Obama’s Lucky Streak

Mark Sanford's pain is the president's gain.

By Jonathan Alter | Newsweek Web Exclusive
Jun 27, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Political Pluralism @ 09/30/2009 12:03:14 AM

    With all the dilemma's and conspiracies surrounding Healthcare Reform, one might ask them self is this reform is constitutional. Many political leaders have been speaking out that the government requiring all citizens to purchase the healthcare public option is merely unconstitutional and doesn't justify freedom by any means. Government sticking their nose in individuals personal lives has never worked out quite right. If you recall the United States Constitution almost never came about, because the southern states didn't want to give up their rights. So slavery was adopted to ratify the new constitution and do away with the Articles of Confederation. Then in the 1920's the government tried to outlaw the sale and consumption of alcohol. What happened there you ask, well the country as a whole began to rebel. Political leaders became even more corrupt, and ultimately the 18th amendment was repealed by the 21st amendment. So what I am trying to convey to you all is that requiring all Americans to purchase healthcare IS unconstitutional. So the question I have (please comment I like feedback) is outlawing illegal drugs unconstitutional since it's manipulating human behavior? (politicalpluralism.com)

  • Posted By: tepandlex @ 06/29/2009 6:47:51 PM

    Consecutive luck is no longer luck. It's skill.
    Obama knows in order to be the ultimate politician, and make history, a solid family structure, must not be a faccade, it must be a reality.


  • Posted By: jarhead @ 06/27/2009 8:48:52 PM

    Let's not forget to mention Dem Barney Franks boy friend that was uncovered durring the financial crisees.

  • Posted By: unionave @ 06/28/2009 11:13:32 PM

    The MSM is doing their best to get away from the Sandford subject . I have never seen so much M Jackson .

    • Posted By: bjsassy @ 06/29/2009 10:03:59 AM

      The MSM love the Stanford scandal. They were trying to distract us from the obscene "cap and trade" bill that passed. This is going to affect our lives far more than Michael Jackson's death because it is the biggest tax increase in the history of the nation. Watch your utility bill rise, folks!

      • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/29/2009 10:30:10 AM

        Look up "negative externalities". The cost to society of the carbon emitted is higher than the cost of providing it to you. That's why one taxes it - because otherwise, from the point of the view of society as a whole which has to deal with the economic climate change effects, it doesn't balance out. Consumers of high-carbon lifestyles end up inflicting a kind of "tax" on those who don't, because the ones who don't have to deal with the droughts and floods and other environmental catastrophes.

        If you disbelieve me, I urge you to consider how many "storms of the century" we've had in ten years, or how California has been in drought for some time.

        • Posted By: bjsassy @ 06/29/2009 3:10:54 PM

          I always enjoy reading your comments, Vigilance. You are so bright and intelligent. As you know, the cap and trade works by raising the cost of energy high enough so that individuals and businesses are forced to use less of it. Inflicting economic pain is what this is all about. That is how the ever-tightening emissions targets will be met. The costs will be passed on to us. Many companies will outsource to China and India. These two countries do not worry about polluting their environment. Our companies will just pass the greenhouse emissions on to another place on earth.

          Wall Street Journal
          "The hit to GDP is the real threat in this bill. The whole point of cap and trade is to hike the price of electricity and gas so that Americans will use less. These higher prices will show up not just in electricity bills or at the gas station but in every manufactured good, from food to cars. Consumers will cut back on spending, which in turn will cut back on production, which results in fewer jobs created or higher unemployment. Some companies will instead move their operations overseas, with the same result."

          "When the Heritage Foundation did its analysis of Waxman-Markey, it broadly compared the economy with and without the carbon tax. Under this more comprehensive scenario, it found Waxman-Markey would cost the economy $161 billion in 2020, which is $1,870 for a family of four. As the bill's restrictions kick in, that number rises to $6,800 for a family of four by 2035."

          "Even as Democrats have promised that this cap-and-trade legislation won't pinch wallets, behind the scenes they've acknowledged the energy price tsunami that is coming."

  • Posted By: greatmidwest @ 06/28/2009 2:48:28 PM


    Is the GOP PURPOSELY trying to destroy its credibility to the American people???

    The party of so-called "FAMILY VALUES" (which vehemently attacked former President Bill Clinton over his indiscretions while in office) has now become its own party joke-making machine by giving us sexpot politicans and groupies such as Vittner, Ensign, Sanford, Fossella, Craig, Foley, Gannon, and the infamous rev Ted Haggard...with their most recent VP candidate's daughter getting knocked up while in high school because her mother is against proper sex and STD education in public schools... as well as the tragic murder of a Kansas physician by a radical Pro-Life anti-abortion fanatic...let alone their political assault on gay Americans and denial of ther civil liberties beacuse of their own religious views...not to forget the 8 years of national decline under their last President and the decisive defeat of their presidential candidate in Nov...are all systemic signs that the security blanket of the GOP is frayed n terribly soiled by their misguided leaders and that one of their own needs to volunteer and take it to the DC laundromat with a stiff dose of Oxiclean and Tide....The American people (or shall we call STAINfighters) won't elect dirty suits to the White House or to Congress, period. God Bless America

    • Posted By: bjsassy @ 06/28/2009 7:36:40 PM

      Although you included Bill Clinton, you forgot to mention John Edwards, Eliot Spitzer, Rod Blagojevich, Barney Frank and the most famous of them all, Ted Kennedy. He is famous because he was responsible for killing a young woman. Now he is "lionized" by the Democrats.. Have I forgotten anyone else?

      • Posted By: greatmidwest @ 06/29/2009 4:39:17 AM


        I understand your point, but the Democratic party doesn't try to "one up themselves" by portraying their party leaders as having first dibs on "Family Values", "Morality", and "Patriotism". Rep. Mark Foley voted on legislation against gay rights, yet all the while had major penis envy !!! It's just so ironic that the GOP is making headlines about something they claim to be the better party at when it comes to soclal issues...

        Maybe GOP leaders are caving in to the pressues of their unrealistic social platform......Divorce, Abortion, Gay Marriage, and Gays in the Military (let alone Infidelity) are/will be realities of life....God Bless America

        • Posted By: bjsassy @ 06/29/2009 9:57:57 AM

          greatmidwest. No, the difference is that the Democrats have very flexible moral standards. Governor Blagojevich was an embarrassment because he was so inept at playing the corruption game. Most Illinois politicians are more adept and secretive at "pay to play". John Edwards, who played up his family values, made many Democrats uncomfortable because he cheated on his cancer stricken wife. As a result, Edwards and Blagojevich were not invited to the Democrat Presidential Convention, but the party honored Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy as great leaders. Wasn???t that ironic? They both received standing ovations. A little time dims memories, doesn't it? Kennedy and Barney Frank keep getting voted back into office.
          Republicans do not have a monopoly on moral values, but they do support them. A fallen party member is no more a reflection on the party than an offending family member would be on their own family. The Republicans, at least, have the decency to be embarrassed about their sinners.

          BTW, Dr. Tiller's murderer, Scott Roeder, was an abortion opponent and anti-government. He was not a Republican and he certainly was not pro-life. That is a contradiction in terms. As soon as an individual contemplates murder, he/she ceases to be pro-life.

          • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/29/2009 10:39:00 AM

            I think, rather than "flexible moral standards", many liberals are more cynical of politicians' sex lives and more aware of the very very very very very long history of mistresses and shady morals that accompany politics. A lot of us don't give a damn about GOP politicians' sex lives either - UNLESS they preach about family values and don't practice them.

            Democrats, by and large, believe in economic engineering and not social engineering. The GOP believes in social engineering and not economic engineering. I don't believe in either, much.

            • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/29/2009 10:51:00 AM

              It's like Sarah Palin talking about abstinence-based sex education, and her seventeen-year-old daughter has a baby. There's a disconnect there.

    • Posted By: tired and old @ 06/28/2009 7:50:41 PM

      THE DEMOCRATS AND HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON WERE THE ONES WHO LOST CREDIBILITY BY KEEPING THAT DOG IN OFFICE.

      HILLARY STOOD BY HER ADULTEROUS MAN , OTHERS LIKE JOHN GLENN PROTECTED THE POND SCUM AND IN RETURN GOT A SENIOR CITIZEN RIDE INTO OUTER SPACE.

      EVERY DAY DEMOCRATIC POLITICIANS SPEND OUT TAX DOLLARS ON THEIR PERVERTED PORK PROJECTS.

      KILLING A SERIAL KILLER IN KANSAS WAS A GREAT THING, QUEERS SHOULD BE LOCKED UP.

      I AGREE THAT THE GOP IS STUPID FOR BACKING A CLOWN LIKE SARAH " BARRACUDA " PALIN.

      I AGREE THAT MOST POLITICIANS ARE THE SAME ----- PATHETIC.

      • Posted By: bjsassy @ 06/28/2009 8:54:36 PM

        Take the cap lock off your keyboard, for heavens sake. This drives me crazy to see messages all in caps. When someone shouts, no one listens.

  • Posted By: mac101 @ 06/28/2009 7:50:05 PM

    What a ridiculous article. Are we to believe that if only other politicians had managed to avoid scandal, Obama would have lost?

    A little luck is always a good thing, but Obama didn't win because he was lucky and the others were stupid, he won because he smart, disciplined and had a compelling message that the majority of the population wanted to hear.

    Pinning Obama's success on others' failures is a cop-out, in addition to bad journalism.

    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 06/29/2009 10:42:49 AM

      Actually, I kind of agree. It's not that he's not qualified, but prejudice against "nontraditional" politicians like O would have been a lot higher if not for his opponents' inability to keep their packages in the gift wrap the way they should have.

      Their hypocrisy was definitely O's gain - mostly allowing people to see through his inexperience to his raw ability and to see his loyalty to his wife as a mark of honor and respect.

  • Posted By: Oldenoughto @ 06/29/2009 9:54:36 AM

    A "sex scandal" is as big or small as the mainstream media chooses to make it.

  • Posted By: Oldenoughto @ 06/29/2009 1:33:31 AM

    Well, if we're gonna talk about sex scandals, let's go back to JFK for pete's sake.

  • Posted By: bjsassy @ 06/28/2009 9:03:54 PM

    Bill Clinton was lucky to win in 1992. While he ran as a moderate Democrat, the economy had taken a downturn and the Soviet Union was no longer a factor (thanks to Ronald Reagan). He and Hillary were smart enough to acknowledge his infidelities of the past. He was determined not to be blind-sided the way Gary Hart was. He also had the advantage of Ross Perot. Perot took many votes away from George H. Bush. Bill Clinton became president without winning the majority of the vote. In 1996, Clinton ran against a rather uncharismatic Bob Dole. Indeed, luck is always a huge issue in many elections.

    When Hillary Clinton ran for the New York senate in 2000, she also got lucky when the very popular Rudy Guiliani withdrew from the race because of his marital and health problems. She then ran against a little known Rick Lazio. The Clintons' good fortune ran out against the Obama tidal wave. It is all a matter of timing.

    Blaming the Democrats for John Edwards or the Republicans for Mark Stanford is ludicrous. These individuals made their own very stupid and short-sighted choices.

  • Posted By: Dr. Sam @ 06/27/2009 9:31:01 PM

    Obama election as President is nothing short of an "act of God." How could it have been possible otherwise? Speaker Nancy Pelosi got it right when she said that God gave us Barack Obama. And God has kept his enemies and opponents confused and discomfited, hence the so-called "lucky" events in Obama's biography. Your piece is quite insightful and good. I beg to differ only in one conclusion you reached regarding Al Gore's loss in 2000 Presidential election. Al Gore came so close to winning--and indeed won the popular vote. He lost because of his less than stellar performance in the campaign, especially during the Presidential debates. Still he managed to win the popular vote.
    Dr. Sam

    • Posted By: tired and old @ 06/28/2009 8:05:08 PM

      AL GORE TRIED TO WIN; BUT, GOD REFUSED TO USE A MAGNIFYING GLASS TO LOOK AT HANGING CHADS.

      WITCH HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON SAID THAT AL GORE LOST THE ELECTION; THUS , SHE WAS UNABLE TO FULFILL HER SENATOR PROMISES TO NEW YORK RESIDENTS.

      WITCH HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON THEN EMBELLISHED HER STORIES AND LOST TOO ---- HA ! HA ! HA !

  • Posted By: sickoffanatics @ 06/28/2009 9:48:44 AM

    So, the neocons thought that sanford would make the ideal candidate because he is a nice looking guy ?? Sorry, but I think the american people have gotten smarter !

    • Posted By: bjsassy @ 06/28/2009 7:28:10 PM

      Sickoffantatics. The 2008 presidential election proves otherwise.

  • Posted By: olderwiser @ 06/28/2009 7:01:58 PM

    I often wonder why such a small percentage of body content has such a large influence on the rest of the body. You would hope that the brain is always in control, but it can be sometimes be easily overruled by small appendages in furtive locations. At times, whole nations are turned by small bodily instruments, as if a mere gnat would be able to drive an ocean liner. How can we be so lucky to be here and witness such mIracles? This is pure human conduct, folly beneath God's dignity.

  • Posted By: misskaren @ 06/28/2009 5:55:21 PM

    Barack Obama also has the advantage of a good marriage, two delightful kids and an adamant self-discipline. He comes across as having real character. That is a greater advantage to him than opponents whose view of relationships tends to be that wives and kids are ornaments to their own narcissism.

  • Posted By: motorherz @ 06/28/2009 4:54:21 PM

    I have to say that "still knows how to get lucky" is a nice euphemism for "does not have affairs outside marriage".

  • Posted By: I'm all in @ 06/28/2009 10:27:44 AM

    To argue the president obama benefitted from the distraction of the republican's latest sex scandal, is to argue that his republican critics have a one track mind.

  • Posted By: ramonbackwards @ 06/28/2009 9:25:03 AM

    Rahm Emmanuel is a master of getting credit for things he had little or nothing to do with. It's disappointing that Jonathan would fall into the trap of crediting him for the 2006 Dem gains. It's also stupid. STOP TRYING TO CREATE A REALITY, JONATHAN. DEMS WON BECAUSE REPUBLICANS WERE AWFUL AND HAD FINALLY BEEN EXPOSED. BEING IN THE RIGHT PLACE AT THE RIGHT TIME DOES NOT AN "ARCHITECT" MAKE. IF YOU HAVE SPECIFIC DETAILS, THEN CONVEY THEM. BUT SINCE THOSE DETAILS WOULD NOT JUSTIFY THE CREDIT YOU ALL ARE DESPERATE TO GIVE TO HIM, PLEASE STFU ABOUT IT. As a straight Dem-ticket voter, Rahm Emmanuel is one of the few reasons I hesitate before embracing the party on an ongoing basis. The dude's a big phony who inspires exactly no one.

  • Posted By: junkmail6 @ 06/28/2009 6:41:13 AM

    It's nice to hear hat decency pays off once in a while..

  • Posted By: Loden Green @ 06/28/2009 1:23:30 AM

    This is one of the most ridiculous "opinion" pieces I have ever read in Newsweek. Does Newsweek actually pay people to write drivel such as this?

    • Posted By: lauriesarno @ 06/28/2009 2:43:01 AM

      I actually liked this article very much. It points out how many politicians cannot handle their power and keep both of their heads level. There are some decent politicians out there - Obama is one of them. I do think his success was more than just luck and the outcome of his opponents' sex scandles. He seems to be a great person to be around and knows how to lead by example.
      This article also demonstrates how so many religious conservatives and "family value" preachers, cannot even live up to the boringly, unrealistic, high expectations they believe in. Too bad they think being a little more laid back and relaxed is socially and morally "wrong". Gosh, get your heads out of the Bible and live a little people! And quit preaching that family values crapola and absinence...it DOESN''T WORK!

  • Posted By: QasimSheikh @ 06/28/2009 1:26:29 AM

    It would have been nice to give the president and the first lady credit for being a role model for being faithful to each other. What would have happened to Obama's political career if he also had a sex scandal to go with his resume. Luck always favors the prepared and it is not easy to be prepared.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse