That is what people don't seem to be understanding. This isn't going to be a long diary.
Just because President Obama says he "supports" you doesn't mean you'll win if you're not a good candidate-- even if he DOES go to your state/district to campaign. Just because you use him in an ad, doesn't mean Democrats will vote for you in a primary if they don't think you're the best candidate. It takes more than President Obama's endorsement to win an election, no matter WHERE you are. I think that's something we should have figured out from Massachusetts. If the candidates cannot sell themselves, how the hell do they expect President Obama to do it?
But I suppose it just helps the political pundits, and others, to feel important by harping on what President Obama did or didn't do in an election where the candidate he "supported" won or lost.
The sad thing is, they aren't even TRYING anymore to come up with other theories on why candidates lose. It's like EVERYTHING in EVERY election is Obama's fault. Either he did too much or didn't do enough. Everything is a referendum on him and his policies. The thing is, President Obama is still extremely popular personally, especially considering all of the stuff he did to piss people off in the first year.
He can't spend all of his time campaigning, he DOES have a day job. So how about instead of expecting President Obama to be Omnipotent, how about we force candidates to run GOOD campaigns?
This is short, just wanted to get that off of my chest. :o)