President Obama's hometown newspaper has some startling advice for the commander-in-chief -- quit while you're behind.

Citing the president's record-low approval ratings and unease in the Democratic base, a Chicago Tribune editorial writer recommended over the weekend that Obama need not feel obligated to run for a second term.

Steve Chapman said that with Obama facing the prospect of a double-dip recession and, if he wins reelection, a gridlocked second term, it might be better to call it a presidency and let someone else -- maybe Hillary Clinton -- carry the Democratic mantle in the 2012 election.


"I checked the Constitution, and he is under no compulsion to run for re-election," Chapman wrote in the Tribune. "He can scrap the campaign, bag the fundraising calls and never watch another Republican debate as long as he's willing to vacate the premises by Jan. 20, 2013. That might be the sensible thing to do."

Chapman said the high unemployment already makes it difficult for Obama to run. He noted that his recently unveiled jobs bill has not yet lit a brushfire of support, and that his party just lost two special elections in Congress.

"In hard times, voters have a powerful urge to punish incumbents. He could slake this thirst by stepping aside and taking the blame. Then someone less reviled could replace him at the top of the ticket," Chapman wrote.

Though ex-Obama rival and now-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has brushed off talk of presidential aspirations, Chapman said Clinton would be just the right fit.

"Her husband presided over a boom, she's been busy deposing dictators instead of destroying jobs, and she's never been accused of being a pushover," he wrote. "Not only that, Clinton is a savvy political veteran who already knows how to run for president."

Obama was the first Democratic candidate for president ever endorsed by The Chicago Tribune. Chapman was on the board at the time.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/09/19/chicago-editorial-writer-suggests-obama-step-down-after-first-term/#ixzz1YQzQ8jwC

Unfortunately Obama's HUGE ego and selfishness wont let this happen, eventhough it would be the right thing to do.

i think impeachment sounds better...fire his azz....

There have been a variety of interviews recently with Democrats who have little good to say about Obama. And this comes from the liberal press! Maybe his base is so disgruntled that a plan is being made to substitute Hillery if Obama is viewed by his own party as "hopeless".

I saw Bill Clinton yesterday talking about Obama's newest stimulus plan. He acted like he was choking as he "praised" the plan.

I saw another interview that said that the Democrats in Congress weren't even supporting the plan. They gave it "little hope".

LOL,, again with the EXCLUSIVE disdain for this President


what president in US history has 'stepped down' besides Nixon?,,,lol


what has this president done or not done that is UNIQUE enough for such a UNIQUE solution?

good grief

you seem to want to compare him to other presidents... the only ones you should compare him to are the 1 termers, because they didn't get the job done either...

comparing him to ALL presidents, kind of INCLUDES one termers...

how can you compare him to the good ones?

By comparing him to ANY and all presidents, it makes an even stronger ALL INCLUSIVE point, about how EXCLUSIVE his treatment has become,,,

the treatment matches his skills... do you think he is being treated unfairly? or worse than bush was? and still is?

was bush interrupted during his speeches

called by MR Bush by the newscasters WHILE he was president?


call him a cracker ( concurrent with calling a black president a tar baby)?

been chastised about where his FATHER was born?

have his americanicity challenged over and over?

,,and the list goes on...


yeah, I believe he gets treated worse than ANY other president who has made similar decisions as he has,,,

Kennedy was shot. Johnson stepped down.

This thread is about the Democrat's disenchantment with Obama.

He had a shoe thrown at him. I am sure someone somewhere called him a cracker.

As for the other stuff he didn't have a father from another country. Thats like asking if someone called Bush black. It makes no sense. People had the right to question his americanicity and I wonder why he fought back so much. I think a bigger arguement would have been what is a natural born citizen as some people say it is someone who is born to 2 citizens of the US not 1. But that is neither her nor there.

Kennedy faced a decidedly more split democratic party and the ramifications of growing numbers of deaths and opposition to the VIETNAM War

I could hardly compare that to what OBama is up against

Democrats have been 'disenchanted' before, because all democrats dont agree on all things

the thread implies support for a PResident willfully, stepping down, (What I call quitting) because they are facing opposition

which I find to be quite ridiculous considering the opposition other presidents have faced without the need to 'step down'

sorry , but no cigar,, the SHOE was thrown at him in another country by another country's citizen

Someone may have called him a cracker, but none of his COLLEAGUES did so publicly


they had a 'right' to question his americanicity, but why WOUlD they?

they had that right with every other president, many came from prominent families who traveled and they could have been BORN in another country which would level the same argument regarding what a 'natrual' citizen is

but that possibility never seemed to bother people BEFORE NOW...

Its different if both your parents are citizens as you have automatic citizenship, that being said if they had reason to question it thats fine. There was reason to question it in this case. If there was nothing to hide I would assume he would just allow them to see what they want and who cares if they wanted to make 300 million copies to send to every person in the country if they didnt believe it.

How many other presidents had a father that wasn't a citizen? Like I said the true question is really what is a "natural born citizen" as over the years people have not agreed on this.

ya Kennedy (both) were Great Society entitlement type prez's and I have to agree that being shot is worse than being interrupted

I interrupted everyday and no one has asked me to be the Prz

daresay I'd do a better job - for less money...

sorry, not buying that... bush was treated worse than any other president, hands down. obama is the biggest liar i have seen in the presidency, i won't say he is the least effective, but close to it. and you seriously think bush wasn't called anything worse than "tar baby"? your letting your blind "brotherness" get in the way of your perception of what he really is. read the news, there is talk all over about how ineffective he is, how he shouldn't even run for re-election... and thats just on yahoo that saw these articles, not fox...but if you want to stand behind the liar, more power to ya, but your blind defense of this guy makes me loss some respect towards you.

just fyi

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in the gaps left by the Constitution. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"

Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S


by several of the CONSTITUTIONAL standards, Barack being born to a US citizen mother, makes him a natural born citizen

unless you want to explain why in the world, my daughter who was born here to a mother who was raised here should not be considered natural born just because her SPERM donor never did,,,,


,,the real question became WHERE was he born, because the other issues are moot

and I dont recall that being a question of the more POSH candidates in the past whose families traveled abroad on occasion and could have been born anywhere they traveled

they were born wherever they said they were born, and I Dont recall such scrutinizing over it...

its not blind anything, its the facts

Im not speaking public opinion or what people say and think in private CIRCLES

IM talking about treatment from other COLLEAGUES in PUBIC

,,no, they did not Do Bush the way they do this PResident while he was POTUS

whatever they say once they leave office is hindsight, and another issue,

I am merely speaking on PROFESSIONAL differences in treatment of the sitting POTUS,,,

citizen and natural born citizen are not necessarily the same thing. And technically he only fits 1 of those not several (when questioning location). I personally wouldn't think they would let an anchor baby be president. I don't think that is what the founding fathers meant.