Why Obama Faces an Uphill Reelection Fight

Michael Gerson in a Washington Post column looks at the apparent Obama strategy as the 2012 election campaign begins to heat up. Back in 2008 few of us who supported Obama would have dreamed - or maybe a nightmare better describes it - thought we'd be looking at such a desolate political landscape at this point. On the right, we have the lunatics that for the most part pass as viable GOP presidential contenders (not to mention the Kool-Aid drinking GOP freshmen in Congress). On the left, we have the spineless Follower-in-Chief who gives away half the store before he even begins to negotiate. It's all very disheartening and in the case of Obama's terrible polling numbers, he's done it largely to himself. It's hard to please everyone all of the time. But it takes real effort to disappoint almost everyone all of the time as well. Here are highlights from Gerson's column:

As the presidential election of 2012 grinds into gear, President Obama is already behind. To be safe, a president needs a Gallup job approval of 50 percent or better on Election Day. George W. Bush narrowly won reelection in 2004 with a 48 percent Gallup approval, mainly because his voters were more motivated than John Kerry’s. After a long, slow slide, Obama’s approval hovers in the low 40s. He starts with ground to make up.

Lacking the momentum of an economic recovery, the Obama campaign is signaling three elements of a political recovery strategy.

First — 32 months after his inauguration, 28 months after the unemployment rate first surged past 9 percent — Obama will propose a “very specific” jobs package. In September. Following a well-deserved vacation. Specificity would be welcome. This is different, however, from timeliness or seriousness. And the proposals gaining trial-balloon status are late and weak.

The second element of Obama’s recovery strategy is to distance himself from a divided, dysfunctional, unpopular Congress. This, of course, is not fully consistent with element one — getting legislative achievements out of an institution you are savaging. These attacks are not new or, so far, successful. . . . . Americans justifiably held the entire political class responsible. A president cannot distance himself from a process he is supposed to lead and failed to lead effectively.

Third, the Obama camp has previewed a campaign of personal attacks against its Republican opponent, whoever it happens to be. . . . As president, Obama has been comfortable practicing the Chicago way of politics. And Texas Gov. Rick Perry now offers a target so tempting that even Democrats outside Chicago will find it hard to resist.

Obama’s cause is far from hopeless. His support has declined but not collapsed. A weak Republican opponent would help. And this emerging strategy — proposing symbolic measures on jobs, bashing an unpopular Congress and discrediting rivals — may be Obama’s only option. A campaign taking credit for positive economic accomplishments would be nearly silent.

Following expectations few presidents have raised as high, Obama has transformed into the most typical of politicians. There is little distinctive, elevated or inspirational about his message or his tactics. And this adds an unwanted accomplishment: the further political disillusionment of a nation.

Obama has indeed convinced many younger voters - and many older ones - that even seemingly inspirational candidates are not a good bet. Despite the promises and pretty words, in the end nothing changes. The message is one that is very dangerous for the country.