Why it is too early to write off Obama

It is becoming increasingly common to see Barack Obama's chances of re-election being written off by many. But I reckon it remains far too early to wave goodbye to the concept of a second-term for President Obama.

Certainly, I'd agree that his first term in office has not been as smooth as many might have expected. For example, the potential loss of Rahm Emmanuel would be a further swift kick in the knackers for Obama. Then again, White House Chief of Staffs are often replaced (look at the number who served under Clinton). The idea that a Chief of Staff is there for the duration is a largely fictional one (see Leo McGarry) or only happens if said Chief of Staff is largely impotent (see Andrew Card). Powerful, politically ambitious and long-serving Chief of Staffs are few and far between - H R Haldeman was arguably all three, but who wants to follow his career trajectory?

Other factors, like the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, have actually played out quite well for Obama. Sure, he's taken some flak for not responding quickly enough to that disaster and (from some) faced criticism for his anti-business rhetoric. But guess what? He's targeted BP (rightly or wrongly) for a reason, and as I watch Tony Hayward easing himself out of BP, I can't help but notice that he has been pretty successful at deflecting attention from himself to one of the companies responsible for the disaster. Sure, by all means criticise Obama for his rhetoric, but don't lose sight of the fact that it is done for a reason - and that Obama seems to be benefitting from that rhetoric.

No doubt that if the Democrats do badly in the midterms, we'll have another round of gleeful "Obama's finished" stories. But again, they'll be short-sighted, since Presidents often face a hostile congress. Furthermore, both Clinton and Reagan were unpopular at the mid-point of their first terms, yet went on to win comfortable victories at the next Presidential election. By contrast, Bush Senior was very popular about halfway through his first term. It didn't stop him from going into early retirement after the 1992 Presidential election.

Whenever I see someone writing off Obama, or comparing him to Jimmy Carter (which is basically the same thing), I can't help but notice that there is a fair amount of wishful thinking involved in such statements. Of course those on the right, or who are for the free market and against increasing the size of an already bloated state even further, want Obama to fall at the next election. But the sad truth is wanting it will not, alone, make it happen. And there is one big thing missing for those who want Obama to replicate Carter's performance in 1980. Namely, a decent Republican candidate.

Because in order for Obama to fall, there needs to be a credible opposition. And at the moment, the Republican party is struggling to be one. Sure, some of its attacks against Obama are sticking - and this will help it in the mid-terms - but a victory in a Presidential election needs a credible, eloquent spokesperson who can become the nominee. That's what's absent from the Republican party at the moment. The party is an amorphous, anti-Obama blob, with no clear figurehead. And put very simply, an anti-Obama feeling is not going to be able to become the next President of the United States. The Republican party needs to be trying to identify people to nominate, right here, right now. And if they really want to win the White House back, then they need to find someone credible to nominate.

Because it certainly won't happen if the Republicans nominate that utter moron Sarah Palin...