Babe's Eye View article

Americans had very high hopes when they elected Barack Obama as president, and this optimism was shared by many people who believed that his presidency would bring renewed and better relations between the United States and the rest of the world. People were confident that his leadership would usher in a new era of hope and change—his campaign slogan—even against the backdrop of a crippling global financial crisis that was largely blamed on America.

More than a year after his historic election victory, Barack Obama’s approval rating has hit its lowest point, with 48 percent disapproving of his job performance and only 46 percent saying they approved. Even members of the media—who during the campaign period couldn’t get enough of the Democratic candidate—seem to be falling “out of love” with the American president.

As a matter of fact, only a few reporters bothered to show up during one of Obama’s trips to Missouri to solicit support for his healthcare agenda, and none of the cable channels covered the event. As a Newsweek writer puts it, “If you are president, the only thing worse than criticism is not being covered. And the truth is, we in the press are bored with Barack.” This boredom—actually disenchantment with the President manifested barely two months into his term when his approval ratings started dropping in March 2009, which some analysts attributed to the growing doubts about his administration’s policies and its effect on people’s lives.

While it is true that Obama inherited a lot on his plate when he assumed the presidency—rising unemployment, two wars, a huge deficit plus the fact that Republicans have probably made it their legislative agenda to be uncooperative—people started becoming impatient and began losing confidence in his government even before the proverbial 100-day honeymoon period was over. As early as 50 days into Obama’s term, Americans started feeling that he has not made much progress in trying to solve a lot of their concerns.

Ten and a half months into his presidency, Obama’s job approval rating dropped to 47 percent—the lowest ever for any president for the same period. George Bush’s approval rating was 86 percent; Bill Clinton was at 52 percent; Ronald Reagan had 71 percent while Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon had 57, 52 and 59 percent respectively.

Experts acknowledged that the low rating was “mainly a result of the continuing bad economy” compounded by the contentious issue of health care reform. But they also pointed out that even in tough times, (other) presidents have been able to stay above the critical 50 percent mark in their first year—that period when people are generally inclined to be more tolerant and patient with a new president.

Obama’s critics were naturally quick to pounce on his declining ratings, warning that Republicans could win the upcoming midterm elections this year, saying that anyone with half a brain should realize that support for the American president has hit rock bottom. Some even go so far as to point out that his numbers are coming precipitously close to the kind associated with one-term presidents.

Indeed, many “special interest groups” like labor unions, gays, lesbians, African-Americans and all the others that helped the Democratic candidate win feel that the president has failed to deliver on the many campaign promises he had made. And if the downward spiral continues, he could be treading on a “danger zone,” observers remarked. In a sense, what is happening to Obama’s ratings is an indication that people’s opinions can change dramatically because of so many reasons, driven by the prevailing mood or sentiment at a certain period of time.

Everyone knows people can sometimes be fickle, and that opinions, beliefs and even preferences can dramatically change due to a lot of circumstances. While opinion polls can be effective tools in gauging public sentiment, people must also remember that the results are temporary in nature since they only cover a specific period. And it’s not also unlikely that by the time the survey results are published, public preferences may have changed. So nothing is really sure until 10 days before or even until election day itself.

Joseph Estrada is right; candidates should not be “presumptuous,” thinking that the presidency is already “in the bag” just because they happen to be survey frontrunners at this time. Erap supporters say their candidate’s rating is steadily inching up, his solid base of supporters not getting “converted” to the other presidentiables.

Erap is now going on the offensive, lashing at Noynoy Aquino’s “ungrateful nature,” calling him a “political opportunist” for using Estrada’s pardon as a campaign issue. In a stinging rebuke, he reminded Noynoy that his late mother had asked Erap to include Noynoy in the 2007 opposition senatorial slate—at the expense of Noynoy’s aunt Tessie Aquino-Oreta who in the end angrily left Estrada’ party.

It looks like Estrada is prepared to go the whole nine yards, contrary to rumors that he will back out at the last minute to endorse Noynoy. Erap will never be accepted by the Liberal Party. In fact, Noynoy’s advisers have preconditions before Erap could join them. On the other hand, Manny Villar welcomes Joseph Estrada with no preconditions whatsoever.

As they say, the only sure things in this world are death and taxes. And definitely, there is nothing sure about the results on May 10 because anything can happen. Enough said. Who knows—Erap, Villar, Gibo, Dick or even Nick Perlas will make it.