Why would you think it isn't possible to a couple bad presidents in a row? I happen to think it is the only option available to us under the current system.

Clinton, as a president, sucked. Bush I also sucked. Reagan was the last 'good president' in terms of what he accomplished, even though what he accomplished was an abomination when it came to civil rights in the US & human rights in the world, and sent us spiraling into the apocalyptic environmental scenario we are now facing, by gutting the EPA. Oh, and then there is that FCC thing...

But the fact is, he accomplished all that. And an argument can be made that Bush/Cheney finished the job and sealed the deal. An argument can be made that Bush/Cheney have been extremely good at their jobs--they have railroaded Congress to get their initiatives passed more successfully than any administration since FDR put through the New Deal.

Again, their policies have done more to destroy democracy at home and abroad than any president since I'm not really sure who with their Good Ole Texas imperialism and empire building, and draconian civil and human rights record. Not to mention, watching smugly while the environment goes up in flames.

But hey--the Dems haven't done jack shit to counter any of that stuff, even when they had the opportunities to do it.

So, in my estimation, if Obama sucks at the job of being president--which means forcing your policy initiatives through a dead on arrival Congress--we will just keep sinking into the abyss.

We need an environmental crisi president, who will overturn all the bad civil & human rights legislation day one, and start to face reality instead of playing ideological politics with the fate of the planet.

Nobody on the conventional political two party horizon will do that. Nobody. So just how do you expect things to be better because we have a Coke president instead of a Pepsi president?