From the New York Daily News:
"President Obama is coming home from his overseas trip pretty much empty-handed.
After watching his party take a beating in the midterm elections, Obama wasn’t able to secure even a symbolic victory on a trip that was expected to give him plenty of opportunities to claim a win.
“This certainly was the worst 10 days of his political life,” said Baruch College political scientist Doug Muzzio. “Given that he’s not going to be able to get any domestic achievements with the Republicans in control of the House … if he doesn’t do it in foreign policy that’s a big problem for him.
“He came back with bupkis [Yiddish for 'nothing'].”
Obama’s inauspicious 10-day, four-nation trip included a failure to land an anticipated slam dunk free trade agreement with South Korea.
It also included a botched effort to rally Western allies to press China to budge on a monetary policy that threatens to keep the U.S. economy in the tank.
Yet Obama appeared to shrug off the lack of results during summit meetings with the world’s most powerful leaders.
“Naturally, there’s an instinct to focus on the disagreements, because otherwise, these summits might not be very exciting; it’s just a bunch of world leaders sitting around intervening,” Obama told reporters in South Korea.
“What’s remarkable is that in each of these successive summits we’ve actually made real progress,” he added, without anything of substance to point to."
Even MSNBC Chris Mathews is starting to ask questions:
And the Washington Post goes 'all in', calling on the President not to seek re-election:
"We do not come to this conclusion lightly. But it is clear, we believe, that the president has largely lost the consent of the governed. The midterm elections were effectively a referendum on the Obama presidency. And even if it was not an endorsement of a Republican vision for America, the drubbing the Democrats took was certainly a vote of no confidence in Obama and his party. The president has almost no credibility left with Republicans and little with independents…
Obama can restore the promise of the election by forging a government of national unity, bringing business leaders, Republicans and independents into the fold. But if he is to bring Democrats and Republicans together, the president cannot be seen as an advocate of a particular party, but as somebody who stands above politics, seeking to forge consensus. And yes, the United States will need nothing short of consensus if we are to reduce the deficit and get spending under control, to name but one issue.
Forgoing another term would not render Obama a lame duck. Paradoxically, it would grant him much greater leverage with Republicans and would make it harder for opponents such as Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) – who has flatly asserted that his highest priority is to make Obama a one-term president – to be uncooperative.
And for Democrats such as current Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) – who has said that entitlement reform is dead on arrival – the president’s new posture would make it much harder to be inflexible. Given the influence of special interests on the Democratic Party, Obama would be much more effective as a figure who could remain above the political fray. Challenges such as boosting economic growth and reducing the deficit are easier to tackle if you’re not constantly worrying about the reactions of senior citizens, lobbyists and public employee unions."
Final two words: Lame Duck