Don't know and don't care. However, regardless of your persuasion as an
American you should perhaps give the President more than 200-odd days in
office to work before making a statement like this, one that sounds innocent
but is backhandedly stating that you won't vote for him three and a half
years from now no matter what he does. In practice, allowing only two
hundred days *is* effectively saying that, no, I won't even give him a
chance. If McCain had won, and was struggling, what would you think of
Howard Dean saying at this point: "The President's is obviously a failure,
given that nothing has been accomplished"? (Don't bother posting how if
McCain this, if Obama that, things would be different. That's not the
point. The point is that when somebody never liked the guy in the first
place a charade of fairness like the statement above doesn't work.)
Besides which, look back to my original story. People don't care about
facts. They choose to believe whatever meshes with their pre-conceived
notions. If somebody thinks Obama is bad, they gobble up - without any
evidence or confirmation - that he is responsible for destroying their
pastime. In fact they expect no less.
Remember Dan Quayle? "If I knew I was going to someday visit Latin America
I would've paid attention in Latin class"? Well it turns out he never said
that. It was a joke, but everyone was certain he was dumb enough to say
something like that, so it became fact.
Even the Washington Post printed an editorial about it, chiding those who
passed it on as fact and concluding (as I recall) that enough was enough and
that as VP even he deserved to be treated fairly.