Osama bin Laden is dead

by on May 1, 2011 at 11:30 pm in Uncategorized | Permalink

My quick take is that that Obama will be re-elected (getting Osama is way more important than Iraq or Saddam in the American mind, attacks on American soil, etc.), at this point the Republicans won’t try to beat him from the center and will thus nominate a more extreme candidate and lose badly, and the most important effects will be on Pakistan, not this country.

What do you think?

p.s. Check out this photo.

1 zeeb May 1, 2011 at 11:31 pm

*getting Osama, you mean…

2 Robert May 1, 2011 at 11:32 pm

Mixed up Obama and Osama by accident, or did you?

3 David Pinto May 1, 2011 at 11:32 pm

People thought George Bush the first was unbeatable after the first Iraq war. If the economy keeps tanking, this won’t matter.

4 mulp May 2, 2011 at 1:47 am

He was unbeatable. Until the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party attacked him for trying to reduce the deficit and they voted for Ross Perot.

Bill Clinton, responding to the Tea Party mood, promised not to hike taxes before being elected. Then quickly announced that the budget deficit was too high to avoid tax hikes, getting that issue out of the way quickly. Still, the Tea Party struct back, and Clinton spent seven years fighting the deficit hiking Republicans, forcing them to cut military spending just to get small tax cuts. While Clinton was able to address some health care cost problems and expand coverage, he wasn’t able to address the long term costs.

Once Clinton left office, taxes were cut, spending increased, and health care costs exploded. (Clinton cut a deal on Medicare to control cost but he was forced into shifting coverage to private insurers, and the cost controls ended up being negated by the doc fixes.)

Obama hasn’t made the mistakes of HW Bush and Clinton in reducing the deficit.

After all, reducing the deficit like HW did turned victory into defeat.

5 Thomas May 2, 2011 at 8:14 am

Great–a response that gets politics, political science, policy and history wrong.

6 Laserlight May 2, 2011 at 11:46 am

Well, you knew that as soon as you saw who wrote the comment.

7 Popeye May 1, 2011 at 11:33 pm

President gets a short-term poll boost, the Republicans will run Romney, Obama gets re-elected. Not too different from yesterday’s forecast.

8 Jana H May 1, 2011 at 11:34 pm

Maybe.

If gas prices and grocery prices continue to shoot skyward and the economy continues along in a moribund state, I’m not sure how effective saying, “But I got Osama!” will be. But alas, I am no prognosticator.

9 a Nadder May 1, 2011 at 11:34 pm

I think the ubiquitousness of getting Obama mixed up with Osama (see above) might temper his political success just yet!

10 longley May 1, 2011 at 11:34 pm

I know its late, but that’s a pretty significant typo…

11 Scott May 1, 2011 at 11:35 pm

“(getting Obama is way more important than Iraq or Saddam in the American mind)”
Heck of a slip there, Cowen.

12 Eli Koz May 1, 2011 at 11:35 pm

I think you’re right, but made a rather egregious typo…

13 Highgamma May 1, 2011 at 11:35 pm

Never underestimate the ability of the American people to forget a military victory. (I’m thinking of George H.W. Bush.) If gas prices are $4/gallon next year, Obama still loses.

14 Dan May 1, 2011 at 11:37 pm

What I think is that you meant to write “getting Osama” not “getting Obama.”

15 Tyler Cowen May 1, 2011 at 11:37 pm

Typo corrected!

16 slittOf theTongue May 3, 2011 at 10:04 am

No typo intended.

You betcha
!

17 Skip May 1, 2011 at 11:37 pm

“President gets a short-term poll boost, the Republicans will run Romney, Obama gets re-elected. Not too different from yesterday’s forecast.”

My prediction exactly. I think he will (damned well better IMO) get a solid boost in the polls, then those will fade.

18 ck May 2, 2011 at 8:13 am

A famous political economist once said,

A recession is when your neighbor loses his job, a depression is when you lose your job, and a recovery is when Jimmy Carter loses his job.

Obama will still lose the Presidency. Probably to Romney but maybe to Daniels if we’re lucky.

19 Jacob May 1, 2011 at 11:38 pm

Freudian slip? Maybe Obama isn’t such a shoe-in after all!

20 Jason May 1, 2011 at 11:39 pm

Correct the typo, its a big one, Osama not Obama

21 Erica Peters May 1, 2011 at 11:40 pm

“Getting Osama is way more important” – I think that’s what you meant to say.

22 JohnMcG May 1, 2011 at 11:41 pm

1. You probably want to double-check your spelling/names.

2. I don’t think there was any way the US public was going to make the first black president a one-termer.

23 RSS feed reader May 1, 2011 at 11:42 pm

your RSS feed reads: “getting Obama is way more important…”

24 Bruce May 1, 2011 at 11:42 pm

If Obama has the good sense to use this (getting Osama) as a way to declare victory in Afghanistan and get our troops out, then yes, he can ride this to a second term (unless the economy really tanks). When (not if) Karzai fails and the Taliban comes back, we can still say we got our man.

25 Thomas May 1, 2011 at 11:42 pm

Killing bin Laden in Pakistan is likely to cause additional unrest, in Pakistan in particular but elsewhere as well. The story for 40-50 year old Americans is over; the story for everyone else is not.

26 Eric May 1, 2011 at 11:43 pm

1st) I think you mean “(getting Osama is way more important…)”
2nd) Initially I would agree, but realizing that American memory is very short as far as politics is concerned this will give him clout for a while, but not long enough to get him through the election.

I hope.

27 John M. May 1, 2011 at 11:44 pm

I don’t think this will sway anyone in any direction. Those that hate Obama will never give him credit for “getting” Osama. Those who favor Obama will keep on. Those on the fence will more likely be swayed by wherever the economy ends up by summer ’12. That seems like it will be the deciding factor. Osama bin Laden is a nickel spent long ago.

Also, I think that the right likes having someone to hate in the White House. They get far more nervous and divided when one of their own is in office.

28 John Voorheis May 1, 2011 at 11:44 pm

Getting, ummm… Osama, I assume you mean. Unless that’s some (in particularly bad taste) mind teaser.

29 Lewis May 1, 2011 at 11:45 pm

“It’s the economy stupid.”

30 Katy May 1, 2011 at 11:45 pm

Watch your ‘b’s and ‘s’s very carefully in this post, Tyler. I think you mean “Osama” instead of the second “Obama.’

31 John May 1, 2011 at 11:46 pm

Gotta be careful with switching “s” with “b” tonight, Tyler. Just looking out for you. 🙂

32 tenis May 1, 2011 at 11:46 pm

um, getting *obama*? Com’on.

33 jjdaddyo May 1, 2011 at 11:46 pm

I think you just made one of the 4000 Freudian slips we’re going to hear on cable TV this week: “(getting Obama is way more important than Iraq or Saddam in the American mind)”
Shouldn’t that be “getting OSAMA”?

34 CptnJustc May 1, 2011 at 11:48 pm

“getting Obama is way more important than Iraq or Saddam in the American mind”

Oh, we’ll get him, alright. 😀

35 Lorenzo from Oz May 1, 2011 at 11:48 pm

Your first line has two ‘Obama’s’ when the second should be an ‘Osama’. In context, this matters!

36 apex May 1, 2011 at 11:48 pm

I think this is a story that will go away after a few weeks and will not matter. My reaction was a tired “finally”, like a TV show that has run too long. A lasting impact it will not have, and operationally, it will have been a non event as the organization has long carried on without Osama guiding it, him being mostly a figurehead for the last decade since his money ran out.

As for the republican nomination process, that one remains a wild card, but a lot of more extreme candidates were voted into the house last time around, and the message that the US is going to be broke soon is pretty well established. Reagan was considered extreme, too.

apex

37 nate May 1, 2011 at 11:49 pm

You wrote Obama instead of Osama.

38 DaveyNC May 1, 2011 at 11:49 pm

This doesn’t change anything; he was the favorite before this and he still is.

39 Lorenzo from Oz May 1, 2011 at 11:49 pm

Wow, the speed of the web. There were no comments when I started typing!

40 DaveyNC May 1, 2011 at 11:51 pm

Me, too, and I only wrote one sentence.

41 David May 1, 2011 at 11:51 pm

Obama will get a temporary bump in the polls but this won’t impact the election, which is 18 long months from now. Most people realize that this the result of intelligence work rather than anything Obama has done; he gets no more credit for this than Bush does for failure to get him (after all, it was Bush who said we’d get him “dead or alive,” to the discomfort of Obama’s base). His reelection hinges on the economy. Conservatives will stand in line to vote against him, he won’t be able to count on independents who now realize that he is farther to left than most Americans and certainly more than any president.

42 JC May 1, 2011 at 11:51 pm

OBAMA will (hopefully) get re-elected. OSAMA is important in the American mind (maybe, still).

43 Cameron May 1, 2011 at 11:51 pm

I think this makes it difficult for the Republicans to fight Obama on National Security issues. This takes away one of the stronger issues that the public trusts Republicans on.

My take is that Presidential elections are largly one or lost due to economic issues. If the economy does not take a turn for the worse Obama will be just fine and will win reelection regardless of this news.

44 Jamie May 1, 2011 at 11:51 pm

I think you mean “getting Osama”, not “getting Obama”.

45 julie May 1, 2011 at 11:52 pm

Obama!=Osama

46 Carolina May 1, 2011 at 11:52 pm

fix the typo quick! you put “getting Obama is way more important than Iraq or Saddam”. You mean get Osama.

47 Lorenzo from Oz May 1, 2011 at 11:53 pm

The economy is too poor and Obama’s approval trends are too low. As long as the Republicans nominate someone not utterly unelectable, the Republican [fill in blank] has to be favoured unless there is a major pick up in the economy.

Remember what happened to Bush Snr.

(I laughed when I read Gov. Perry’s comment that “if Jeb Bush’s name was Jeb Smith, he would be the next President’.)

48 AF May 1, 2011 at 11:53 pm

“getting Obama is way more important than Iraq or Saddam in the American mind”

oops

49 burger flipper May 1, 2011 at 11:53 pm

David Pinto is right. The average joe isn’t quite as dumb and emotional about this as you’d reckon. The election is gonna swing on the economy, not an Arab pelt.

Now let’s see if al Quida is anything more than a bogeyman and if anything blows up this week.

50 Terry May 1, 2011 at 11:53 pm

A Freudian slip? The second Obama should presumably be Osama.

51 Anonymous May 1, 2011 at 11:54 pm

Your Freudian slip is preserved on your blog’s RSS feed:

“My quick take is that that Obama will be re-elected (getting Obama is way more important than Iraq or Saddam in the American mind), at this point the Republicans won’t try to beat him from the center and will thus nominate a more extreme candidate and lose badly, and the most important effects will be on Pakistan, not this country.”

52 Z May 1, 2011 at 11:56 pm

Bush got a noticeably 5 point bump when they found Saddam, but it obviously never arrested the downward trend over the next 5 years. But I do agree Osama is a much bigger fish and a much bigger deal considering that Bush failed for 7 years to get it done…

53 Adam Smith May 1, 2011 at 11:57 pm

Geez it’s a one-letter typo. Put down the pitchforks.

My reaction was exactly the same as Tyler’s (though less nuanced). The 2012 election is in the bag barring some egregious embarrassment in Libya or tragic incident of retaliation at home.

54 Fletcher May 1, 2011 at 11:57 pm

I think that you need to revisit that parenthetical, but yes.

55 Evan May 1, 2011 at 11:57 pm

Obama will be re-elected (getting *Obama* is way more important than Iraq or Saddam…)

You might want to change that.

56 Buratino_vn May 1, 2011 at 11:59 pm

Did you mean “getting Osama is way more important than Iraq or Saddam in the American mind”? What a good time to make the news public!

57 Charles May 1, 2011 at 11:59 pm

Yes, I think the more significant effects will be on our relationship with Pakistan. And it will depend on how they play their part in the operation.

Of course, the government is different than the people. So that will be interesting to see as well.

58 Tom Church May 1, 2011 at 11:59 pm

Getting Osama may be more important than getting Saddam, but it will only give President Obama cover for a month or two. President Obama’s foreign policy failings vastly outweigh getting Osama bin Laden.

Next year, bin Laden will not be an issue. Jobs and debt will dominate the debate. Jobs are much more of a visible problem. Getting Osama is a diffuse benefit, especially after ten years of looking.

59 Isaac May 2, 2011 at 12:04 am

Check your parenthetical for a classic typo.

60 Joe May 2, 2011 at 12:06 am

The only more extreme candidates would be Ron Paul and Gary Johnson….

61 Tom Noir May 2, 2011 at 12:08 am

Good luck Pakistan and Afghanistan, we are so out of there.

62 anka May 2, 2011 at 12:09 am

You mean getting osama( not obama)?

63 Mohamad May 2, 2011 at 12:14 am

I think that’s a Freudian slip.

64 David Lang May 2, 2011 at 12:16 am

I think the Obama/Osama typos will decrease substantially.

65 Z May 2, 2011 at 12:17 am

Don’t you mean “getting Osama”?

—–

Unrelated: I do not think this means an automatic win for President Obama. The economy still looms large. If employment fails to pick-up, he could still be in for a tough fight against a moderate candidate.

66 Meg May 2, 2011 at 12:17 am

Obama will have trouble milking this tastefully, and his Achilles heel is that he seems to refuse to play the games of Rove and the like, so by the election it probably won’t be on anyone’s mind anymore. It will keep the Democrats from getting nailed on foreign policy, and the election will boil down to whether or not Obama can effectively pin the lack of further government action to help the economy on the Republicans in Congress. A government shut down coupled with this I’d have believed would sew up the election.

I suspect the Republican proposal to gut Medicare could matter far more. A good spin of the Ryan budget should bring solid constituencies to Obama’s camp.

67 Robert May 2, 2011 at 12:17 am

*getting Osama

68 dee May 2, 2011 at 12:20 am

I agree and it makes me sad. All of the facts wiped away by and action started by the previous president, opposed by the current president and it will end in re-election for a moron.

69 Donnie May 2, 2011 at 12:21 am

(getting Obama is way more important than Iraq or Saddam in the American mind)

That is quite the Freudian slip. 🙂

70 Agnes May 2, 2011 at 12:22 am

That was an interesting slip of the tongue (or keyboard?).

71 weiyang May 2, 2011 at 12:23 am

I think you mean “getting Osama”

72 Foobarista May 2, 2011 at 12:27 am

Politically, it’s too early – it will cause a jump, but if O doesn’t get gas prices and unemployment down, it’ll be like the jump Bush One got after Gulf War I, which was gone within a year.

73 Mark May 2, 2011 at 12:27 am

I’m glad that he’s dead. I hate how nobody seems to have anything more interesting to talk about than how it will affect the election. That’s partisan football of the most tiresome sort.

74 Rahul May 2, 2011 at 12:30 am

Are these the fastest 70 comments MR ever had?

75 hamilton May 2, 2011 at 12:34 am

1. I agree with your assessment of the election, provided the U.S. economy does not dramatically decline.

2. I do not agree with the assessment of the photograph. If you pause after nearly every other joke (e.g., see the Huffington Post joke at 10:25pm), President Obama makes about the same “this is funny” face for things that are really funny, and a slight nod and a smile for everything else. But perhaps I am missing the subtleties of face reading here.

76 Bret May 2, 2011 at 12:35 am

Intraders certainly agree.

77 dave May 2, 2011 at 12:50 am

For at least one night I can go to sleep with the following though.

America, Fuck Yeah!

78 yayaver May 2, 2011 at 1:16 am

At CNN, Wolf Blitzer says “Who had ever thought that Osama was hiding in a palatial mansion in the Pakistani capital” …… Answer :- 1.3 billion Indians + CIA, pentagon and the white house 😉

79 Ed May 2, 2011 at 1:28 am

I have to agree with the more cynical comments about this. My first reaction to the news was on the lines of “what? I thought he was dead already!”

Its simply too late. The message is that if you organize a terrorist attack that kills almost three thousand Americans, the US will track you down and kill you ten years later. That’s better than letting him die of natural causes twelve to fifteen years later, but my second reaction is that it would have been better at this point to put Osama on trial.

This would have been a big deal if GW Bush had focused on Afghanistan and intel instead of Iraq, and gotten Osama killed in 2004. And it still would have been a big deal if Kerry had gotten elected in 2004, put more resources into Afghanistan, and then gotten this result in 2007. Alot of the Obama presidency is doing things that would have looked good in a post 2005 Kerry first term. He got elected in a sort of delayed reaction to Iraq and Afghanistan but it turned out the most important problem of his administration was the 2007-8 economic meltdown.

80 Lord May 2, 2011 at 1:41 am

I had thought it was the economy stupid until Bush was re-elected. The economy is important but not as important as comfort with the leader. The Republicans were going extreme no matter what, that is all they have. Trump if he wants it, but I doubt he does, he just knows well enough not to pass up a marketing opportunity. Romney has the M problem so I would guess Huckabee. It would be extraordinary for Obama to lose. It is less where the economy is than where it is headed so barring the apocolypse he will probably be re-elected. In the end it comes down to the choice of two. It would take someone extraordinary to do so. Trump perhaps, but probably no one else.

81 Mustard Tiger May 2, 2011 at 2:03 am
82 pgbach May 2, 2011 at 2:53 am

Tonight spells the end of the teabaggers…. a well-earned end.

83 Anotherphil May 2, 2011 at 9:34 am

I think you missed an “i” between your “p” and “g”.

84 Andrew' May 2, 2011 at 9:50 am

Nope. The Tea Party is not about this.

85 yayaver May 2, 2011 at 3:25 am

This is worrying. Even Osama Bin Laden is not safe in Pakistan. lol

86 yayaver May 2, 2011 at 3:26 am

This is worrying. Even Osama Bin Laden is not safe in Pakistan. 🙂

87 TD May 2, 2011 at 3:42 am

Hearing about Osama’s unification with his creator was like getting my sinuses cleared, but I doubt if it will have significant impact on elections. In spite of RomneyCare, we’ll probably see a Romney-Bachmann ticket.

88 David Mershon May 2, 2011 at 4:25 am

I have to second all the comments on the parallel to the first Iraq war and George H.W. Bush. Obama will win only if unemployment plunges.

89 Anon. May 2, 2011 at 4:47 am

I have serious doubts about this announcement. There has been substantial evidence that Osama has been dead for several years now.

90 Andrew' May 2, 2011 at 4:50 am

Probably.

I have an idea for an extreme candidate.

91 Andrew' May 2, 2011 at 4:53 am

But SHOULD Osama be so important i our minds? I don’t really need prognostications about voters minds any more than I need stock touts.

92 Andrew' May 2, 2011 at 4:56 am

Maybe all you spelling analists need to blame Osama and Obama’s mamas.

93 Brandon Berg May 2, 2011 at 5:30 am
94 thehova May 2, 2011 at 8:18 am

Obama is at 64 on intrade now.

The economy sucks, but I’m shocked it isn’t 80 regardless of finding Bin Laden.

95 ck May 2, 2011 at 9:53 am

Intrade isn’t as precise as an electron microscope.

96 John May 2, 2011 at 8:20 am

While there might be some attempt by the Obama campaign to use this event to reach some voters I don’t think it will be a determining factor. This was more a military and intelligence than a presidential victory.

Unless he can a) enjoy a much lower unemployment rate and b) do something meaningful about public financing (cost of government programs, debt, deficit) to show he can bring some “new era” government then he’s a one term president.

97 anonygoat May 2, 2011 at 8:50 am

I would like to know who organized those “spontaneous” rallies. College students with American flags on poles and matching hats chanting ‘four more years’? It would be a real shame if organizing for America had some kind of ‘plan R’ in their back pocket for the occasion, but it would hardly be surprising.

98 Jim May 2, 2011 at 9:28 am

>What do you think?

I think, who gives a flying fuck about the 2012 election right now?

This is great, great day for America and for everyone on Earth who would prefer not see their children slaughtered by an exploding jihadist.

Celebrate it, and try to put off the cheerleading for your favorite candidate for a few days.

99 Matthew May 2, 2011 at 10:22 am

Well said Jim. Couldn’t Tyler have waited five minutes after the announcement to bring partisan politics into this? This should be a time for celebration and reflection for all Americans.

100 Anotherphil May 2, 2011 at 9:29 am

Tyler, you seriously need to get out of that insular academic bubble you are in.

I realize the certain elements of the tenured class (even at GMU) might have thought Obama was to be the wise and benevolent professor-king, but its increasingly obvious that he is a harcore, narcissitic ideologue with a god complex.

Getting bin-Laden was a transient military victory, not a permanent political one. The more he tries to take credit, the more petty and grasping he will look. The far left won’t even be happy about this.

Obama will again capture the parasitic vote (welfare recipients, colleges, windmill makers, GE and GS et al) that rely on government largesse to live of the backs of the productive classes, but if you got off campus once and a while and pumped some gas, you’d see seething rage.

I can see the ads now. The watermarked images of the price of gas rising, with that famous Obama saying quote about prefering a gradual rise in prices. Or his quip to the Brazilians….

Pretty soon, the price might actually become significant to the the upper-decile earners in the professoriate.

101 yayaver May 2, 2011 at 12:36 pm

@Anotherphil, Whom you want to substitute Obama with ? Sarah Palin or Donald Trump …

Dude, The ideal and the practical do not always coincide. You behave as the armchair theorist who refuse to face reality- the need to take sides in an imperfect world. Obama is not perfect leader but he is the best available candidate of Presidency America got today.

102 Andrew' May 2, 2011 at 9:38 am

If you start at the top of these comments and read them all the way down it is hilarious.

103 Andrew' May 2, 2011 at 9:47 am

Sorry folks, but as much as I hate to say it Tyler is right folks. Not that I hate him being right, but what it entails. Sure, the economy may matter more, but Democrats will get more of a pass in the way The Fed gets credit because “sure it’s bad, but that’s only because it could have been so much worse.” People will give Democrats the benefit of the doubt. And when you move on to National Security, there will be no Republican with anything like “Osama killed on my watch” on their resume.

So, nominate Ron Paul. He will comport himself well and will not be a liability to the cause. He will shine in any debates and make them substantive. But even his national security critique will be hamstrung. The only thing that could have saved Republicans would have been another near miss on Osama. What noone will remember is Obama getting distracted with Libya.

104 John Thacker May 2, 2011 at 10:00 am

Hmm, the New York Times is reporting that we wouldn’t have captured him without leads from interrogations of “detainees at the prison at Guantánamo Bay.”

105 Seth May 2, 2011 at 10:04 am

I’ll go with “incentives matter” on this one. Killing Osama is big, but I’m not sure it’s as big as paying $4 – $5/gal for gas. But, props to Obama for doing his job.

106 Seth May 2, 2011 at 10:04 am

And the props to the Navy Seals for doing theirs’ well. I certainly wouldn’t want to mess with two dozen of those guys.

107 Greeneyeshade May 2, 2011 at 11:04 am

Sorry, but no matter who the opponent, in 2012 the extreme candidate will be the incumbent.

108 Laserlight May 2, 2011 at 11:50 am

Credit to the US military? Sure. Credit to Bush? Well, he set the policy, so yeah, possibly. Credit to Obama? Not so much.

109 Dan Hanson May 2, 2011 at 2:23 pm

We all have a tendency to over-emphasize events that happen today. The election is a long way away, and will turn on whatever issues are important at that time. This will be of some benefit to Obama because it will take away the Republican’s ability to paint him as weak on the war on terror, but that may not even be a significant issue in the next election.

For comparison, at about this time in his first term George HW Bush had just presided over a brilliant operation in Iraq (Desert Storm), and was riding at historically high 90+ percent approval ratings. Comedians on Saturday Night Live were writing skits about popular Democrats hiding so they wouldn’t have to run against him. The field was so thin because Bush was ‘unbeatable’ that an obscure Governor from Arkansas became the nominee…

110 Paul Johnson May 2, 2011 at 2:29 pm

If I were one of those “Republican strategists” – the economy might be somewhat improved by election time so don’t count on it as the determining factor. The Republicans need to nominate someone with international political/military cred or Obama will will be able to claim that he was the man who shot Liberty Valence…

111 Paul Johnson May 2, 2011 at 2:47 pm

“won’t try to beat him from the center and will thus nominate a more extreme candidate”

OK, what does the “center” mean in this context? That the Republicans should split the difference between the status quo and Obama’s leftist base? That’s the center? Moving the country leftwards at a slightly slower rate than Obama would prefer? And if they don’t agree then their candidate is by definition an “extremist”?

112 InHI May 2, 2011 at 7:25 pm

Like other posters have suggested, Obama’s reelection fate rests on the state of the economy come November 2012. Bin Laden’s death should boost Obama for three months or so.

113 Simmer May 3, 2011 at 2:02 am

I’ll quote James Carville…”It’s the economy stupid”.

I can’t believe I had to write that on an economic blog. Please don’t make me do that again.

114 katy May 3, 2011 at 2:08 pm

I’m sure that 18 months later when election time come around, people won’t really care about Osama. It was a great “American victory”, but usually daily life and things seen regularly will overtake that. People’s wills and emotions sway easily with their own situations. For example, if gas prices, something of high demand, continues to increase and the economy doesn’t improve by next year, people won’t flock to vote for Obama.

115 Alvin May 3, 2011 at 6:08 pm

Blacks seem really ecstatic over this killing of OBL. I don’t think they would be so happy or care that much if it had happened while Bush was president.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: