Can someone out there explain the logic of this to me? Lets say the head coach of professional sports team or one with a major university (pick a sport and a team) retires. His last year was a struggle and the final season wasnt pretty. That coach is replaced by someone with a lot of support from the team owners (alumni) although he lacks apparent experience. The first year hes expected to do great things. Nothing positive results. At this point the new coach would be given a pass for having a building year, BUT hed be expected to layout his specific plans to deal with the challenges the team faces. After a second bad year like that, the new coach would be under fire from almost everyone. Hed be forced to defend his program almost daily and hed be expected to give specific feedback about what hed change or face firing. A similar third and fourth season? I dont think hed be around that long. But the Presidency is another issue. Obama has not improved things significantly by virtually any economic yardstick. All hes done is printed more and more currency and hoped things will get better. Hes not articulated any plan, specific or otherwise to correct economic conditions. Yet were supposed to move forward with him. A lot of the same people that would not accept such behavior from a head coach still support Obama and want to give the man a chance. Maybe the electorate of this country thinks that head coaches are more responsible and should be held to a higher standard than the President!