‘Is This A One Term Presidency?’ CBS’ Bob Schieffer asks David Axelrod On Obama

Perhaps the Democratic Party WILL have a Presidential Primary.

Bob Schieffer was enjoyably prickly today as he interviewed President Obama’s campaign advisor David Axelrod. After playing a clip of Obama from the beginning of his presidency telling Matt Lauer that three years later Americans will be able to determine whether he deserves a second term, Schieffer posed the question rather bluntly to Axelrod. “Is this going to be a one-term presidency?”

The question prompted this exchange, which seemed to leave Axelrod a bit shaken.

View it at http://bit.ly/nMw2jD

Axelord: “We are in a different place than we were the day he did that interview.”

Schieffer: “We are, things are worse than they were.”

And after Axelrod elaborated with a meandering answer, Schieffer interrupted his “extended response” and respectfully suggested he “stop talking about what the election is going to be about.” Instead Schieffer focused on what could be done now, and wondered whether he was wrong to think that nothing would get accomplished before the election. Axelrod politely informed him that yes, he was wrong, and that big things can still be accomplished. However, Schieffer’s visible skepticism and agitation with some of Axelrod’s long-winded responses suggest that Schieffer, like many Americans, may be eager for results.

QywMS rG gx hKFEy X jXlHnJl

32 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. GalapagoLarry says:

    Why? Because there’s no one out there with the balls, or with better creds. Also, in this situation (implacable Repug resistance to the will of the American people), a primary would be counterproductive: a waste of resources, diminution of the (already weak)Dem message, elevation of the repulsive Repug anti-Obama messages that have nothing to do with actual policy, etc. It’s all already been said in responses to your previous anti-Obama posts.

    Simple: Obama is going to win again. (If progressives know what’s good for them, and go out and fight.) Why send him into his second term weakened? Not what we need. In these crazy times (See: US Political Party, Republican), anyone to the left of George the Third had better hope for a stronger, center-to-left president, not a weaker one.

    Primaries are “fun”. Ask the Teabaggers. Primaries can even define a Party (but not quite like a Mardi Gras theme or a good square dance fiddler). The answers to our (Dem) problem are, as Obama himself said, change and hope. Change Obama. Change our representatives. Change how they view today’s American experience. Let them know–strongly–how they are misreading our lives outside their Washington enclave. And keep telling all Americans the Dem hope and the Dem way for a more just, accessible, rewarding American life.

    The American people are already with us, and with Obama. We just have to help him become a better leader and help him message better. If he fails, I won’t cry for the Dem Party, I’ll mourn for America herself.  

  2. MADCO says:

    One sentence, followed by a C&P of an entire article,  (from mediaite.com)  is ridiculous.

    Of course, President Obama is a one term President.  He’s toast, no matter who the GOTP nominee is.  

    Carry on.

    • GalapagoLarry says:

      should be a reward reserved for much loftier achievement. Why else should we aspire?

      • Principle.

        But you all seem to excel at it.

        • Colorado Pols says:

          Cutting and pasting entire articles from somewhere else is against Colorado Pols’ posting policies and is just generally a shitty thing to do. We really don’t care about whether you agree with the rules or not, but you do have to follow them if you want to continue to participate here.  

          • ProgressiveCowgirl says:

            We’re all tired of his nonsense anyway.  

          • You did your best to suppress Democrats Free Speech there as well, Especially that of those Dems advocating the  Impeachment of Bush and Cheney. It was all about electing Democrats… even IF they were barely worthy of the term.

            * However I am pretty sure I Have ALL of the Links somewhere! I’ll see if I can find them. I think I have “screen shots” as well… somewhere….

            Does anyone Remember who is behind the phoney name “ColoradoPols”… but who works for ProgressNowColorado?

            I’ll do my best to follow your rules but when the rules are used to SILENCE fellow DEMOCRATS… well there is something very wrong about that!!!  

            If Bush & Cheney had been Impeached thousands of U.S. Soldiers would still be Alive and/or un wounded and most likely the rank and file of the Democratic Party would be respected far more than under this Administration and we would have a better Economy than we are suffering through.

            • ProgressiveCowgirl says:

              My response was to friend the person named on Facebook. He’s  What makes you think anyone cares now? Have a beer and relax. It’s just the internet.  

            • Colorado Pols says:

              Nobody here is “suppressing” your speech. We aren’t telling you what you can or cannot say — but we ARE telling you that you cannot cut and paste an entire article that someone else wrote. You can make all of the same points, but you just can’t post the entire document. If you want to wholeheartedly violate copyright law, go start your own website and go to town. That has absolutely nothing to do with “free speech.”

              • raymond1 says:

                1) If very few people agree with him, that’s “suppression” of speech, or a “stolen” election.

                2) If only Dems had balls, Bush/Cheney woulda been impeached successfully enough to save American soldiers’ lives — even though that would’ve required lots of Republican votes.

                3) Unicorns climbing magical rainbows are pretty.

                • Bush and Cheney, but Corporate Dems like Pelosi “Refused to Allow it”, Condemning thousands of US Soldiers to unnecessary deaths and mutilations.

                  The Republicans “vote as a block”.  

                  There is no reason our House Dems cannot.

                  • Middle of the Road says:

                    statement more reality based, Johnnie.

                    Yes, we had a majority in the House after 2006. If the House had voted by simple majority to impeach, the Article of Impeachment would be sent to the Senate where you need a 2/3rds majority to convict the President of impeachment.

                    We had a 51-49 majority in the Senate (with the presumption at the time that Sanders and Lieberman would vote with Democrats–and I’m pretty sure you know how that worked out regarding Lieberman.) At best, we had 50 votes, a bare majority.

                    Now, you’re a bright boy. Do 50 members equally a 2/3rds majority?  

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.