What? It Doesn't Matter Who Is President?

Remember four years ago? Way back when George W Bush was president, unemployment was under 8%, gas averaged under $2 a gallon and only 32 million people had to resort to food stamps? Oh, here are some comparative specs, just in case your memory needs a jog:

Remember how the media loved to blame Bush for all of the country's economic woes? Those woes which, by today's standards seem a bit like Nirvana?

Now, come back to today, when the presidential elections are drawing closer and Barack Obama is going to be called upon to defend his economic record, which reassembles the Jimmy Carter years minus a Billy Beer chaser. How can we expect the mainstream media to handle the Obama financial debacle?

Option 1: Continue to blame Bush. More on this in future posts . . . I'm sure there will be plenty of opportunities.

 Option 2: Suddenly start proclaiming that it can't be Obama's fault because a President doesn't really have much to do with the economy. That's right, the same folk who only a few years ago accused Bush of personally melting America's wealth like Paula Dean's butter will now propose that a President has little or nothing to do with American prosperity. So be ready for more headlines like this one feature online by Yahoo: "Who Is President Matters Much Less Than We Think" where "experts" will say things like: "The president generally matters so much less than we think, especially when it comes to the economy." Or "[As] the president begins his reelection campaign in earnest, one must keep in mind that the Oval Office makes up just one part of the large governing pie."

Here it comes, folks. Bush was to blame when he was in the Oval office. But Barack Obama? Come on, he's only the President.