|
|
May 25, 2013
|
|
Tough Love for ObamaPosted on Sep 22, 2010By Ruth Marcus The Wal-Mart moms were pessimistic, bordering on despondent, about the state of the country. Like, well, moms dealing with bickering children, they were exasperated by Washington lawmakers seemingly incapable of learning to get along. And they were surprisingly understanding about the president’s plight. Even those who did not vote for Barack Obama shied away from blaming him for the current state of affairs. If anything, they said they felt sorry for him. I spent a fascinating evening last week listening via video hookup to focus groups, 30 women in all, in three battleground states: Pennsylvania, Missouri and Colorado. These were, literally, Wal-Mart shoppers—the retail giant sponsored the discussions—screened to exclude committed partisans of the left or right and split evenly between 2008 supporters of Obama and John McCain. These were homemakers and teachers, dental assistants and billing managers. Most had at least some college education. All made less than $100,000 annually, most closer to $50,000, and for many the recession had hit painfully close, with husbands who had lost jobs and homes foreclosed or underwater. All were likely to vote in November, although despite the intensity of the Senate races in their states, they were largely oblivious to the candidates. For all the partisan attacks lobbed at the Democratic and Republican congressional leadership, they knew little about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and even less about Minority Leader John Boehner. Advertisement If I were a member of Congress up for re-election I would have been frightened by their hostility. If I were the president, I would have felt relieved. Not great, but relieved. Not because these women were going to vote for Obama. Even his 2008 supporters were, for the most part, unwilling to recommit. The word “disappointed” was used with regularity, along with some stronger language, such as “fraud,” and “scares me.” But these voters’ frustration with Obama was tinged with realism about the political and economic constraints he faces. “I feel sorry for him,” said one woman at the first focus group, in suburban Philadelphia. “I do, too,” interjected another. “It’s a tough job to take on,” said a third. “I really don’t think who I voted for would have made a difference. The economy was in an unstable condition when he came in.” In St. Louis, a McCain voter put it this way: “Poor Obama comes in and people expected him just to fix it all. People expected too much.” It’s easy to forget, amid the angry clamor of the tea partiers and the carping of the disappointed left, that Obama’s approval ratings remain relatively strong; they are higher at this point than Bill Clinton’s and Ronald Reagan’s. If the focus groups are a guide, Obama has some time to prove himself to these voters. They are less enraged than unconvinced. “It’s hard to trust him,” one woman in St. Louis said, but it turned out that what she meant was not that Obama wasn’t trustworthy—it was that she was uncertain that matters would improve. “A lot of things have happened since he’s been in office so we tend to blame him,” she said. “And things haven’t turned around very quickly, so what is going to happen next? You don’t know.” Contrast this with the voters’ attitude toward Congress, which provoked words such as “juvenile,” “boneheads,” “quagmire” and “poison.” “They are so far removed from the working middle class,” one Philadelphia woman said of Congress. Said another: “They don’t go to the grocery store. They don’t know how to balance their own budgets.” Reactions to Sarah Palin were equally strong. “Joke,” one woman said. Another rolled her eyes. Neil Newhouse, a Republican pollster who viewed the groups, said he was struck by these voters’ seeming patience with the president. “I’ve seen it before that people want him to do well. But the clear voicing of sympathy for the guy was a surprise for me. They feel sorry for what he inherited and what he’s got to deal with. ... There’s frustration he hasn’t been able to figure it out. There’s a clear sense that he’s not the guy they voted for two years ago, but they still have hope that he can still be that guy.” Whatever happens in November, Newhouse said, “To think that Obama’s toast in 2012, that is absolutely not the case.” Ruth Marcus’ e-mail address is marcusr(at symbol)washpost.com. © 2010, Washington Post Writers Group New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By Z1, September 27, 2010 at 5:47 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
So, for the last thirty years the American people have voted for the right, then they vote for the center, then they swing back to the right, then they swing back to the center. It’s kind of like a person who opens their front door every day and a brick falls on their head. After this happens for five straight days what should the person do? Keep using the front door, or look for alternatives? It’s like playing Russian roulette with a semi-automatic pistol, YOU LOSE!
Report thisBy G.Anderson, September 26, 2010 at 2:44 pm Link to this comment
Ok, so he’s not toast, but he’s in the toaster…
that’s agreed..
According to him we should be grateful, after all the things he’s done for us..
But that’s just the problem, there’s no way to reframe, his seduction of the people, to convince.
He’s going to have to really deliver, and it’s going to be harder now, no half measures will work…
So don’t bet on that bread going back into the bag..
Report thisBy CHBROOKLYN, September 25, 2010 at 7:52 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
It’s sad that it’s obviously news to Ruth Marcus that “Wal Mart moms”—I know it’s reality based but has there ever been a more reductive thing to call people?—have some common sense. Anyone not trying to foment outrage or set up false equivalencies and a hyper partisn “narrative” has no problem seeing that Obama—like everyone else—has had some successes and failures, that he’s only been in office 18 months and that he’s entered office at a huge disadvantage in terms of the economy, infrastructure, etc. The only people who are “surprised” by this are people like Ruth Marcus. And by the way, I’m sure these “Wal mart moms” were reimbursed for their time—which is why they found the time to participate. I’m not saying that the reimbursement influenced their opinions, I’m saying that people who answer the polls the Ms. Marcus and her compatriots are addicted to are people who are willing to participate in annoyance calls at the dinner hour—these “moms” don’t get heard because they don’t have time to participate in “polls’—they work too hard.
Report thisBy Tesla, September 24, 2010 at 7:43 pm Link to this comment
You can count on the members of congress continuing to
be clueless about how the rank and file feel. They
don’t care and humans are too predictable to make the
hard choices that leave the status quo in the dust.
These women will all vote for one of the two parties
hacks and the AACCCM (anti american citizen corporate
controlled media) will spin it to reflect a very
predictable shift in voter sentiment.
Nothing to see here…. move along!
Report thisBy Maani, September 22, 2010 at 8:03 pm Link to this comment
I never drank the Obama Kool-Aid; I was vociferously for Hillary pre-primary. (We can have THAT debate some other time…LOL) I had read enough about him to know that he was not all that he purported to be; that there was another side to him that he was (desperately) hiding from the American public. I never thought as “ill” of him as some did, but I never trusted him the way most did in their rose-colored spectacles.
When he first took office, I was surprisngly impressed by him, as he undid quite a few of Bush’s executive orders and laws, and helped put a brake on (though not reverse) the economic slide. (And he did.)
But then I started to see certain things that were “red flags”: not undoing most of Bush’s most egregious anti-civil liberties policies, wasting the mandate he had (for perhaps two months) to get a much better health plan passed (maybe not universal, but much closer, with more real “teeth” and less cost), stalling on Guantanamo (a huge campaign promise that is STILL unfulfilled), etc.
At this point, I have come to only two possible conclusions. Either he is far more politically inept than he appeared to be, or he really is the “Manchurian candidate” some people claimed he might be. There does not seem any other reason for the present state of affairs, both domestically and internationally.
Sad. Truly sad.
Report thisBy moonraven, September 22, 2010 at 1:48 pm Link to this comment
Obama is exactly what he looks to be: a stuffed shill for Big Guns and Big Bucks wearing a five thousand dollar suit and a lot of big teeth.
The cartoon character Goofy comes to mind—and I suppose that is supposed to be endearing to the awshucks rubes and boobs that voted for him.
You are right—just another warmongering liar.
Report thisBy Hammond Eggs, September 22, 2010 at 12:03 pm Link to this comment
“The president’s plight”. Ah, yes, the president’s plight. Poor Obama. Poor poor Obama. How put upon this unfortunate man is. Ruth Marcus, another true believing shill for the Democrats who appears regularly on this site, wants a little sympathy for this liar and warmonger. My advice to you, Ms Marcus, is to go sniff some other dog’s backside.
Report thisBy John, September 22, 2010 at 7:55 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
When on reads Ruth Marcus always keep in mind that this is a columnist who once argued for immunity and impunity for Bush Administration torturers. That tells you everything you need to know about her “journalistic” approach to reporting and commenting on Middle East affairs.
Don’t believe me? Google Ruth Marcus Torture. Here’s a link to just one comment about her stance against accountability for American torturers.
http://www.democrats.com/ruth-marcus-supports-torture
Why is Truthdig publishing a person with such views? Torture is not something reasonable people can disagree about. It is wrong. And anyone who can excuse that behavior is suspect in every other view they may take.
Report thisBy tdbach, September 22, 2010 at 7:07 am Link to this comment
I’m not sure why you guys are surprised. As far as the Middle East is concerned, Obama is doing exactly what he said he’d do (in broad terms if not specifics): shift the focus of military intervention from Iraq to Afganistan. He never claimed he would cut the defense budget in half - or whatever.
Report thisBy RayLan, September 22, 2010 at 5:39 am Link to this comment
I strongly second the beerdoctor’s response. My disappointment with Obama is his half-hearted domestic policy and his hawkish foreign policy. That’s definitely not what I voted for
Report thisBy thebeerdoctor, September 22, 2010 at 5:33 am Link to this comment
President Obama’s continued support for American Imperialist wars, and the inability to stop the Pentagon juggernaut, which has the United States dug in to foreign lands, for at least the next fifty years (no matter what clothes dummy becomes the sitting President), ultimately reveals the failure of this so-called democratic system.
Report thisA note to all of those who object to taxes and yet still embrace the military: the Pentagon demands $billions upon $billions for projects already approved. In such an environment, your economic concerns seem pathetic. The U.S. government will have their continuous wars, complete with hegemonic boot print, no matter what the objections. In this key area alone, President Obama is remarkably consistent.