If a crystal ball political prediction were really a possibility then here it is for election 2012: 2012 is to be 1992 redux, with Obama going the way of Bush, Sr. according to America's neighbors across the pond.
In fact, in probably one of the most intuitive reads of the current US political climate from another country, the Guardian had this to say about America's current presidential election campaign.
"The worst of the recession is over. Unemployment is high but heading in the right direction. The president can boast that he has taken decisive action on a foreign field to defeat the US's enemy. Yet still he lost, for this is not Barack Obama in six months' time but George HW Bush in 1992."
Gotcha. You, like many other Americans, may have assumed that this was talking about the president in the here and now, until you got to that last line.
How spot-on America's allies are about what's going on here. Even these British allies can read the tea leaves and determine that unless some major miracle takes place soon, the American public plans to relegate Obama to the one-term president wood pile during election 2012, despite the little 1,000-person poll predictions proclaiming otherwise.
How can this be, Obama supporters want to know? Didn't this president make advances in some of the areas he promised? Well, Obama didn't make campaign promises of a modest nature; he shot for the moon, promising all kinds of wonderful economic advances on his watch.
He just didn't deliver.
For example, just today the International Business Times reported that while George Bush (Jr) added more than 1.3 million jobs in America during his terms in office, they also reported thatÂ—wait for itÂ—President Obama cost Americans 1.3 million jobs.
Yep, that's right. 1.3 million jobs were lost since President Obama took office. That's a total about-face of what he promised, but he can at least boast that he's cost the country the most jobs of any of the recent presidents.
The problem is America can't afford that kind of job loss in the next four years, so an alternative has to be found.
The Guardian also points out another fact about Obama's time in office, and while the president might consider it an asset, the newspaper said it was just the opposite, really.
"The administration can boast success on two fronts: eliminating public enemy number one [America has the military to thank for that], while at the same time intervening to ensure that the Great Recession of the past five years has been less severe in the US than in Europe."
"Wow, whoopie, la de da," you can hear the American people say. So America is just a tad better off in this Great Recession than the US's European neighbors? And that's POTUS' idea of success? That's why he said he should get four more years? If America is only a tad better off than Europe, what does failure look like?
If the stats and observations aren't bad enough, then America has to contend with the still highÂ—and under-reportedÂ—unemployment rates, which don't take into consideration the untold numbers of Americans who've just given up looking for work, no longer reported by government employees tasked with keeping up with such figures.
So there's skewed unemployment numbers higher than reported, there's job loss rather than job creation, and there's a growing realization from America's allies that America is headed even further down a hill if a new course isn't chosen soon during election 2012.
And on top of that the Guardian is recommending that the president stop with the "It could have been worse" campaign slogans, as they really aren't helping his re-election cause at all. The goal they say was to make things much better. And President Obama has failed in that regard. Well, except for maybe his golf game at Martha's Vineyard, of course.
(Photo Credit: Allen Green)