Barack Obama; yes we can?? Or can he again?

I often wonder why the Americans call their president the leader of the free world; he isn't even leader of America. But isn't it an insult to other countries? I mean - is he the leader of Ireland? Norway or Sweden or even Great Britain?

A little thing I found out years ago, maybe from the movies, is that if ever there was an attack on the USA, a nuclear bomb for example, the president would disappear in to Air Force One, to conduct the war from there, and the Vice President would go to an undisclosed location. When New York was attacked in 2001 that is precisely what happened. But Americans were asking 'where is our president?' 'why isn't he here?'

I knew that was going to happen so why didn't they?

It's the same with this president; he has no more power than his majority in Congress so it's no good blaming Obama because things didn't go to plan with some of the things he promised: closing down Guantanamo Bay, boosting the economy and all the rest.

Now as most regular readers of this blog will know, and there are regulars, I am not an expert on anything. But when has that stopped me? In fact when has it stopped lots of pundits pontificating; including the Pontiff!

Things started out okay for Obama, Senator Edward Kennedy must have thought that his life's work would come to some kind of fruition, with maybe free health care at source and one or two other things and when Ted Kennedy died he probably thought things would go ahead smoothly – just like Jimmy Savile.

Obama had a majority in both houses, he had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate (by one) and things were going to be okay.

But the democrats didn't take seriously the election for Kennedy's Senate seat; the woman that stood for it let a Kennedy type looking fella from the Republican Party – the GOP – steal the seat and Obama's filibuster proof majority. 

From then on it was up hill all the way for Barry Obama.

Every time he tried to get things through Congress he was thwarted by the Republicans, - the nasty party - and now there is a chance that the USA might vote for Mitt Romney - which would be a disaster. This is because the American voter has a short memory – they voted Nixon in remember – and as H L Menkin put it 'No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.' 
 
One of the worries is that Obama didn't do too well in the first Presidential debate but there again Bush didn't do too well in any of his debates with John Kerry or those with Al Gore so all is not lost.

Some people say the reason Clinton beat Bush Sr is because of the economy; the economy stupid was the phrase. But anybody could see that the right wing was split between George Bush Sr and Ross Perot. Clinton won 32 states plus DC to Bush's 18 states. But the popular vote went 43% to Clinton and 56.4% against; in other words the right (Bush and Perot) won the majority between them but cancelled each other out.

In 1996, Clinton did slightly better by getting 49.2% of the popular vote and the right wing (Dole this time and Perot again) got 49.1%. That time though Clinton only won 31 states plus DC and Dole improved on Bush and won 19.

Is this a fair way to elect the 'leader of the free world?' The fella they get rid of as soon as there's trouble by bundling him into an aeroplane at the first sign of trouble? The fella who also gets bundled into a car or frog marched out of a room if anybody goes for him? The fella who says he wants to close down Guantanamo Bay, introduce free health care at source, regulate the banks, put more money into education and a lot of other things.

Wouldn't you say those things if you believed in them and you were being voted in for the job and wouldn't you be very surprised when you got into your Casa Blanca to find you were left holding a tambourine like Pete Best said Ringo was left holding at The Beatles first recording session – can't blame him for being bitter can you about not being as good as Ringo.

So why blame Obama? If Obama does get re-elected it will be no good if he doesn't have a majority in Congress; he will be a lame duck president from day one so what's the point?

Tell me what the difference is between voting for a President or voting for a flag?