This, from Michael Medved, is some of the best spin I've ever read--and it's instructive:
If Obama says he’s not to blame for the state of the country, then he’s conceded weakness and impotence, and if he tries to echo the public desire for new directions, then he acknowledges that his controversial policies of the last four years never worked as intended.
That's Medved's argument for the non-inevitability of Obama's reelection, boiled down to one sentence. But notice how he's pre-shackled the argument:
"[B]lame for the state of the country." Does he acknowledge the creation 4 million private-sector jobs? A positive and far higher GDP? A rescued auto industry? A booming stock market? Greater access to healthcare? The end of a needless and costly war? Naturally, no. Yet those are just a few accomplished factors in the "new directions" he references in the second clause as seemingly unattainable and simply beyond Obama's abilities. Now that's slick.
And then there's this: "[H]e’s conceded weakness and impotence." Again, Medved is devious to the point of rank dishonesty. First, Obama has "conceded" no such thing. But you'll notice that Medved plants the concession clause after his conditional clause that begins with "If." So what Medved does is erect an unestablished premise, and then proceeds to a conclusion as though the premise has been accepted. But there was never a realistic "If."
What's more, let's assume Medved's "weakness and impotence" as facts of Obama's presidential tenure (once we wipe from memory the 4 million jobs, etc etc.). The only remedy? An antidemocratic, unparliamentary, dictatorial "strength" that would put the opposition's obstructionist program out of business.
Now I could argue that that's the sort of presidential leadership that the Michael Medveds of this world secretly desire; furthermore, I could easily spin that case. But I happen to possess, or so I'd like to think, what the Medveds so degenerately lack: a conscience.