Comics I Don’t Understand

Short Obama

Cidu Bill on May 4th 2009

Daniel Brindis: I work in and follow politics rather closely but cannot for the life of me figure this out.

Filed in Barack Obama, Bill Bickel, CIDU, Tom Toles, humor, political cartoons | 18 responses so far

18 Responses to “Short Obama”

Vinnie Vermin May 4th 2009 at 12:16 am 1

The only thing I can think of, that makes any sense, is that it’s supposed to be an IOU. If the artist had more space he’d write “We’re a little short, signed Obama” which the deposed Babar and family gets instead of the usual stimulus check. Or maybe the artist is trying to imply that Obama is petite and not good with investments.
Joshua May 4th 2009 at 12:18 am 2

The Republican characters are selling the “Obama” stock short and have nothing else to invest in (their investment portfolio is not fully diversified because there is nothing else in it). The cartoonist is suggesting that the Republicans have placed all their hopes on assuming that Obama will fail.
mark May 4th 2009 at 01:17 am 3

Maybe they mean ’short changed’ but they are using Obama’s name, because he and his administration have now become synonymous with change.
Richard May 4th 2009 at 02:45 am 4

Joshua has it. When you “sell short” you are betting that a stock’s value will go down.
Powers May 4th 2009 at 06:56 am 5

I believe Joshua is right, but it could have been a lot clearer. Toles is usually a lot better at making his point clear. I guess everyone has a bad day.
John B. May 4th 2009 at 07:52 am 6

I think that Joshua has the right idea, but I’d still “sell” Obama stock short right now. Don’t think he’s been too successful yet, except in driving the US more in debt.
Nicole May 4th 2009 at 08:26 am 7

John B.

OMG … Obama’s been in office a little more than 100 days, turning around the mess that took the Bush adminstration eight years to create will take a little more than that.
Carl May 4th 2009 at 08:26 am 8

Toles was eloquently clear. Remember that “short selling” is one of the things blamed for damaging the US economy. And so is the Republican Party. He’s making a very explicit comparison.
Ron Obvious May 4th 2009 at 04:24 pm 9

I agree with Carl, who agrees with everyone who agrees with Joshua.

But that’s not why I write. I write because I just wanted to point out the little hidden 2nd punch line (”bad 100 days”), which make perfect sense when you get the main punch line right, and which led me to a particularly satisfying chuckle at the expense of all the Ditto-heads out there who keep hoping in vain to catch Obama failing at something.

For the rest of us, while perhaps not 100% perfect, it has definitely been a very good 100 days, indeed.
tofor May 4th 2009 at 08:24 pm 10

He failed at saving Chrysler.
Powers May 5th 2009 at 06:44 am 11

Carl, the simple phrase “Short Obama”, written on an otherwise blank piece of paper, does not immediately bring to mind a financial transaction. That’s what I meant by clarity.
Mitch4 May 5th 2009 at 08:09 am 12

… and would a short position even be considered part of a portfolio? I mean, it’s something already sold and owed, not owned and held.
Nicole May 5th 2009 at 08:25 am 13

Short Obama ???? I thought he was tall ???
Todd May 5th 2009 at 02:51 pm 14

I’m not sure where to look it up, so could someone remind me, how many years of Bush’s eights years in office did he have a
Republican controlled Congress? And for how many years were the Democrats in charge?
Nicole May 5th 2009 at 07:31 pm 15

Tofor …. and Bush failed to save New Orleans …. what is your point ?
Joshua May 5th 2009 at 09:32 pm 16

Mitch4: I’m pretty sure that one would find indeed one’s short positions listed on a brokerage statement, because the brokerage needs to remind the investor that eventually the short position has to be closed out.
Nicole May 6th 2009 at 08:08 am 17

Todd … Bush had six years of a Republican congress, 2006 was when the shift came, thought the Dems held the slimest of margins in the Senate — I believe they had a 51 seat majority there and that was because the independents chose to caucus with them. So the real breakdown in the senate was 49(D) 49(R) and 2(I).
ljdarten May 8th 2009 at 11:05 pm 18

tofor, Chrysler failed at saving Chrysler. Are you the sort that would sue someone because they tried but didn’t succeed at saving a strangers life?

I’m really glad that the republicans are giving Obama a fair chance to fix things and not say he failed at every possible opportunity.

Yep sure would suck if people were much more concerned about being able to say they were right than having a country that is not going down the freaking toilet!