

The Obama campaign

Slow and steady…

Building support one volunteer at a time

See article

Readers' comments



WBarkalow in reply to tmbass

Pretty sure you're underestimating how many volunteers Obama's getting. The Economist wouldn't bother to report on this if it was really such a small operation. The 15 members per legislative district -- of which each state has several -- are simply the more "full-time" volunteers for the campaign. Ad hoc volunteers probably number in the tens of thousands already, with more and more to come as the election nears.

WBarkalow in reply to Brian Pelican

When I said I didn't get a cent I was talking about government aid. I don't receive money from the government under any welfare measures. Paid volunteers also no receive government money as campaign funds are separate from government funds. I'm glad you've the boldness to be mean on the internet without bothering to make sure your insults don't apply more aptly to yourself, however.

It's sad you've bought into the notion that welfare is for people who are lazy or don't want to work. I won't deny that there are people on welfare who scam the system and steal money from us, the taxpayers. But consider the fact that many people living under the poverty line and, thus, not paying income taxes, still pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than the wealthiest people in this country (due to things like sales tax and the like). I have no problem helping these people pay their bills and feed their families with government money.

I'll say again, I would rather one person scam the system than a thousand people go without basic necessities. Reforms are needed, but scrapping the entire system is a terrible idea.

I won't bother responding to your more emotional attacks because, quite frankly, I know you won't listen. I'm writing these responses simply so that someone reading your comment doesn't get the mistaken idea that you know what you're talking about.

WBarkalow in reply to Brian Pelican

The POTUS is our Commander in Chief. Which is to say, he is the top military leader in the country. And I'd imagine he gets his information from the people who you think should just make the decision on their own. Personally, I'm glad we have a civilian controlled army.

Obama has tried to create an environment for job growth. He is doing this alongside an effort to increase regulations so that things like the LIBOR scandal don't keep happening. It is, of course, complicated by the fact that he has to deal with a Congress full of people who are voting down every proposal he gives them -- even ones they themselves originally created years ago -- simply because of their source. This is governing with politics in mind and it is horrendous for our country.

And, yes, I didn't mention Guantanamo. That's because we weren't talking about Guantanamo or even the detention of terrorist subjects. I also didn't mention McCarthyism, the Higgs Boson or my grandmother's maiden name. That said, my opinion on Guantanamo is that Obama should have found a way to close it down or make it more transparent. To his credit, he did make some early efforts to move detainees to continental jails and give civilian trials. However, he couldn't order states to take detainees and few states were willing to shoulder the potential security problems. This is, however, a black mark on his record.

Your notion that American lives are more valuable than the lives of people who don't live in this country horrifies me. I don't know how you defend this idea to yourself, but I can only imagine it takes quite a bit of work.

Brian Pelican in reply to Bardejov

Labor participation rate at the end of the Bush administration - 65.75

June 2012 labor participation rate - 63.8%

A drop of $2.9 million people who are now out of work and become discouraged and left the jobs market.

The real picture of the Obama administration's most serious failure.

Try and blame the steady decline provide in the attached article throughout Obama's term on Bush? I know Obama would have a go.


francisbjohn in reply to Bardejov

You would disregard all the job losses in 2009? Why? If a president doesn't own the economy from his inauguration then when does responsibility start?

I always see you lefties trying to twist things with little accounting tricks, but not counting periods of poor performance doesn't change reality. People who can and cannot find work will be the ultimate arbiters of Obama's job performance.

So in short, while your comment was mildly interesting, it is factually disingenuous and unsupportable by reality.

NathanWH in reply to Plain Speak

What a great choice of sources! It is clearly free of any bias or agenda...

I am afraid your fringe blog post doesn't refute what I wrote, because it's about something entirely different. The blog post is about the debt ceiling; not yearly spending increases, which is what I'm talking about.

According to the Wall Street Journal, "Federal spending is rising at the slowest pace since Dwight Eisenhower brought the Korean War to an end in the 1950s...Over Obama’s four budget years, federal spending is on track to rise from $3.52 trillion to $3.58 trillion, an annualized increase of just 0.4%." Check it out for yourself.

That means when I wrote "...spending has increased very little," I was right. Yes, it's an increase in spending, but it's also the smallest increase in 60 years. None of your golden Republicans have done better.

Plain Speak

Here is my response to Barkalow's post.

You say I blame Obama for the deeds done by bankers? I suggest you look to my post to see where I blamed Obama for what bankers did. You won't find it.

Why are Obama and his supporters constantly complaining about what other people or groups are "doing to him" to cause him to fail or misfire? Does he have no sense of personal responsibility? In the face of whatever hardships lie in his way? Without whining endlessly about how tough the world is to him? Questions which need to be answered.

Presidents have typically been broad shouldered individuals, stoic and steely minded - people who, when presented with a challenge, roll their sleeves up and get on with it. Obama acts like a teenage pubescent female who whines when things don't go his way. And his supporters enable him. It is pathetic.

When Al Qaeda threw 9/11 at Bush after less than 8 months in office, did you hear him whining about what some group has done to him? Did you hear him point a finger at his predecessor, Clinton, who failed to take on Al Qaeda effectively when they repeatedly killed Americans during his terms in office; like the first bombing of the WTC, like the attack on the Cole, like the attacks on US embassies around the world, like the attack on Bali, etc etc.

Bush shook a steely fist at Al Qaeda at ground zero and got on with it, dragging democrats kicking and screaming at the promulgation of the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act, at Guantanamo (which, after much screaming about how vile a place it was during the 2008 campaign, still exists 3.5 years later), took out Saddam Hussein, a really bad actor in the ME, went after Bin Laden in Afghanistan (which democrats roundly criticized, but still continue).

The dance of the blameless Obama and his whining sycophants continues. It won't work with the American people, you know. Unless their character has changed more than I am aware.


You complain that republicans shut down Obama's spending when they took the House in 2010. Thank God, republicans shut down Obama's wild and reckless spending! Tt was what the American public wanted and then voted for.

After the expenditure of a trillion dollars funded by Chinese debt on crony run Solyndra, which went quickly went belly up after digesting $500M of our money, countless other useless "green" projects run by supporters of the Democrat party, and non-shovel ready projects where the funds just ended up being spent on administration. Productive Americans work too damned hard to have their government squander their tax money!


The self serving $5 trillion debt article that you provide seeks to blame Bush for most of the money spent by Obama. Firstly the article reaches back to 2001, when in reality the $5T was spent totally during the Obama 3.5 year term. Google, and add up the increases in the Debt Ceiling since January 2009.

Firstly, the article you provide attributes $1.8T of that as being related to the Bush tax cuts. For God's sake, democrats had majorities in both houses of congress for the first two years and an effective super majority in the Senate, why didn't they eliminate the tax cuts if that was what they wanted. The truthful answer is they didn't have the guts.

It attributes $0.8T to the two wars. Well, if the war in Afghanistan was such a waste of money, why did they not shut it down as soon as they could? But no, it continues to this day. They didn't have the guts, you say?

In short, if there was any spending amounts that democrats claim were Bush instigated, why did they not shut them down as soon as possible. Lack of guts to face the political music is the answer.

The Solyndra debacle was not just a poor decision, but a scandal, if you please. Here is a true rendition of the scandal from Obama's backyard - Chicago.



You don't want to talk about Guantanamo? And I can see why. Democrats and their sycophants have pulled the covers over Guantanamo completely and mainstream new networks, which are all in Obama's pocket, except for Fox, don't talk about it. Taboo.

Now if a republican president had pledged to close it and hadn't - well the issue would be front and center most days on the news channels. And democrats know that.


You say, I don't have any concern for American lives lost by their killings by drones? Well, Barkalow, that is exactly what your boy in the WH is doing - and democrats and the liberal media (which is most of it) are giving him a complete pass on that matter. I happen to agree with him on the use of drones, but that is about the sum of where I agree with him.

Plain Speak in reply to Josepetersen

"My name is Jose and my last name is as white as most of your racist friends would aspire to achieve, in case you haven't notice: Petersen."
Jose, you are a really silly boy. I suppose you have never heard of people having a Caucasian father and a Hispanic mother. Or is that too much to ask? And the word "notice" in your sentence should be "noticed". No charge.
"I am not an illegal alien, in case your blatant prejudice did not even care for asking about it first lol"
Firstly, Jose, putting a lol in your sentence does not elevate your comment.... at all. Did you really lol? Or was that just an affectation?
And secondly, Jose, indicate to me where my comment was prejudicial? Unless you mean my desire to stop people who illegally walk over our borders to make their first act in the United States a crime.
Let me correct your English, Jose. The "I am not an illegal alien,in case your blatant prejudice did not even care for asking about it first". It should rather be put "I am not an illegal alien, 'about which', 'in your prejudice', 'you did not ask'". Again, no charge.
It seems your Caucasian father did not have enough of an influence in your use of the English language.
Thirdly, Jose, please guide me to where I indicated that you were an illegal alien? I was referring to illegals crossing our borders, which it seems Hispanics who are legally in our country, support. Obama is insidiously trying to buy their votes to save his own job. He will not succeed. Americans at large are wise to his ruse.
Fourthly, Jose, your reference to "another child left behind or home-schooled in WV...." implies blatant prejudice. Or is it only Caucasians who can be prejudicial? Hispanics get a pass?
And fifthly, Jose, again your Spanglish shows. "the only part I do not guess is how someone like you enjoy reading a magazine that discusses politics and economics at levels that would seem unattainable for someone with your standards"
Let me help you write decent English. It should be "the only part I 'cannot' 'understand' is how someone like you 'would enjoy' reading a magazine 'which' 'covers'.......". Magazines, Jose, do not "discuss" anything. Again, no charge.
And, Jose, since you denigrate my education without any evidence whatsoever, which implies prejudice, I have a business undergraduate degree from Duke and a Master of Business Administration from Harvard. Before retiring early, I was CFO to a public company.
Tell me, Jose, about your education and work achievements.

NathanWH in reply to Plain Speak

Actually, Brian(s?), under President Obama spending has increased very little. In 2009, the last Bush budget, spending rose by 18%, and since then it has stayed largely flat. This at a time when the economy was in freefall, so nothing to sneeze at. But don't take my word for it!

Also, Republicans don't have the market for the truth cornered. Neither do Democrats only tell lies. It is beyond foolish to believe that one party is wholly comprised of truth-tellers, or that the other is full of rotten liars. Dems and Reps are just people, after all.

What I don't understand is why people can't accept that the other side cares just as much about America as does the other. Democrats are patriots and honestly think they're doing what's right for their country, just as are Republicans.

Plain Speak in reply to Dillya

"These issues were Not created by President Obama, but rather left for him (and the rest of us) to Clean Up."

Yeah, that reasoning apply also the the $5 trillion in debt that was run up during Obama's 3.5 year term. More than all the 43 presidents before him COMBINED. Still Bush?

Tell me, will Obama stop spending under Bush only when we give him a second term?

Just asking.

You have a nice day.
You can put your megaphone down now

Brian Pelican in reply to WBarkalow

I am well aware that the president is the CIC. However, he would be the first president I am aware of to personally handpick from a list the people he wants killed.

"He is doing this alongside an effort to increase regulations so that things like the LIBOR scandal don't keep happening." Does this president ever take responsibility for what happens under his watch without blaming something or someone else? It is pathetic. It is about time he sucked it up like a bog boy. And you are his enabler.

"It is, of course, complicated by the fact that he has to deal with a Congress full of people who are voting down every proposal he gives them". Besides the Obamacare legislation that he rammed through congress that is universally hated by most Americans, tell me what he achieved during the first two years of his administration when he had a super majority in the Senate and a significant filibuster proof majority in the House?

I am frankly tired of this whining by democrats about congress voting down his idiocies like his recent attempt to eliminate the welfare reforms that Clinton and Gingrich put in place in 1996. These welfare reforms require that recipients with their hands out, palms upwards, look for work during that time. Obama has seen it fit to try to allow them to do stuff like mowing their neighbor's lawns and take exercise classes, etc etc while getting their welfare. Of course these people who become dependent on the government paying their way will vote for the hand that feeds them. Which, of course, is Obama's motive.

"Obama has tried to create an environment for job growth". Doing what exactly? And don't tell me with government debt fueled spending on cronies like Solyndra which went belly up and other green projects that couldn't make it ever without a healthy dose of handouts at taxpayer's expense. Obama has created more debt ($5 trillion to be exact) in three and a half years than all the other 43 former presidents combined. Do you have any clue how we are going to pay that back - besides taxing wealthy Americans more - which would generate a mere $40 billion?

"This is governing with politics in mind and it is horrendous for our country." Now THAT made me laugh! You have the gumption to say that when your man has not had ONE MEETING with his jobs council over the past 6 months but has personally attended over one hundred fundraisers. The same man who now allows children of illegals to stay in the US regardless of their parent's status - and you don't think that, in an election year, is politically motivated???

"And, yes, I didn't mention Guantanamo". Yeah that subject I see is taboo among democrats. Total silence on it. So it is OK for us to talk about any other politics, is it? Of course when Obama was campaigning, he was going to close it instantly he was elected. But we haven't heard one thing about that, have we?

"Your notion that American lives are more valuable than the lives of people who don't live in this country horrifies me." I think you need classes with would help you with reading comprehension. Where did I say that? Because I said that water boarding was OK as long these people were thought to have valuable information on people who were plotting to kill Americans, this means that I think American lives are more important?

So tell me, the people and their families who Obama is killing by drone attacks - how about their lives - are they less important than American lives.

A shake of the head is in order.


i am a Chinese fan of yours,and have a question for u.in ur article,there is a sentence:before they know it,her targets have a new life built around Barack obama'sre-election drive.
I am wondering wether her targets means the "they"from "before they know",thank u very much.I look forward to ur reply. good luck.

John Mayberry in reply to Brian Pelican

Brian Pelican, The Wall Street Journal article among the first to report nearly 50% (48.5%, not over 50%) of the U.S. receive some government benefit can be found at http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2011/10/05/nearly-half-of-households-rece.... The article clearly states that this includes 14.5% of the population receiving Medicare, and nearly 16% receiving Social Security. So, yes, you are “talking about seniors.”

Furthermore, take a look at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Historical Table 8.5—“Outlays For Mandatory And Related Programs 1962–2017” (http//www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals) and you can easily see that government spending for food stamps (Food and Nutritional Assistance) starting going up sharply beginning in 2008. In both Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 and 2007 the outlays for food stamps were about $48 billion. However, by FY2008 outlays rose sharply to nearly $54 billion, and reached almost $72 billion by FY2009 (i.e. September 2009 – 8 months after Obama took office). That’s not to say food stamps haven’t gone up even further under Obama. As of FY2011 outlays for food stamps were well over $95 billion. But the upward trend due to the recession was clearly established well before the 2008 election. (Also, as a means-tested program, Obama didn’t ‘increase the rolls of recipients’; people without enough income to support their families applied for assistance. No action by the Government was needed, other than providing the benefit. Big difference).

A similar trend can be seen for unemployment. In FY2006 & 2007 unemployment outlays were about $31 & $32 billion, respectively. At the end of FY2008 (i.e. September 2008) they were up to $42 billion. Congress has extended unemployment benefits a couple of times (with the Republicans), and they peaked at over $157 billion in FY2010, but have since come back down somewhat to $117 billion at the end of FY2011.

The interesting thing is “welfare” (or Supplemental Income Security, as it’s called in the budget) went up during the recession, but not as much as you might expect. In FY2006 & 2007 outlays for welfare were $34 & $32 billion, respectively (a slight drop from their peak of $35 billion in FY2005). They increased to $38 billion in FY2008, and to $41 billion in FY2009. At the end of FY2011 welfare outlays were at $49 billion. Up quite a lot, but nothing like unemployment or food stamps.

Yes, congress could have decided then, as now, not to extend unemployment benefits. But this would certainly have swelled the food stamp and welfare programs even more. You can complain about the high unemployment, but stopping unemployment benefits won’t suddenly create new jobs. That’s a conundrum the whole country faces: How to care for those without jobs until the economy rebounds.

As for your article about welfare reform, if you read the waiver, rather than someone else’s interpretation, it says “HHS is encouraging states to consider new, more effective ways to meet the goals of TANF, particularly helping parents successfully prepare for, find, and retain employment.” (TANF is “Temporary Assistance to Needy Families”). That doesn’t say people on welfare don’t have to try to find jobs (in an economy with over 8% unemployment). It says the states are encouraged to try to find “move effective” ways of helping them find jobs. It also says the States must apply for the waiver and must submit an evaluation plan to determine what works and what doesn’t work. As I read it I see nothing to show that the Obama Administration is surreptitiously trying to gut Welfare Reform. It looks like a sensible attempt to continue to help get people off welfare in the midst of a bad job market. Thank You.



Products & events