Is "better" good enough?
That's what this whole election comes down to, doesn't it?
Whether "better" is good...for you.
Or "better" is still "bad"...for you.
The administration can rightly claim the data is getting better.
The problem is that doesn't mean the data is good. It's not.
At this stage in a recovery, we should be looking at three times as many jobs created every month.
But a gain is better than a loss...
So I guess the White House figures we'll be grateful a meager advance is better than no advance at all.
Mitt Romney says we shouldn't be grateful.
We should be mad.
He saying "better" is not "good."
Actually, it's "very bad."
That we shouldn't be settling for so-so.
We should be aiming for gung-ho.
And because we're not getting it...
Give the president, the heave-ho.
It's all about your perspective.
There was a time when no president would be bragging about a 7.8 percent unemployment rate.
Then again, there wasn't a time when every prior month of this president's tenure that rate had ever been lower.
Not good. But better.
That's kind of where this country stands now.
Stuck with numbers that aren't great...but are marginally improving.
And a republican challenger who says we shouldn't be satisfied with a recovery like this that by historical standards is positively revolting.
I guess it depends where you've got things in your head.
Pounded for years with numbingly bad stuff, that maybe you'll settle for not as bad stuff.
Or so ticked off, that you've had it with just being stuffed.
You want more. Not less of more. A lot more.
This whole campaign.
In a nutshell.