By 
Bill Clinton, the 42nd president of the U.S. from 1983 to 1992 and the most popular Democrat in the U.S., stole the spotlight with his 48-minute, electrifying speech at the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC Wednesday night. That speech is guaranteed to get President Barack Obama re-elected for a second term on Nov. 6.But it was a tough act for Obama to follow the next night with his own 40-minute nomination acceptance speech. The speech was flat. We didn't learn anything new from what he had previously preached to the choir.
True, Obama has scored several key achievements in his first term but his speech Thursday night was simply a pep talk, an attempt to further inspire his flock. It was almost like a State of the Union speech. It had no specifics on how he and his administration planned to turn the country around from a deep recession it is in today to days of prosperity in the near future.
I would have liked to have heard Obama zero in a little more on how the economy is going to create jobs paying better than those in the hamburger-flipping industry and in the health-care segment. Most of the jobs lost during the recession paid middle wages while most of those gained during the recovery were low-wage jobs.
I would have liked to have heard Obama talk more on how his administration is helping millions of Americans who have lost their homes and savings through foreclosures by banks over the past four years. The administration touted a $25 billion mortgage deal it supposedly reached this year with 49 states and big banks to settle allegations that banks mishandled mortgages. The banks had promised they would offer at least $10 billion in loan forgiveness to homeowners. But that money has grudgingly amounted to only a trickle flow to date.
I would have liked to have heard Obama discuss the current status of big banks. At the end of 2011, five banks, including Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, held 56 percent of the U.S. economy, according to Bloomberg, compared to 43 percent five years earlier. So big banks have actually become bigger during Obama's first term.
I would have liked to have heard Obama explain how Democratic candidates running for re-election in their own bailiwicks and Democratic committees have received plenty of campaign cash from Bain Capital, the private equity firm formerly headed by presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Bain helped make Romney the billionaire he is today. Romney has been severely criticized for his role at Bain. But according to the Boston Globe, Democratic candidates and committees had actually netted double the amount of campaign cash from Bain employees as of May of this year than their Republican counterparts received since 2008.
(By the way, Romney and Obama got at it again in three final debates coming up. They are Oct. 3 at the University of Denver; Oct. 16 at Hofstra University in Hempstead, NY; and Oct. 22 at Lynn University in Boca Raton, FL)
I would have liked to have heard Obama explain why New York City-based Goldman Sachs and other big-name Wall Street firms have largely escaped punishment for their role in the financial crisis. The Justice Department in August announced it wouldn't be prosecuting Goldman on criminal allegations that it had played a leading role in causing the crisis. Another example of the Obama administration letting banks off the hook for their role in the meltdown.
I could go on and on. But you get my drift. I am not happy with either candidate. Romney is too vain and Obama hasn't lived up to many of his 2008 campaign promises.
If Romney, by some voting-count miracle, should win on Nov. 6, the victory would clearly show that Americans had voted AGAINST Obama, but not FOR Romney. In other words, it would be an anti-Obama vote.
If Mickey Mouse were running today as a third presidential candidate, Mickey would be elected.
