Pajiba

So he's the "Dancin President". I'll still vote for him over Multi-Millionaire Mitt or the Newt.

I definitely hope this does not descend into an Us v Them situation with the comments here...but it probably will.

All politics aside, I identify with this president and not merely because he is my age-ish, etc. He is of my era and despite some dangerously sobering circumstances in the country, still manages to project a calm sense of perspective. He is also not afraid to snatch the moments of joy that come his way with his family. I identify with and appreciate that. And that Al Green clip is adorable.

I avoid political discourse like the plague - but seeing these videos made me think of one thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSe4HmhkBpk

Oh since Gus mentioned vacations, here's a fun fact:

Bill Clinton, during his entire 8 year run as POTUS, only officially took 28 vacation days.

Kind of incredible.

I can't picture Newt and Calista doing any of these things.

In fact, now that I think about it, Newt puzzles me. For someone who apparently does whatever he wants whenever he wants, he seems terribly joyless to me.

I don't know 'bout all that, but the current POTUS clearly has some pipes. I'm voting for he and Clinton to form a band after all this is done. ("The Former Presidents of the USA", of course.)

Okay, you guys have fun with that, I'm going to lunch in a few minutes.

I knew it!

I had thought we made it fairly obvious.

Jesus, Martin! Just bone him and get it over with already. The sexual tension is killing me!

That header pic is crazy sexy.

Haywire would have been so much more enjoyable if Michelle Obama had played the lead.

Amending my last comment to note that I agree with everything Martin said except the implication that Reagan was statesmanlike.

This post and all the comments have made me so happy! I know a ton of Republicans (thanks to 13 years of catholic school) and I live in a red state, and my liberal ass is so tired of all the Obama bashing.

LOVE.

If you haven't already, I recommend reading the book The Obamas, by Jodi Kantor. I know it was officially denounced by the White House (esp. Michelle), which is unfortunate given how they said they haven't even read it, but the information was gathered from some very close sources and it gives great insight into their motivations and what drives their actions and intent from a personal standpoint. It demystifies a lot of what has happened in the last couple of years, in a good way.

@ Martin

So blindly loyal it's pathetic. Why are you even at this site? I figure you'd be at a msnbc sponsored circle jerk of undeserved accolades.

And while Romney is far from perfect at least we (Repubs) don't have to deal with Palin again.

I think that IS what "in memory" means, Comfortable Madness.

I don't know, Cree83, that's pretty loose and I just wanted some clarification.

What Martin said.

There is nothing - literally, absolutely, all-encompassingly NOTHING - President Obama can do, say, or even feel waaaayyy down deep inside his darkest, most violent or insane, untouched chasm of his soul that could come within 10,000 light years of any Bush administration cluster-f*ck this country had to endure for eight miserable, hopeless years of nearly-complete destruction of this here country of our's that he & Cheney & Rumsfeld & Powell & Rice walked away from without so much as a cold sore on their worthless, evil asses.

Goddamit, I SAID NOTHING!!!!

I will try not to embark on a political flame war out of respect for almighty Pajiba.

But @ComfortableMadness, yes, I mean in my and the country's collective recent memory. No, I'm not stacking Obama up against FDR and Lincoln, as those presidencies cannot, by any reasonable metric, be considered "recent" to anybody currently alive. And Kennedy's truncated presidency was far from solid on foreign policy. He narrowly managed to keep us from getting blown up by the Russians and Cubans, but the Bay of Pigs and escalation in Vietnam are enough for a net negative.

And to the ironically named @EPA, I would ask YOU the same question- what are you doing here (at Pajiba) as a resentment-fueled, feverswamp "conservative"?

I'm not "blindly loyal". I'll criticize a member of any party if I find cause. However, considering the fact that he inherited an economy in freefall (we lost 750,000 jobs the last MONTH of Bush's presidency), the fact that he's ended one war (Iraq) and is on the precipice of ending another (Afghanistan), has turned the economy around to the point where we've had ten straight quarters of economic growth and consistent private sector job gains (however anemic, it's going in the right direction), passed something of a universal health program with cost controls and deficit reductive measures, re-regulated the financial sector, outlawed predatory lending by credit card companies, decimated Al Qaeda's leadership, saved the US auto industry, and lowered middle class taxes, all while taking on one of the most intransigent and obstructionist congresses in history, I'm liable to give him a break and even cheer him when he appears on my screen.

That's not blind loyalty. I don't have a "crush" on the president. I'm simply reacting to reality. I'm a centrist. I've voted for Republicans in the past (before they went completely insane.) Obama is a pragmatist and a steady hand on the ship of state. Most of the noise you see on both right-wing and left-wing media about him are lies. We're lucky to have him and risk losing him at our own peril next year.

And I'll amend my statement about Reagan- I don't think anybody looked at him and saw "intelligence", but- totally divorced from politics- the man was a magnificent politician. Obama is crafting himself into the liberal Reagan, and I think will succeed in shifting the American "center" to the left, just as Reagan did to the right.

Martin,
like the bumper stickers say "fuck the haters!" I'm with you on this one as are so many.
He has done so much more in a short time than anyone cares to acknowledge. He can dance if he wants to.
I want to see the dirt they can try to dig up on him, you know besides the not being born here crap, the way the Republican nominees are doing to eachother right now.
They can't.

Wow. Did that come straight from the DNC or has journo-list been reconstituted?

>> I'm confused. If the president isn't really all that powerful, how was everything Bush Jr's fault? (And BTW, is still?)

>> I'm extra confused on this one. If the president doesn't really do all that much on his own, what was Our Constitutional Scholar in Chief doing demanding passage of this or that, scolding the supreme court on national television, dissing the people he'll need to vote for his initiatives and so on? (Pass this bill! Pass this bill!) THEY DON'T WORK FOR YOU.

>> I'm confused. If the president gets points for being unpresidential, then why was GWB such an affront? His cowboy schtick was way less presidential than dancing for Ellen.

>> Embarrassing candidates? And now, D-primary 2008. Let's get ready to rummmmmmbuuuuuuuuuullllll!

Gooooooooood evening ladies and germs. Welcome to the semi final. Tonight's winner goes on to the main even - “Surely, Yes We Can Do Better Than This, 2008.”

In this corner battling to represent the Whining-D's we have an unelected co-president who's record in national politics includes a health care reform proposal that nearly took down her husband's presidency through sheer inept execution, followed by carpetbagging into a partial Senate term not in her home state to position for a presidential run. Her principal claim to fame as a feminist icon is "stand by your man" through a series of his unnecessary indulgences that nearly took down his presidency in turn. At least they have nearly taking down his presidency in common. That's one thing they've got.

Aaaaaaaand in this corner, another partial-term senator with no executive experience this one with a record number of "present" votes as a state senator from Chicago and a US senator. Hey, if it works, why change? His principle claims to fame - "community organizer" meaning taking a salary to help other people demand that some third party fix their problems and two memoirs about his life, each thicker than one would need or expect – show literally no experience in policy formulation, legislative politics or executive administration.

Really? Really? This is what you went with? Oh, wait. I get it now. You voted for the cute but ineffective figurehead on purpose.

Nevermind.

BierceAmbrose, well done, very well done. 100% agreed.

Re: Martin, thanks BierceAmbrose for saying it faster and better.

But essentially, we have a huge bureaucratic government. The President stands at the top of it, but his real power is extremely limited. - Dustin

As much as I dislike Obama and don't buy his "cool" shtick, the larger problem is the huge bureaucratic government. For only one example - were the big-government-sponsored Wars on Poverty, Drugs, and Terrorism successes? Or massively expensive failures? Cheer all you want for the ever-increasing role of government in our day-to-day lives - just remember eventually (if not this election JesusFucking AlmightyChristThisIsaPissPoorField) there will again be a Republican sitting in the Oval Office, at the helm of this huge bureaucratic government.

@Midas - the rare valid point. Plenty of places to talk politics, and this isn't one of them. But surely in a post revolving around the Obama's can be indulged.

@BierceAmbrose I'm as ticked off about the original post as you. I think the "Oh the presidency doesn't have any real power" argument is weak, false, and invalidates any criticism you may have of a president you don't like.

However *deep breath* with regard to Bush: there isn't a statute of limitation on blame. The economic meltdown of late 2008, which we are still crawling out from under, was primarily the fault of Bush's fiscal policies. It was in 2009 and it is now. You can't just decide after a period of time has gone by that it's the next guy's fault. The economy HAS been improving- not as quickly as we'd like- but improving nonetheless- from the smoldering crater we were left in by the feckless and criminally irresponsible Bush administration.

And I mean... your colorful portrayal notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure you're bobbing around in a pretty lonely boat if you think the 2008 Democratic primary was anything like the circus we've endured this year with the Republicans. Clinton/Obama NEVER got within shouting distance of the negativity being sloshed back and forth between Romney and Gingrich. It was like a the freaking School of Athens had a baby with the Lincoln/Douglas debates compared to the level of discourse we're seeing now. And the country responded. Obama went from being a no-chance dark horse candidate with an unelectable face and name to beating a heretofore respected war hero in an electoral avalanche. You see that happening with Mitt "I'm Not Concerned About Very Poor People" Romney?

I'm in league with neither the Dems nor the GOP- see my previous posts for thoughts on Obama's myriad accomplishments (which one is free to consider socialistic catastrophe- I don't), your mockery of his thin pre-White House resume notwithstanding. If you're happy with your choice of GOP candidates, vaya con dios. I doubt you are. Dems were extremely enthusiastic in 2008 about Obama and appear to be so again in 2012. GOP primary turnout is DOWN from where it was in 2008 (another arguably weak field.) Therein lies the difference.

WOW!!

Mention Obama, and people EXPLODE into 1,000 word opinions.

Us Dems were desperately hoping he was being to soft in an attempt to pull his gloves off in a 2nd term, but so far that appears to be fool's hope. Sadly, he is still better than the leading alternatives.

Martin, I heart thee. Well said.

Count me in on Michelle Obama as an action hero. With fabulous shoes. And little else in the way of product placement.

And Christina Hendricks is a goddamn dream. Keep your little wisps if you like. I'll take that 170 pounds of Curvy Redhead off your hands.

The economic meltdown of late 2008, which we are still crawling out from under, was primarily the fault of Bush's fiscal policies.... Posted by: Martin at February 2, 2012 4:54 PM

You can believe that if you want. But closer to the truth is that it was the result of decades of government manipulation of the housing and mortgage markets. Primarily Democratic manipulation, though the GOP can and should (and won't) shoulder some of the blame. But, yes, I understand the narrative is much easier to understand if dumb ole' George Bush is "primarily at fault."

Obama went from being a no-chance dark horse candidate with an unelectable face...

You racist pig.

I'm in league with neither the Dems nor the GOP...
*cough*
bullshit
*cough*

And Fox and MSNBC aren't partisan either? State your opinions, and own them. Don't insult the rest of us by spewing the party talking points and then claiming, "Gosh golly by gummit, I'm just your average moderate run-of-the-mill independent bystander here folks. Nothing to see here. Move along. These aren't the droids you're looking for."

I'm terribly sorry if you're experiencing cognitive dissonance because, as both a self identified independent and an admirer of Obama, I don't fit your premeditated profile of a dirty librul. I guess you can call me a liar some more. Maybe that will help. I'm a secret Democrat and Obama is a secret Muslim. You know it's true 'cause it just FEELS right, huh?

Who said MSNBC or Fox aren't partisan? They're both for-profit "news" stations, each with financial skin in the game. Whether they're partisan or not (they are) is immaterial. They're not trustworthy sources of information or opinion.

While we're in the area of partisan talking points: "The financial collapse was the product of TOO MUCH REGULATION" is among the nuttiest assertions from the far right dream-machine. I'll cop to the fact that the housing bubble was partially the fault of government policies- championed by both parties over the past forty years with little exception- that encouraged everyone to buy homes (and made it easier for those who probably shouldn't have been getting into the real estate game.) But to hang the entire mess on regulation is just hogwash. Find me a some objective data from a semiobjective source (nothing from the Heritage Foundation, k?) that can prove what you're saying and we'll talk. The housing market became a problem when it conflated with the financial sector- they bundled thousands of worthless mortgages into collateralized debt obligations and sold them as Triple-A bonded financial products, compounding the problem tenfold. That's what happens when you "get government out of the way". No oversight, no accountability. Then they got bailed out.

I shouldn't even respond here- but when I mentioned that Obama was a "dark horse" candidate, with an unelectable face (yes, i'm referring to the fact that he's black. Point me to all the black presidents we've had in the past. I'll wait) and name (His middle name is the name of the guy we just found in a hole and had hung) I'm stating CONVENTIONAL WISDOM in 2006. It's cool if you want to argue with me. Are you saying that people were totally on the "Barack Hussein Obama II will totes get elected by a majority of Americans" bandwagon from the get-go? That wasn't my experience. He had to prove himself and run a better, cleaner, smarter, bigger campaign than any in history in order to win- which he did.

It's the last one.

Longtime lurker, here. Never commented. Leave it to a political post to pop that cherry...

Anyone who believes that anything the Republican party is currently offering to national politics is better than what the Obama administration has to offer is seriously ill in the head.

Martin listed good ole facts about Obama's accomplishments over the last 3 years. These are not made up. These are not imaginary. These are real live facts, something the extreme right (and let's face it, the party as a whole has become extreme, regardless of whether the voters have moved as far to the right) likes to gloss over and trivialize, if they even acknowledge them in the first place.

The blame for our country's state should fall mainly on the shoulders of the greedy, those in political power and on Wall Street who put their own self interest (and off-shore bank account$) above that of the nation.

Guess what? That wasn't Obama. STOP BLAMING HIM FOR THIS ECONOMY.

And whoever tried earlier to compare Obama's dancing to Bush's idiocy is delusional. Obama's dancing is charming because 1. he chooses appropriate times to act a little silly, and 2. he is otherwise one of the most well spoken leaders this country has ever seen. Bush's repeated gaffes and fumbles clearly illustrated his lack of seriousness and ability. You can't honestly compare Obama letting loose to Bush fucking up.

The childish games and ugly attacks happening in this primary season are destroying a once great GOP from the inside out.

I am proud to have a GROWN UP in the White House.

Martin, you may not have a crush on Obama, but I sure do. I'd Monica Lewinsky the f*ck out of that adorable piece of presidential manmeat if I 1) thought he was into skinny white chicks and 2) wasn't certain Michelle could crush me with one flex of her left tricep.

(I also don't care if any conservative commenters want to call me names. I already think everything you think is not just wrong but ridiculous, so have at it. I'll be just as offended as I am when the drunk down the street claims the sky is a turtle.)

Rowles, sometimes I think you do shit just to fuck with me. I just wrote the most scathing rebuke of a motherfucker ever, and you deleted my shit. Listen Rowles, I'm just trying to get these thoughts I have out of my head because they need to be read. My head about to explode, but you don't care, for you it's all about trying to silence me and my thoughts. I thought that you and I had an understanding, I thought we mended our fences and broke bread together? Rowles, let this humble brother be.

@BierceAmbrose ... I think the "Oh the presidency doesn't have any real power" argument is weak, false, and invalidates any criticism you may have of a president you don't like.

Have you noticed how when it's "our" guy, when things go well it's because of him & the power chair, while when things go poorly the office isn't so powerful? When it's "their" guy the bad is all his fault, while the good is a happy accident?

It could make one cynical.

However *deep breath* with regard to Bush: there isn't a statute of limitation on blame.

Glad to hear you say that.

About six things lined up to make the economic meltdown of late 2008, most 15 to 30 years in the making, plus a couple more shorter-term stupidities.

The best take I've seen on the big splat is The Big Short by Michael Lewis, who brilliantly makes finance stuff fun to read. Or read the classic on manias & similar - the name escapes me at the moment. I'm in the midst of the story of an 18th century French meltdown that is nearly shot for shot this same movie we're having.

On net, Bush-era fiscal policies, while stupid, were more like icing on the crap cake already baking away. I thought they coulda paid more attention to the 6 or 8 structural badnesses they inherited, but apparently the statute of limitations says it's on whoever started it. That's how this works, right?

Here's the rest of the planets that lined up - The Fed's ongoing loose money - monetary policy - didn't help (and it's looser still today, which is ... good?) Meanwhile, ya had dumb accounting rules holding certain bonds off book at 0 risk, dumb securities ratings rating stuff wrong at 0 risk, lax oversight noticing neither the piles of "money" collecting in odd places nor all that 0 risk, hordes of amateurs jumping on a speculative bubble with the homes they live in, federally mandated lending as social policy pushing people into that speculative bubble, federally "encouraged" collapsing lending standards, plus stupid deductions making people's - amateurs again - home ownership vulnerable to a downturn. These were all building for 15 - 30 years.

Under these conditions, blatant, venal greed took particular root in amateurs who thought they could make speculative-level profits at no risk via their homes, housing construction, or feeder industries to construction, in mortgage milling pushing bad loans as fodder for assembly into those magic 0-risk securities, and commercial banking houses inventing new fake money and new ways to move it around so they could take tolls. Thing is, greed is old news and all three of these areas were already heavily regulated and monitored as this mess happened.

The kickers were allowing retail banking & commercial banking to operate together, a policy around since the 80s, which means the one in collapsing can take down the other, plus a government carrying enough debt and deficit that it can't survive a spike in interest rates.

Dodd / Frank, as much as I've managed to read thus far, addresses none of this. But at least we didn't let the crisis go to waste. Idiots.

And I mean... your colorful (And factual - ed.) portrayal notwithstanding, I'm pretty sure you're bobbing around in a pretty lonely boat if you think the 2008 Democratic primary was anything like the circus we've endured this year with the Republicans.

The topic was qualification, not the quality of the discourse. To recap, the esteemed Mr. Rowles commented in passing how disappointing the current field of R's must be. I'm noting that he'd know from disappointment given what the D's went through just last election. (The presidential one, not the off-cycle thumping, which, one supposes, was differently disappointing.)

Rounding out the qualifications comparison, in the R primary at the moment there's the animatronic former Governor of a non-trivial state, a non-inherited millionaire who successfully ran an Olympic hosting extravaganza vs. the pompous blow-hard who dragged President Clinton kicking and screaming to welfare reform, which worked, and the balanced budget the current Dem-party has been bragging about since they don't seem interested in balancing the one they, you know, have now, or any for the next decade. One got a fair amount of stuff done working with an opposition-party legislature, while the other did likewise working with an opposition party president.

Being an animatronic and a blow-hard, neither is particularly "endearing", which apparently is what matters.

Also, I fixed your comment - or did I get something wrong in describing the candidates' qualifications?

Clinton/Obama NEVER got within shouting distance of the negativity being sloshed back and forth between Romney and Gingrich.

How quickly we forget. There's this thing called the Interweb, and the Google machine that helps you find things there.

Or you could inquire of the fair gaggle of '08 Hillary supporters who sat out because of the Obama campaign's tactics, or the decent number still vocally bitter even now. Meanwhile, you're claiming that the Clinton political machine doesn't and didn't play nasty?

I'd imagine a literary blowjob is giving a blowjob while reading a how-to book on giving blowjobs.

I don't believe it.

Your website showed up in google results as the first result for my search! Thanks for the update on "The 8 Most Fantastically Unpresidential Televised Acts of President and Michelle Obama". And also thanks for answering my search result, it was the exact info I was looking for! Best Regards - Robbie Whitney