"Hope and change" is getting the kind of reviews that no one voted for in 2008.   After all, how many "yes we can screamers" voted for a president who kept most of the anti-terror Bush policies in place, made Bush look like a miser on spending, benefited the rich and created a lot of "part-timers"?  

President Obama has been just dandy for the rich but not the middle class, according to this amazing editorial at WSJ:   'What about the middle class that is the focus of Mr. Obama's rhetoric? Each month the consultants at Sentier Research crunch the numbers from the Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and estimate the trend in median annual household income adjusted for inflation. In its May 2013 report, Sentier put the figure at $51,500, essentially unchanged from $51,671 a year earlier.

And that's the good news. The bad news is that median real household income is $2,718, or 5%, lower than the $54,218 median in June 2009 when the recession officially ended. Median incomes typically fall during recessions. But the striking fact of the Obama economy is that median real household income has fallen even during the recovery. "

ObamaCare has been good for "part-timers", as Robert Samuelson explains:

"Firms seek to minimize fixed labor costs by using contractors, "temps" and part-timers. Obamacare intensifies the pressures, because the incentives against hiring full-time workers are so obvious."

ObamaCare is impacting hiring again? Where have we heard that before?

These new numbers, the gains of the rich and more part-time work, come the day after President Obama delivered another one of those "class warfare" speeches that automatically "pop up" in the TelePrompTer.

Obamaeconomics is not working, unless you are rich and enjoy doing temp work.  

As Michael Barone wrote:  The Obama economy emphasis is all talk!  Yes bad talk for our ears!