Obama 2012: From 'Yes We Can' to 'Whatever'
Maybe it has something to do with his failure to deliver on campaign promises?
By Evann Gastaldo, Newser Staff
Posted Apr 5, 2011 6:55 AM CDT
Loading... Please wait

(Newser) – President Obama is officially running for reelection, but somehow his campaign slogan has gone from "Yes We Can" to "You Know, Whatever," Jon Stewart complained last night on the Daily Show. Obama's first campaign video features supporters with a disturbing lack of enthusiasm, saying (and Stewart is, of course, paraphrasing here) things like, "I mean, I don't really like him, I don't really trust him, but what are we gonna do? Learn someone else's name?"

"Perhaps the ennui is the natural result of what happens when campaign promises are exposed to oxygen," Stewart theorized, pointing specifically to Obama's campaign promise to make the White House more transparent. Unfortunately, in reality, "this has been the administration that's prosecuted more whistleblowers in two years than in the preceding 40 years, that meets with lobbyists across the street from the White House so they don't have to disclose they're meeting with lobbyists, and, this is true, censored nearly 200 pages of internal emails about their efforts to make government more transparent." Then there was that pesky transparency award...

View 1 image
More From Newser
My Take on This Story
To report an error on this story,
notify our editors.
Jon Stewart on Obama 2012: From Yes We Can to You Know, Whatever (Daily Show Video) is...
7%
62%
1%
11%
18%
2%
Show results without voting
You Might Like
Comments
Showing 3 of 18 comments
AnmlBri
Apr 5, 2011 11:41 PM CDT
As far as that campaign ad goes, I feel like it's not all that bad. I mean, Obama's approval rating has gone way down since he got elected and it would be silly and unrealistic of him to try and win another election on the same message of "Yes We Can" that he did 3 years ago. The snippet of the ad that was shown looks like it's trying to appeal to those voters that are on the fence and aren't as fully enthusiastic about Obama as people were in 2008 but that aren't completely against him either. The country's in a difficult place right now, and I feel that an upbeat, idealistic campaign just might be a bit out of place now, especially for someone that's been at the helm of the country and has experience dealing with all of our issues. I think Obama knows that voters aren't idiots and that they won't fall for the same game twice. I have a feeling Obama the idealist of 2008 wasn't quite sure what he was getting into when he signed up for the presidency, but now he is and he's adjusted his campaign approach accordingly. On the note of all that transparency business though, that does sound quite fishy to me and I disapprove. I'll have to look more into that whole meetings-with-lobbyists bit especially. There's so much blatant irony in trying to be discreet about transparency that I think I actually have a bit of trouble comprehending it. It just makes no sense to me. I've been out of the political loop a lot lately because I've been busy with school, and thus on the fence about Obama because I haven't been informed enough to have an opinion one way or the other, but I'll definitely be keeping a closer eye on the Obama Administration in the coming months leading up to this election.
stuartbramhall
Apr 5, 2011 10:36 PM CDT
I don't see how Obama has any chance of re-election unless he reverses Executive Order 13489 (signed the day after he took office), which effectively seals all his pre-presidential records. Get serious now. We're talking about someone who had no public record prior to 2004 and who has reneged on all his campaign promises. Unlike the fawning and obsequious New York Times and Washington Post, Fox News will make mince meat out of him. I blog about this at "The President with No Past" at www.stuartbramhall.com.
CarpeDiem
Apr 5, 2011 12:20 PM CDT
"The danger to America is not Barrack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barrack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.