was completely unqualified. He was a junior senator who only voted on one issue and never raised a bill in its own right. The only reason he got elevated above his status was to cash in on the coloured vote, which worked, much to their chagrin now that his ineptitude is clear for all to see.

      Whether George Bush was more qualified (which he obviously was) is not at issue, though more Americans now prefer Bush to Obama and, once in power, Obama adopted most of the Bush administration’s policies because, once he had proper briefing, he realised they were spot on.

    • persephone says:

      07:59am | 02/11/10

      This is all a bit like talking about ‘kids nowadays’ as if there was a golden age when children were angelic.

      It’s the same with politics.

      People have been saying - whether it’s here, in the UK, or the USA - that there’s no difference between the major parties for as long as I can remember (and I’m older than I look).

      As for inspirational politics, I’ve never known anyone who ran on the ‘change politics’ agenda who was able to deliver.

      The fact is, politics is a craft like any other. The way it operates - including the convergence of the majors - has been worked out over centuries.

      I was a Hillary person, not an Obama one, because I knew Hill understood the rules of the game and would be able to use them to her advantage.

      Mind you, full marks to Obi for at least getting some kind of health reform through the system.

      And I always find it amusing when writers on sites like this - where a great deal of passion is displayed on both sides of politics - then claim there’s no difference between the majors.

      If there isn’t, why all the heat?

    • Jaime says:

      08:37am | 02/11/10

      Slightly confusing article. Obama killed off inspiration politics somehow leads up to Labor and Liberal are interchangeable. If we’re still comparing US politics and Oz politics, are you saying that Democrats and Republicans are interchangeable? If so, you need to actually read the news instead of just writing articles.

      The politics of inspiration only succeeds in good times. Because then the country has the money and capability to improve and keep some of their people happy. In times as atrocious as it is right now in the US, it’s pretty much impossible to inspire anyone when the economy is so bad and the unemployment rate is not reducing fast enough.

      People were desperate for an improvement and they went for the opposite of what they had for so long (Bush) in hopes to get that. It was always a sign of the people hoping for a miracle which was impossible to deliver in two years, in the current economic climate.

    • Zeta says:

      08:44am | 02/11/10

      You’ve got the world’s second biggest economy and remaining super power and it was ran by the puppet of a cabal of psychopaths for eight years. In that time they fought five wars - two against other countries, one against a philosophical construct, one against drugs while trying to fight one against an entire religion - they lost all of them. I mean, it would be funny if it wasn’t so awful. You’d think the law of averages would mean you’d win at least one war. While they were doing this, they accidently the whole economy, through a combination of laziness and stupidity which exagerated the impact of a lack of regulation, and from most sources, an outright failure to even comprehend the mechanics of the economy because for 7 years of Bush’s term the White House was stacked with arm chair generals and national security wonks who were blind sided by the threat from inside their very own banking institutions. I mean, this was a guy who hired his former butler as his chief of staff during the GFC. It transcends incompetence.

      Obama hasn’t saved the world. He probably won’t. But he’s not Bush. And he’s not a Republican. And he can communicate on a level beyond that of primates.

      He’s not a great President, he won’t be remembered like JFK, who did more in his short term than Obama will in his lifetime, or Regan, or Johnson, or Carter - guys who went through serious shit in their time. Obama might hold the fate of millions of American’s economic futures in his hands - but those Presidents were burdened with keeping the world from nuclear armageddon. I pray that we never face that again because I don’t rate Obama’s or mine or the next generation with the intestinal fortitude to protect the entire planet from obliteration. We can barely protect ourselves.

      I watched Obama win from my office and thought ‘the nightmare is finally over’. People say ‘it’s not relevant, we’re orstralians hyuk hyuk herp derp.’ But you stand in line at the airport holding your shoes - Bush did that. You pay more for fuel - Bush did that. You can’t get credit - Bush did that. You feel anxious around muslims and you can’t explain why - He did that too. The culture of fear was always there - but like a bacteria culture, it was Bush that took it out of the freezer and put it under the heat lamp so it could grow into the foul mutant that shits all over our civilisation now. And it wasn’t really him, he’s just the name we put to it. He was a puppet of forces beyond his own tiny comprehension. Those guys are all making trillions now, off gas pipelines in Afghanistan, off Haliburton serving Big Macs to troops at Forward Operating Bases - the same guys who pulled stock out of airlines on September 10, the same guys sold their consolidated debt obligations in 2008.

      Obama might not be the smartest guy in the room. But he wasn’t responsible for bringing our entire society to the brink of collapse like Bush did. The Tea Baggers say he might even be a Muslim and that his citizenship is dubious - I say thank God, because the more of an outsider he is, the less influence the same people who influenced Bush, Clinton and Bush Snr have over him.

      I don’t think Obama is dead in the water. Glenn Beck attracted 83,000 to his Resoring Honour rally. Jon Stewart got 214,000. For the blissfully uninformed Punchers, Glenn Beck is the guy who makes Bill O’Reilly look sane and rational. Maybe there’s a silent majority of normal people who want their country to be normal and not insane.

      We lived through the alternative already. And although American can’t take back the things she did for those 8 years, at least Americans can try to remember why they want to forget them.

    • joseph says:

      09:00am | 02/11/10

      The worlds 2nd biggest economy? Pray tell, who is the biggest if it is not the US?

    • Samson says:

      09:39am | 02/11/10

      I guess there are a few different measurements of ‘biggest economy’ but going by the standard measurement (nominal GDP) the USA is still the worlds biggest economy by a massive margin IIRC, something like 13 trillion USD compared to the second largest (japan/china) on around 5 trillion USD.

    • Zeta says:

      10:12am | 02/11/10

      By nominal current GDP, the world’s biggest economy is the European Union. I reckon it’s kind of ironic that the IMF and the World Bank insist on policies that globalise the economy, except when it comes to ranking economies, in which case they change the rules so ‘statehood’, the very concept they’re against, is the determining factor in ranking.

      By purchasing power parity, the US barely scraps into 5th position on only 1 list, while being beaten by Qatar, Luxembourg, Brunei, Norway and Singapore on the IMF list. PPP is a more accurate indicator of economic scope anyway. The GDP standard is political - it was institutionalised to penalise the Soviet Union on any ranking of economic indicators because in a planned economy, domestic output can’t be quantified because it includes communal agriculture.

      Saying they come in second is being kind anyway - in real growth terms, they’re 151st. In the top 10 growing economies there’s the West Bank. So an economy that isn’t even recognised by the UN except through the Oslo accords and that is periodically bombed and where your house doesn’t just get foreclosed, it get’s bulldozed by the Israeli Defence Force is doing better than the US economy.

      My favourite economic statistic though, is industrial growth - where the US ranks 144th, but is at least showing positive growth, unlike Australia. Because above is every single country they’ve ever been at war with. And in the top 20 nations for industrial growth, is almost every single country that the US inteligence services have ever overthrown a government. Congo. Timor. Cambodia. Iraq. Laos. I mean, makes you think right - if those old Cold Warriors had have over thrown their own Government in the 90s after they were made redundant, the US economy would be doing better.

      So maybe they’re not the second biggest economy, that’s probably the wrong term. They’re more like ‘most disappointing economy’. In sporting terms, it’s like watching Tiger Woods play a Helen Keller and lose.

    • Economist says:

      10:34am | 02/11/10

      Zeta beautifully put. The key problem for the US and it’s happening here is confirmation bias. People are only getting their news from those they want to hear from.

      This is no more demonstrated then in the arguments of what caused the Global Financial Crisis. The “Right” argue it was CRA loans under Clinton, but fail to acknowledge that there were not enough of these loans to cause the a crisis of this magnitude. They also fail to acknowledge the reason for encouraging these loans was to reduce the role of government in providing public housing, that it should be left to the market to address issues of homelessness.

      The key cause was mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDO), poor credit ratings of these packaged loans and ridiculously low interest rates.  The fact is the market was out of control. The market has moved from a means of raising capital for companies to invest in substantial projects and research to deliver a greater return on the initial funds to simply a means of speculation and hedging for short term gains. It’s gambling pure and simple, no better than reading the form guide for the Melbourne Cup.

    • Zeta says:

      10:53am | 02/11/10

      @ Economist - I think the Melbourne Cup is the wrong analogy, although timely. You bet on a horse and you’re investing in a regulated industry with quantifiable variables like skill, age, training, pitch condition - and I’m only an armchair chaos mathematician but even the unknown variables of horse biology are minor factors compared to what CDOs were. The conditions for the GFC more closely resembled a casino - a casino that lies about the odds, and knows the outcome of every spin of the roulette wheel. Then when someone finds out, but instead of spilling the beans, works the system for their own gain and the casino goes bankrupt, the casino has their own personal bank to take out zero interest loans from.

    • Mr Pod says:

      11:18am | 02/11/10

      Nice one today Zeta, you’ve been off form but you’ve come back well.  But…. Obama is still surrounded by a lot of the same “advisors” from the previous regime, and appears to have let a lot of Washington bureaucrats envelop him.  Yes he is not as bad as Bush but it would be difficult for anyone to stoop that low again.  EU is indeed a single economy, that was the whole point of the European Union.  Congrats again you should be given white background status.

    • jg says:

      11:36am | 02/11/10

      But he wasn’t responsible for bringing our entire society to the brink of collapse like Bush did

      Wow, not much overstated hyperbole.

    • Zeta says:

      12:37pm | 02/11/10

      @ jg - Like the milk stool upon which we could prop up the fetid corpse of Bush’s legacy like the star witness at a Cadaver Synod, my case that Bush nearly triggered the end of life on this planet as we know it rests on three legs:

      1) Bush tried to wage war on two fronts. Historically, this has been the downfall of every major, technologically advanced power that has attempted it. Emperor Valens, notoriously killed at the Battle of Adrianople by the Visigoths, was in the middle of a cold war with the Sassinids when he went to war with the Goths. His forces split between what was a messy insurgency and a conventional, asymetrical counter-insurection left Rome vulnerable, and ultimately destroyed. Roman society as it was, was lost, along with Valens on the battlefield. Hitler looked set to stamp unhindered across the globe until he opened up an Eastern Front, inviting retribution from the Russians. We all know how that turned out. On a smaller scale, you can argue Vietnam, and a big chunk of the American soul was lost because of a shadow war being fought across the Cambodian border at the same time. It’s a maxim therefore of global military politics - if you fight two wars at once, you’ll always lose one, and if you lose both, you lose everything - and like the banks Bush bailed out, the US is too big to fail - if we lose America, the West loses everything.

      2) Bush brought the economy to its knees - the West’s economy is the American economy, not just in a monetary sense, but a social and cultural sense as well. If you change America, you change the world. Bush nearly destroyed the American economy, and by extension ours. Since the New Deal, American economic stimulus has been tied into infrastructure projects - when the US was finally handed a surplus, instead of investing that money into infrastructure, which every respected economist advised Bush to do, he instead demanded tax cuts. When congress wouldn’t sign off on the tax cuts, he went on the road, and instead of relying on the cool heads of US economic conservatism he turned to the neo-capitalist Republican kingmakers who decided if they couldn’t convince smart people, they’d convince stupid people instead. With his approval ratings through the roof after his town hall tour, Congress signed off on the tax cuts to save their own skin. But instead of the money going back through the roundabout of consumer spending, it was captured and invested into the housing bubble, and by extension the CDO. The American consumer was like a psychopath standing in line at a gun store, and George Bush was only too happy to give them the cash to buy the bullets they eventually fired into their own fates. Worse still, is the abundant evidence that senior Bush and Cheney advisers knew the tax cut regime would funnel more cash into more mortgages which would be converted by Goldman Sachs into CDOs which they themselves were heavily invested in.

      3) Bush revoked the Anti-Ballitic Missile treaty - the glue that kept the Soviets and the United States together through the 80s, the clear, concrete indication that the Soviet Union, like the West, didn’t really want the world to end in a fiery holocaust. And Bush revoked it. Single handedly pissed 50 years of the threat of mutually assured destruction down the drain and reset the nuclear clock. December 13, while we were all still in shock after 9/11, and the ABMT was unplugged from political life support - all so the US could build a missile defence network in case of attack by ‘terrorists’ that were later proved ‘didn’t have any f***ing missiles’.

      We got through the Cold War because neither the US nor the Soviets wanted mutually assured destruction. If one side had, the delicate equilibrium of that particular Prisoner’s Dillema would have been much different. In the War on Terror, we have two belligerents, both fanatically loyal to a fundamentalist religion, one whom had nuclear weapons, the other of whom was ensconsed in enough friendly States that their enemies would be forced to kill millions to get to them.

      We’re lucky to be alive.

    • MarK says:

      08:15pm | 02/11/10

      At least all the bush hate made me smile simplistic rubbish though it is.

      Actually it made me laugh. Keep it up. You can probably blame your lost keys on him.

      Gawd you people are a riot.

    • Matt Smith says:

      08:57am | 02/11/10

      I have a friend who bought Hillary Clinton shirts back before Obama got the vote. Oh how I laughed…

    • Joan says:

      09:03am | 02/11/10

      `But you stand in line at the airport holding your shoes - Bush did that.` What nonsense…. the muslims did that when they hijacked aeroplanes and slammed them into the World Trade centre and the Pentagon.

    • Phil Kyson says:

      09:05am | 02/11/10

      The things that kill off inspirational politics are the rightarded controlled media. Conservative greed backed up by ignorant religious wannabe’s.

    • Angela says:

      09:22am | 02/11/10

      I am sitting here literally laughing my head off, seriously people actually believe that politicians can help us mere mortals with anything. Sorry that lost it shine years ago. But you have to hand it to the Americans if they can pull the rabbit out of the hat it will be during their election rallies lol.

    • Sven Gali says:

      09:25am | 02/11/10

      Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.

    • Tired taxpayer says:

      09:41am | 02/11/10

      Listening to you lot makes me want to wander back to nirvana - or was that Nimbin…chill out dudes, you’ll still have to pay taxes next week no matter who is in power…

    • Sheedy's Left Foot says:

      09:52am | 02/11/10

      Forget rehashing the sasme old political arguments…I am truly mystified that people would actually purchase and wear a t-shirt with a slogan on it about any world leader. Come on, honestly why on earth would anyone wear a t-shirt with Kevin 07 or Barak Obama grinning face on it?

      Seriously what are you trying to say about yourself “hey kids look at me, I am a hip latte drinking lefty, with right on political attitudes”. It is as bad as people who wear t-shirts with band names on in an effort to be cool and almost as pathetic as students with their Che Guevara posters.

      Do you people also have a collection of witty bumper stickers and amusing spare wheel covers on your ‘Urban Utilities’?

    • PH says:

      10:20am | 02/11/10

      were T-shirst like that ever cool, other than to those living in a political bubble?

    • stephen says:

      10:32am | 02/11/10

      Barack Obama’s has done well in a difficult Presidency.
      He inherited a global crises that was exacerbated by 9/11, and the high price of oil. Many Americans now have Universal Health Care, who would not otherwise have enjoyed. Further, Mr. Obama is trying to introduce a new ethic into the various Middle East difficulties. So far, admittedly, he has not succeeded, but I maintain it was then the right thing to do.
      If the Republicans get the House Of Representatives, they may well feel indebted to Barack Obama for regaining an equilibrium with Iran.
      (An equilibrium, as in a neutral stance.)
      Morally speaking, then, the Right may have every leg to stand on in enforcing severe penalties on Iran with regard to her insistence on a nuclear arsenal.
      Presidents in America, like here,too, come and go, and perhaps he did the right things at the right time.
      He is one of the most uneffected and honest men I can think of currently, anywhere, in Public Office.

    • John says:

      10:34am | 02/11/10

      Obama has always been a puppet and so has Bush. What American’s need to realize that the same puppet masters control both the republican and demoncrats. If they go back to republicans it will be same and the American’s will start to realize whats going on this country.

      Obama’s change policy also included racial politics, first black president as the motto for change and racial conscious into the election, but now that has lost it’s grip. Whats next ? next oppressed class? Women president? American’s will one day realize the existence of the puppet masters and will come after them. They will tear down their media, banking, legal and institutions who harbor the puppet masters and make this puppet master class flee the US to their criminal hide outs around the world.

      It’s funny this puppet class also covered up that his mother was radical communist and that he mocked Jesus Christ. Just these two alone would wipe him out of any presidential race

    • MarK says:

      10:40am | 02/11/10

      It is simple.

      Obama like Rudd and Gillard have been promoted above their capabilities.

      Their skill sets are lacking.

      Rudd was a me to man.

      Gillard was right place right time with no one else plausible

      Obama was a African American that spoke really really well

      That is it. It ain’t hard. It ain’t rocket surgery. These people are simply under qualified for the job.

    • Rob says:

      12:14pm | 02/11/10

      It isn’t simple. Not at all. Just like every other hack out there - Labor, Liberal, Democrat, Republican, you are just trying to pretend that there is a simplicity to an extremely complex situation in order to bring some kind of divine credence to your own argument. Unfortunately, the real world does not work like that.

      Kevin Rudd inherited a thriving economy, albeit one which was faced with the threat of a major global economic meltdown, and which had (and still has) pathetically underdeveloped infrastructure. He tried to deal with it in his own unique style - and depending upon your political bias, he either succeeded where failure was inevitable, or failed where failure was impossible. Either way, he became unpopular, and was kicked out by an ambitious woman with powerful factional friends.

      Barack Obama is an African-American that spoke really, really well. He is also a Democrat who inherited an economy that has been deregulated to the point of lending collapse by a succession of reformist neoliberal governments dating back to Ronald Reagan. In the twenty months that he has been in power, Obama has passed a major healthcare reform, dealt with a massive environmental disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, and arrested the fall of the US market through bailouts and credit card reforms. People are angry because they feel that he has still somehow short-changed them - that the “Change” that he had promised would happen in a matter of months, after which everything would be fine again. This is his own fault, as his campaign of “hope” was what fostered such unrealistic expectations.

      “That is it. It ain’t hard. It ain’t rocket surgery. These people are simply under qualified for the job.”

      That quote proves that you know nothing about politics. Qualifications have no correlation to success, let me demonstrate.

      A man with no formal education was able to preside, as Treasurer, over the floating of the Australian dollar, the dismantling of state tariffs, the introduction of Medicare, the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank, and numerous other economic deregulations. He was able to do this because he had brains enough to listen to the smart people in Treasury who told him what to do. These reforms have since become the cornerstones of the economic policy of every administrations since, and both parties have tried to take credit for them. This was, in essence, a success.

      On the other hand, George W. Bush was a former state governor who was the son of a former president. Nobody could argue that he was particularly unqualified, but few would suggest that his administration was anything other than a total failure. So what caused the failure? The faulty advice of experts such Richard Perle and Alan Greenspan played a major role, and you could argue that the economic crisis had been coalescing for twenty years before Bush came to power. But ultimately it was Bush’s failure to anticipate the complications of deregulation or protracted overseas conflict (that, by the way, any economic or foreign policy expert could have anticipated) that provided the catalyst for the beginning of the meltdown the US is still experiencing.

      Qualifications of candidates have nothing to do with successful governance - in fact, they’re more likely to just make the politician think that he knows everything (e.g. Kevin Rudd) and to ignore good advice. But advice is so important, as is the politician’s discerning ability to accept it.

    • MarK says:

      01:47pm | 02/11/10

      No Rob, it is simple.

      Obama is way out of his depth.

      Rudd really the brains behind the Labor government. And that should terrify you.

      I love how you spend ages rattling on about one word I wrote. Qualified.

      Rob qualified doesn’t necessarily mean they passed learn2president 101 at college. It means if they handle the job with competence. You want to put the most narrow definition on it to let yourself have a good old ideological rant. Learn to comprehend. Read the rest of the written word. Their skill sets are lacking, they lack competence.

      So lets see

      Rudd - first PM to be axed by his party during his forst term. His deputy said he led the government off the rails. Qualification/competence/whatever adjective you like FAIL.

      Gillard - Done nothing but be 2IC of a government she so eloquently puts it went off the rails. Led a first term government to the 2nd worst result ever recorded. She didn’t even have a great depression to blame. Has Labor primary vote at record lows. Qualification etc etc FAILURE INCOMING.

      And then your doosie. Where you let the bias all hang out Good old Bush bashing.

      “..few would suggest that his administration was anything other than a total failure.”

      You guys can’t help it.

      http://politics.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2010/10/27/poll-most-want-obama-fired-in-2012

      Here is the good bit

      “But that personal favorability doesn’t translate into re-election support when voters are asked if Obama deserves a second term. Says Schoen: “Despite voters feelings toward Obama personally, 56 percent say he does not deserve to be re-elected, while 38 percent say he does deserve to be re-elected president.” Worse, Schoen adds, “43 percent say that Barack Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, while 48 percent say Bush was a better president than Obama has been.”“

      Seems you are wrong wrong wrong. Seems the majority suggest his presidency was better than Obama’s.

      Honestly Rob what a waste of some good typing.

      Again you let your personal beliefs,lack of comprehension deliberate or otherwise and ideology get in the road of thought processes.

      Here are some other examples.

      “That quote proves that you know nothing about politics. “

      No. Your words prove you will narrowly construct anything for ideological gain.

      “(that, by the way, any economic or foreign policy expert could have anticipated)”

      Yeh right. How wrong can you get. So many made a killing shorting the market. Hell Swan was talking our economy down because himself or Treasury didn’t anticipate anything but boom times.

      “Obama has passed a major healthcare reform,”

      So what? He had to water the whole thing down. It was unpopular on both sides and the benefits, if any, are yet to be seen. Jury is out on this. You only bring it up because he DID something. Lets wait and see if it turns into a Batt scheme.

      Lets just leave it at that.

      Thanks so much for commenting though. It is always a pleasure to have one word I write the focus of an essay.

      Good luck with that whole Obama thing by the way. He is “moving forward”. With such an awesome slogan I am sure he will be fine.

    • Economist says:

      02:48pm | 02/11/10

      MarK I gotta say mate you really do turn it on with your partisan, derogatory nonsense and cherry picking of data to accuse others of partisan derogatory nonsense. So the US polls show disillusionment. Are you denying that the US economy has experienced three quarters of growth, are you denying the fact that 30M more Americans are covered by health insurance and that previously weren’t and that your provider can’t suddenly jack up premiums or deny you access without serious documentation to support it? Are you deny the fact that the Republicans have used the filibuster at record levels?

      Do you think it’s realistic to turn around, what is regarded as the second worst decline in US history, in less than 2 years? Do you deny the fact that the deficit increased under Bush and Greenspan? Personally you show a lack of understanding of the complexities of how an economy works and the lags associated with stimulus.

      As for your constant attack on Labor its justified on some policy, but they did give the Australian economy the confidence to get through the GFC. What would your beloved Liberals have done? Your beloved Liberals sold over $200B in government assets to pay off a $90B deficit, around $60B in the FF (including proceeds from other budget surpluses) and some extra funds for higher ed ( I can’t remember the seeding amount, but basically around $40B of the proceeds were just dumped into consolidate revenue). They raked in Billions in unbudgeted proceeds from the mining boom and blew it all on middle class welfare BB, FHOG, Private health etc. Even some respectable economists have stated they left a structural deficit. Tell me in the last election did your beloved Liberals seriously show that they would have cut total government expenditure. I think not. They certainly would have cut some programs and staff from the PS, but their total expenditure was still in the order of Labors.  They more than likely would have received the same advice as Labor. Your just part of the Liberal rent a crowd, no better than the Labor rent a crowd that you deride.

    • JJ of SC says:

      10:43am | 02/11/10

      This is what happens when you run a ‘greatest idol’ contest rather than an election!

    • cynic says:

      11:29am | 02/11/10

      Like our our kevin rudd, obama was a creation of the media driven by a desire to oust the conservatives who has destroyed the true values of our respective countries. Too late the media found they backed the wrong horse (its melbourne cup day, give me a break). Th emedia then turned on both, more so i guess for being “conned” into beliveing the messiah had arrived. Gullible fools.

    • John says:

      12:02pm | 02/11/10

      Next headline “Obama to blame for Australia’s Cricketing Woes”

    • Rick says:

      12:02pm | 02/11/10

      Obama campaigned on the theme of ‘Yes We Can’ seeking bipartisanship.  The Republicans however, denied bi-partisanship.  Denying even one Republican vote on every major piece of legislation that went before the Congress.  Health care reform being the best known.  Obama took office at the time of the worst economic conditions since the 1930’s.  It would seem that the people who presided over the excesses will now get a bigger vote on Tuesday. The Republicans wants to keep a tax cut - cuts which are meant to expire at the end of this year and which Obama has pledged to discontinue - for the wealthiest Americans that will cost 40 billion dollars over the next 10 years.  However they are the same party that claims there is too much debt in America and that it has to be brought under control.  This is the same old conservative Tory line - cut the debt - just so long as the most wealthy continue to build their wealth.  Amazing that so many people fall for it.

    • Brad Coward says:

      01:01pm | 02/11/10

      False prophets promise false profits !

    • Ziggy says:

      01:07pm | 02/11/10

      I never ceased to be amazed what goes on here. For 5 years I worked in Chicago as a financial and property advisor to many large corporations and high net worth characters. Many of them were real wheeler dealers - somewhere between Attilla the Hun and Al Capone.Chicago is acknowledged as the most crooked democrat politcal machine in the USA. Has always been. You don’t become a senator from Illinois without being an integral part of that machine. Believe me that no one will win support there without having to give a lot of favours in return. Add to that a lifelong history of nil achievement, a natural arrogance,a history of concealing info, and a total inability to laugh at himself and you have the current President of the US. He is so defensive he cannot speak to kindie kids without using a teleprompter! Whats worse is that he is getting his clock cleaned by a largely inarticulate, inexperienced street fighter named Sarah. He is truly the sum of all our fears.

    • stephen says:

      06:58pm | 02/11/10

      Clock cleaned by Sarah, huh ?
      This is a man who, when he was to be sworn in as President, took the same train route to Washington that Abraham Lincoln did, ate the same lunch as board that Abe did, and in the presence of the Supreme Court Chief Justice, swore on Abe’s Bible, and you think that a clock-cleaning Sarah is gonne take him away from the American people ?

      (Cripes, if i’d heard B.O. was gonna get his head shaved by an inarticulate street-fighter named Ziggy, I’d have somethin ter worry about.)

    • St. Michael says:

      11:27pm | 02/11/10

      @ stephen: just because he does some of the things Abraham Lincoln did doesn’t make him Abraham Lincoln.  Not by a long shot.

      If anything, doing stupid stuff like that only indicates he has so little intrinsic character of his own all he can do is imitate the great American presidents.  He’s done cover versions of Martin Luther King, too.  They all helped to get him elected, because at the moment people love a bit of mystique and they love a messiah.

      Lincoln freed the slaves.  Who has Obama freed lately?
      Lincoln sacked US generals who failed to win in the Civil War and started hiring ones who could and did win.  How many unsuccessful generals has Obama fired lately?
      Lincoln managed to put his country back together after a civil war.  How many countries has Obama rebuilt successfully lately? (And no, Iraq doesn’t count.)

    • Ziggy says:

      06:23am | 03/11/10

      Wait for the results - while she will never become President, the hick chick from Alaska is easily going to win this round. As for the rest of your comments they illustrate beautifully a man with a false sense of entitlement. Abe achieved just a little more then Obama - the man who got everything because he could persuade people of his potential. Achievements to date - zilch. And despite all the time he spends on the course he won’t make it as golfer either.

    • ABC says:

      09:32am | 03/11/10

      Oh for God’s sake Stephen,  to compare one of the greatest men history has ever produced to Barak Obama is just ridiculous!

      The Gettyburg Address took about two minutes to deliver.  Compare the following text to Barak’s nonsensical wafflings:

      Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth
      on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and
      dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
        Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing
      whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so
      dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-
      field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of
      that field as a final resting-place for those who here gave
      their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether
      fitting and proper that we should do this.
        But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate…we cannot
      consecrate…we cannot hallow…this ground. The brave men,
      living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it
      far above our poor power to add or detract. The world
      will little note nor long remember what we say here, but
      it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the
      living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished
      work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly
      advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the
      great task remaining before us…that from these honored
      dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which
      they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here
      highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain;
      that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of
      freedom; and that government of the people, by the people,
      for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

    • Jimmy says:

      11:05am | 03/11/10

      Stephen calling Ziggy inarticulate? Are you kidding?

    • St. Michael says:

      03:14pm | 02/11/10

      All this whinging about Obama and/or Rudd killing off inspiration politics forgets that we ultimately get the governments we deserve.  As a society we don’t think about politics.  We don’t subscribe to any view, ideological or otherwise, about how society should operate beyond how much money goes into our back pockets.

      We are relentlessly focused on what’s new, what’s cool, what’s vaguely inspiring in a Hollywood sense, what’s changing.  News organisations haven’t helped—the 24-hour news cycle is now a fact of reality, and regardless of how much Laurie Oakes and his ilk complain about it, they generated it and they succour it every single day.

      Simple fact is that Obama overpromised in his campaigs, explicitly, and by implication given he campaigned on “Change”.  He traded heavily on Martin Luther King and JFK’s long-dead and overrated presidency to get into the White House; he and the Democrats are now paying the price for it.  Because when you campaign primarily on “change”, your government has no mandate to do anything other than change the identity of who is in the White House.

      Rudd also harnessed his fortunes to the “Change” bandwagon, as any long-out-of-office Opposition does and should do when it’s trying to win government.  He took a different tack, though, basically suggesting that he’d be John Howard with a heart.  He was wiser than Obama, but he had the same overpowering ego as Obama did.  Or does.

      Either way, both men are now being rightly roasted in the polls because they either promised more than they could deliver, or because they’re seen as hypocrites given the image they projected before the elections.

      But we as the voters don’t help things at all.  We destroy every holder of public office with any mild glimpse of vision as a kook, and we elect PM after PM who represents ‘stability’.  We have nobody to blame but ourselves if Gillard and Abbott play to that tendency in ourselves or that they’re successful at it.

      So piss off, Laurie Oakes, you made this bed, you lie in it.  And you should be ashamed of yourself, Ms Maguire - because it’s you lack any real convictions.  You jumped on the Obama bandwagon because it was cool.  Now you’re off it because it’s not.  Where are your real beliefs? What do you stand for? Very little - which, unfortunately, makes you a perfect bellwether for most voting Australians.

    • PJ says:

      05:26pm | 02/11/10

      Hi Michael. Tory has a job to do and if that insites people like yourself——she wins. Educated comment would be appreciated. Regards.

    • stephen says:

      06:43pm | 02/11/10

      Barack Obama, if anything, is over-educated for the job. He is over-trained in other fields, and has used a lot of his time in Universities, as distinct from experiencing a wider variety of feelings.
      He, therefore, lacked some instinct. Some evidence of this is his appointment of his personal staff, a few who have decided to move on.
      His Ideals are excellent.
      I think America might let him suffer a bit more, then ‘cut him a bit of slack.’

    • Eric says:

      09:40pm | 02/11/10

      That’s the problem, Stephen. Obama is all symbolism and no substance.

    • Helena says:

      10:39pm | 02/11/10

      Itll take years before ANYONE can fix the disaster that Bush left behind.
      Obama has managed to achieve more good for the US than Bush ever did during his time in office.

    • acotrel says:

      11:03am | 03/11/10

      I believe the US has reached ‘the moment of truth’!

    • Eskimo says:

      08:17am | 03/11/10

      It’s a shame they shoot the condemned in Bali, otherwise the slogan for Gillard’s advocacy of the Bali Nine could have been - Rangas for Hangers. Now that’s a catchy t-shirt.

    • 50%White50%Black=Black says:

      01:42pm | 03/11/10

      How is that hopey changey thing going?

    • atypical says:

      07:48am | 12/11/10

      Obama was voted in on “I have a dream….....” . He was the black dream (there I said the word…oops…don’t mention he’s BLACK…) in a time when the electorate wanted a messiah who had the Holy Grail of hope.
      It was hard not to be swept up in all of that, hearts ruled not heads.
      In Obama’s old stomping grounds, corruption was rife and it was said that if you got ahead you either turned a blind eye to it or were engaged in it. It was intimated by those still there the blind eye was embraced. It was also said that they didn’t want to tarnish the then candidate, because it was ‘our first real chance of having a black President’.
      It’s not disimilar to Julia Gillard, as a woman, I had MANY women saying they would vote for Labor , because they wanted a WOMAN as a Prime Minister and gee whiz, won’t that be something.  Race and gender did play a large part in victories.

      Tell me, exactly what is Obama doing differently to Bush to ‘fix’ things?

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

Dementor doing a good job for sweden #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

Ukraine song pinches chord progression from The Verve's Bittersweet Symphony. Fo real #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

RT @GerardDaffy: @antsharwood all the talk over there is the grannies will win.they entered to get a church built,feelgood story

Anthony Sharwood

These peole insult my grandmothjer, who was born in minsk, belarus #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter