Almost 100 Days In, Do You Still Have Hope?

Well, you wanted Hope, you got it. I noticed when Steve asked me to fill in this week that the last time I was here was in November during the elections. Hope was in the air! Whoo-hoo! I ran a poll to test the waters, and the results showed overwhelmingly that Obama was going to win! He did! Whoo-hoo!

It's more than a relevant topic to revisit now though. This industry practically helped get him elected. All anyone on ad and marketing blogs or in agencies could talk about was Obama, or the difference between the two candidates and their "brilliant/not brilliant" use of social media and how Obama was going to be the change we needed. A case study in how to use the internet. Whoo-hoo!

Not that you have buyer's remorse or anything. Face it, there's not much you can do about it for four years anyway even if you did. (Besides, elected officials higher up the food chain are REAL hard to take back for a refund.) But the ad industry has been pretty silent since he was sworn in.

Granted, the economy has taken a major hit affecting many brands and jobs in the biz, but I wonder if there isn't a little bit of reservation now surrounding the choice.

Couple disclaimers: I understand we're not at the artificial construct yet of the 100-day mark for evaluating presidents, but enough has transpired to judge whether the Hope we placed in him was warranted or not. For me, I've seen things that trouble me, but then, this is about you, the loyal Adrants audience.

I also take into account that he was thrown into a perfect storm of events that would be a lot for any president to deal with. Things like the economy, world relations, war, feast, famine, locusts, Kathy Griffin, new Pepsi logos--all of it. (Just try and hold back on the "But he's cleaning up W's mess" refrain. Not everything is W's fault.)

What sayeth Adrants nation though? Is President Obama 1.0 doing what you expected he would?

Is President Obama doing the job you wanted him to?
Too soon to tell.
Free polls from

by Bill Green    Apr-21-09   Click to Comment   

Enjoy what you've read? Subscribe to Adrants Daily and receive the daily contents of this site each day along with free whitepapers.



Yes, you idiots that drank the Kool-Aid and didn't do your homework have created SOME change for those of us who did the research. Got Gault?

Posted by: Deborah Schaer on April 21, 2009 2:16 PM

Way to go captain obvious. The media paved the way for a guy who, in less than 100 days, has now spent or committed to spend more money than ALL PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS INCLUDING BUSH! That was George's dubious distinction but at least it took him 8 years to do it. We are doomed! Special thanks to an industry that threw away objectivity and the gift of free market economy. I'll keep my money and guns. . . you keep the change!!!!

Posted by: John D on April 21, 2009 4:30 PM

Captain Obvious would’ve mentioned that Obama-haters need not apply because nothing will change their minds.

If, I had thought to be that obvious of course.

Posted by: bg on April 21, 2009 6:04 PM

Not an "O" hater just a person who understands the cost of reckless spending. Enlighten me . . .are my facts not correct?

Posted by: John D on April 22, 2009 9:35 AM

Based on the first two responses, it's obvious there's no love lost. Won't debate the spending issue because I agree, but again, that wasn't the point of the original post. It was directed at those who voted for him and whether they have buyer's remorse.

Anyone who was never going to vote for Obama in the first place hasn't taken any time off since the election, looking instead to 2012 for their next candidate.

Posted by: bg on April 22, 2009 12:46 PM

Well, the only reason we had so much friggin' money to lose was that we were the fattest, most successful capitalist engine in history. And that only happened because FDR spent tons of money shoring up the monetary system of his day, despite the whining protests of the selfish and short- sighted.

Yeah, I still have lots of hope: we have an active president who works his butt off (and not on his ranch) can speak English and who has begun to regain diplomatic credibility and the security that comes with it. I'm encouraged by the fact that he's surrounded by brilliant, accomplished people who aren't all corporate flunkies and sick, "win-at-any-cost" anti-patriots. I'm grateful that the Constitution of our beloved democratic republic will be taped back together by a team lead by a constitutional scholar.

No, I don't care that you had to sell your second house in the Hamptons. And I'll stop pointing out the innumerable obvious and miserable record of the previous President if you all stop making believe that the NRA fairy tales about guns and ammo becoming more regulated are anything but desperate attempts to find something, ANYTHING to rally around other than that scary nut from Alaska.

Posted by: lokisez on April 23, 2009 1:25 PM

Sorry to disappoint, COMRAD, but I work for a living, don't have a second house in the Hamptons, and have two kids in college that I'm trying to keep a roof over their heads. I bought a house that was well within our means, I pay my bills monthly and have no credit card debt. Excuse me . . . your socialism is showing. I'm sorry that success is a bad word to you. I'm sorry that it upsets you that we had the most successful capitalist engine in the world. Unfortunately, bigger government does not fix the problem. Granted abusers of the system raked in cash but now the pendulum swings the other way and your solution is to trash the system and force feed your agenda from the last 40 years. People doing the right thing, due diligence, giving a dam about your fellow man is not exclusive to those of your mindset. I think you can agree that both sides wants what's best for the people of this country. I don't think uprooting a system that clearly works and sets us apart from the rest of the world is the way to go. What happened to a bipartisan approach.

Posted by: John D on April 23, 2009 4:44 PM

1. Comrade has an e at the end.
2. Socialism? Where? Read a book - preferably a history book, not one that was ghost written for a right-wing radio entertainer.
3. I think that the folks who just had power yanked out of their hands via due process (without having to steal an election) only cared for the top 1%, and their policies and actions proved that.
4. I thought it was lovely that we were so successful. My business did quite well, and I worked my butt off.
5. World hunger? Hey, the dining room at my club was always packed.
6. And whether it was 40 or 60 years ago, the New Deal's investment in the monetary system saved our economy.
7. Have yet to hear an intelligent alternative that's economically sound.
8. I think it really boils down to the fact that some folks can't handle the fact that President Obama was overwhelmingly voted in, and has the best minds in economics at his fingertips giving us some hard answers. Everybody wants to go to heaven, but nobody wants to die.
9. Does success have to be defined as screwing the disenfranchised and allowing a mismanaged industry that employees tens of thousands to fail?

Posted by: lokisez on April 24, 2009 4:22 PM

I'm happy your day was made when you identified my spelling error. No doubt you are convinced of your overall superiority. In truth, it has more to do with my crappy typing skills. I have read many books and clearly your understanding of New Deal policies and practices are quite different than mine. For every historian and economist that touts the genius of the New Deal there are just as many that think the opposite. That being said, I ask you again where is the spirit of bipartisan policy making? Is that no longer important because power has shifted?

Posted by: John D. on April 27, 2009 10:20 AM

Oh, your typo didn't make my day. I just think it's kinda cool when you wind up to deliver a big, horrifying insult, all in caps, and it's misspelled. Makes it cute.

And all the theorists can say what they want: FDR's administration spent the money, we ended up the biggest economic power the world has ever seen.

Everything I know about bipartisanship I learned at the hands of Atwater, Rove, Bush, Cheney, etc. I was especially impressed with their trashing of war heroes who happened to sit on the wrong side of the aisle.

Remember how they vilified Hillary, until she walked in as a Senator? Then they all wanted her on their committees. The hypocrisy and hubris are simply astounding. At some level, yeah, majority rules: the other side had its turn, blew it, and should get the hell out of the way.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) the President sees the merit in keeping members of both parties in his cabinet. Either he's in denial that the Right has does little other than polarize every issue with slander, prevarication and sleazy mud-slinging, or he's aware that we live in a democratic republic.

Whoa. What would the Right wing fascist doggies say about that?

Last post.

Posted by: lokisez on April 27, 2009 4:09 PM

Talk about anger? Your incapable of a reasonable argument because you can't see past your anger?
You rip the right and run off a litany of characters but haven't any notion of how I or any other person may feel about them. There were many more things in play besides FDR's spending that drove the economy but you completely dismiss them. The Golden Rule will hold true forever. Whoever has the gold makes the rules. You are in power now and the abuses will mount over time . . .not because of party affiliation but because of human nature. Most people are horrible and given the opportunity they will screw the next guy to the wall. Your defense of Hillary is quite admirable but I don't see eye to eye with her preferences either. I think she is an idealogue that cannot sustain a long term commitment. She flopped to get by just like the rest. As for vilifying the President for standing by his principles . . . that just seems contrary to your belief in the man. He does it to placate the right while knowing full well he plans on doing nothing they suggest. I hope for this country's sake that something he does works.
I don't like the method. I think the pool of people he's taxing is well beyond what most would consider the rich.

Posted by: John D on April 27, 2009 4:38 PM