Mediaite: 'If The Election Were Held Today Obama Would Lose'

Would you ever in your wildest dreams have imagined a year after Barack Obama's historic victory a new website created by former MSNBC GM Dan Abrams and crawling with ex-Huffington Posters would declare in a headline, "If The Election Were Held Today Obama Would Lose?"

Granted, the article written by ex-HuffPoster Glynnis MacNicol took its cue from a recently released Rasmussen poll, and discounted its findings.

Regardless, the headline and opening paragraphs by themselves indicate just how much the bloom has come off the Barose (h/t Matt Lewis):

So yes. As the saying goes, what a difference a year makes. Twelve months after the momentous election of Barack Obama as the nation’s 44th president, a poll shows that were the election to be held today Obama might not be so successful.

The Rasmussen poll finds that “45% of adults say they would be at least somewhat likely to vote for Obama if he was up for reelection right now. Forty-nine percent (49%) say they would be unlikely to vote for the president’s reelection.” Ouch. Side note: more women like him than men.

Of course, it should go without saying that a poll like this is held in a vacuum, which does not include real world contributing factors like opposing candidates or running mates. Not to mention the next chance voters will get to check the President’s name off on a ballot is still three years off — needless to say, a lot can change in three years! — but still, probably not exactly the way Obama wanted to arrive at election day 2009!

Wow! Color me unsurprised with Rasmussen's findings but thoroughly shocked a liberal author would echo them AND get it published at a liberal website.

But, MacNicol wasn't the only liberal going after the Big O on the anniversary of his election, for as she pointed out, her former employer Arianna Huffington also penned a piece Tuesday less than enthralled by he who used to enthrall with his mere presence:

How did the candidate who got into the race because he'd decided that "the core leadership had turned rotten" and that "the people were getting hosed" become the president who has decided that the American people can only have as much change as Olympia Snowe will allow?

How did the candidate who told a stadium of supporters in Denver that "the greatest risk we can take is to try the same old politics with the same old players and expect a different result" become the president who has surrounded himself with the same old players trying the same old politics, expecting a different result?

How could a president whose North Star as a candidate was that he "would not forget the middle class" choose as his chief economic advisor a man who recently argued against extending unemployment benefits in the middle of the worst economic times since the Great Depression?

I'm referring, of course, to Larry Summers. According to a White House official I spoke with -- later confirmed by sources in the White House and on the Hill -- Summers was against the extension. And it took a lot of Congressional pushing back behind the scenes for the president to overrule him.

And, according to another senior White House official, when foreclosures or job numbers come up at the regular White House morning meeting, Summers' response is that nothing can be done. Nothing can be done about skyrocketing foreclosures or lost jobs.

Nothing can be done -- pretty much the opposite of "Yes we can," isn't it?

Yes it is, and later she kind of explained why:

But, as [former Obama campaign manager David Plouffe] puts it in [his new] book, "Obama had ignited something very powerful in young people throughout the country. If that spark could be preserved, I was convinced we'd be a much stronger country for it."

And no amount of rationalizing and sugarcoating can change the fact that the spark has not been preserved.

That's correct -- because the spark was all based on hype, and David's last name should have been FLUFF!

Sadly, this is what happens when an unqualified presidential candidate with absolutely no experience to lead people is coronated by adoring media members that totally abdicate their journalistic responsibilities in order to help their Party take back the White House.

Makes one wonder if Huffington and MacNicol are beginning to develop guilty consciences, or does this wrongly assume they possess such a thing?