The man who ushered in a new era of rock star politics, who brought us hope and change, who spoke to packed stadiums during his first presidential run, is suffering a popularity crisis of late.
From the New York Post:
Top aides on President Obama’s re-election team are terrified that there will be scores of empty seats when he makes his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, party insiders said.
Obama, once the biggest draw in politics, won’t likely attract crowds as large as those at the 2008 convention because voters have gone sour on the poor economy, insiders said.
“It’s always a concern about making sure there aren’t empty seats, but this is different,” said one Democratic official familiar with the convention plans.
“This is a different time than four years ago. It’s a different convention. And the president is viewed differently.”
The biggest difference between now and 2008 is that Obama actually has a resume, a body of work, and it doesn’t look good – economically or otherwise.
Worse, most of the empty seats at the convention will actually belong to fellow Democrats.
There may be some extra hotel space in Charlotte, N. C. come the beginning of September, as several Democratic elected officials have announced that they will not be attending the Democratic National Convention this year.
Earlier today, Talking Points Memo reported that Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill will not be attending the convention, becoming the third Democratic senator, and eighth Democratic member of Congress, to opt out of the event.
Late Tuesday she tweeted, ” Whole lot of nothing over me campaigning w/Mo folks instead of going to convention w/party honchos. Bet POTUS agrees with my decision.”
Several of the elected officials who have decided to forgo the convention hail from places where Obama is unpopular; West Virginia’s Democratic House Rep. Nick Rahall, Sen. Joe Manchin and its governor, Earl Ray Tomblin, have all announced they’re not going. Obama’s low popularity in the state is perhaps best exemplified by the strong performance of prison inmate Keith Russell Judd in the state’s Democratic presidential primary. Other elected Democrats not going include Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah and Sen. Jon Tester of Montana.
And we’re supposed to believe recent polling that over-samples Democrats at a 10% or 11% clip? The enthusiasm gap in favor of Mitt Romney is tremendous, while Hope and Change has fizzled.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen…
President Obama is a master of putting up smoke and mirrors in an effort to deflect attention away from himself and his record. He’s spent the last four years claiming that every economic problem his administration has faced was George Bush’s fault.
And now, he can’t even run on his own record, having to call Bill Clinton in from the bullpen to try and save his re-election bid.
Former President Bill Clinton is set to play a central part in the Democratic convention, aides said, and will formally place President Obama’s name into nomination by delivering a prime-time speech designed to present a forceful economic argument for why Mr. Obama deserves to win a second term.
The prominent role of Mr. Clinton, which is scheduled to be announced on Monday, signals an effort by the Obama campaign to pull out all the stops to rally Democrats when they gather for their party’s national convention in Charlotte, N.C. An even more important audience will be the voters across the country who will see the address carried by television networks.
“There isn’t anybody on the planet who has a greater perspective on not just the last four years, but the last two decades, than Bill Clinton,” David Axelrod, a top strategist to the Obama campaign, said in an interview on Sunday. “He can really articulate the choice that is before people.”
This isn’t a new tactic, as Obama has been invoking the economy under Clinton out on the campaign trail. Jake Tapper reports:
Faced with an stagnating economy and unemployment over 8 percent on his own watch, President Obama on the stump now invokes the economy during the era of former President Bill Clinton.
The president’s invocation of Clinton is part of his pitch to raise taxes on higher income brackets, as did President Clinton in 1993; and as a contrast to his current Republican opponents who seek to extend all the Bush-era tax rates, including those on the top wage-earners, which President Obama opposes.
Essentially, within this construct, President Obama is trying to cast the choice voters face as Bill Clinton versus George W. Bush, with Bill Clinton’s economy as his, and George W. Bush’s economy as Mitt Romney’s. Clinton’s economy saw the creation of tens of millions of jobs, an economic boom and a projected federal budget surplus.
The man has almost four full years under his belt, and he has to hearken back to the ’90s to try and sell his economic policies? If he were a job-seeker, President Obama would have the last four years erased from his resume if possible.
Anyone remember when Obama held a press conference and then immediately left everything to Clinton because he had to go to a Christmas Party?
The President is such an epic disaster that he is afraid to use himself as a selling point.
Obama is afraid of being Obama. And we’re afraid of another four years.
The question here is – Which is the word they take more offense to, ‘bank’ or ‘America’?
President Obama will be delivering his acceptance speech at the Democrat National Convention in Charlotte in early September. Recent campaign e-mails have been touting the event, held at Panther Stadium.
Problem is, there’s no venue by that name in Charlotte.
National Democrats have repeatedly touted their stand against taking corporate money for their convention in September, and so it was striking to see two emails from the DNC host committee referring to the Charlotte venue where President Obama will speak as “Panthers Stadium.”
It’s the place where the Panthers play, but it’s actually called Bank of America stadium.
A recent email from the host committee signed by former Al Gore campaign manager Donna Brazile urged people to win a trip to Charlotte for the event, which will wrap “Thursday night at Panthers Stadium with President Obama.”
Another email in June made the same pitch about the stadium.
A host committee spokeswoman didn’t respond to an email. But it’s not like the stadium was ever called Panthers Stadium – first opened in 1996, it was Carolinas Stadium, and later Ericsson Stadium. Then the current corporate iteration.
Here is a copy of Brazile’s e-mail (h/t Outside the Beltway):
On Saturday, Massachusetts delegates met in their state’s Democrat party convention, and announced a requirement for attendance that can only be described as an active attempt to suppress minorities.
The statement below may come as a shock to our more sensitive readers, and we urge those with weaker stomachs to skip below to avoid a nauseating reaction.
If you are prepared for the vile racism that is to follow, please proceed…
Page 14 of the Delegate’s Guide to the Massachusetts Democrat Convention reads, and we quote:
We apologize to our readers for having to read such strong racially charged language. In the interest of accuracy however, the statement needed to be printed in its entirety.
That said, the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) and Eric Holder, the most vociferous of the groups that oppose photo identification on the grounds that it racially discriminates, will certainly take umbrage to such a requirement.
Earlier this year the CBC announced on the house floor that “voter ID laws popping up around the country are aimed at dissuading minority voters from voting”. If that is the case, then the Democrats are clearly trying to dissuade minorities from attending their convention.
Just this past week, Holder backed up the charges of photo ID requirements as racist.
On Wednesday, Holder told a gathering of the Congressional Black Caucus that “both overt and subtle forms of discrimination remain all too common and have not yet been relegated to the pages of history.”
“If a state passes a new voting law and meets its burden of showing that the law is not discriminatory, we will follow the law and will approve that change. … When a jurisdiction fails to meet its burden in proving that a voting change will not have a racially discriminatory effect, we will object, as we have in 15 different cases.”
Critics complain that Holder is taking an unabashedly, and unethically, political stance against voter ID laws.
Will Holder object in this case? With his having drawn a line in the sand, it is shocking to see his own party resort to such an ‘overt form of discrimination’.