The Light: Hillary

Leave it to Maureen Dowd to miss the forest for the trees in her argument that

“The Obama White House is too white.”

In Dowd’s latest NYT column, You’ll Never Believe What This White House Is Missing, she discusses the Shirley Sherrod incident, and writes that “unlike Bill Clinton, who never needed help fathoming Southern black culture,” the Obama white house just doesn’t get the “central African-American experience.”

Dowd contends the Obama administration had better shape up otherwise…

“…[T]his administration will keep tripping over race rather than inspiring on race.”

and

“We may not have a “nation of cowards” on race, as Attorney General Eric Holder contended, but we may have a West Wing of cowards on race.”

They are cowards. Period. Yet they use the Rovian tactic of blaming others for sins of which they themselves are guilty.

While Dowd understands that Barack Obama’s exotic background and upbringing in Hawaii may be a contributing factor to his seeming lack of understanding, she cannot admit that White House insensitivity on racial issues is due to much more than his being surrounded by “smart-ass white boys” as she puts it. The real problem stems from something far worse. His administration’s actions are governed by branding, political expediency and preserving Obama’s popularity.

When polling rather than conscience drives your actions, the Shirley Sherrod firing fiasco is the result.

Dowd then resorts to the typical “let’s attack FOX News for the hell of it” gambit:

“The West Wing white guys who pushed to ditch Shirley Sherrod before Glenn Beck could pounce…”

Dowd does not clarify what Glenn Beck “pouncing” actually meant – Glenn Beck pounced on the White House, not Sherrod. Beck felt they had unjustly fired her. But Dowd could not possibly admit that Beck took Sherrod’s side. Sherrod could not either from the looks of it and wanted to continue to paint FOX News as the bad guy when the network held off on covering the story until they got all the facts – unlike President Obama. Sherrod was forced to resign before FOX did any “pouncing.”

And what of the NAACP? They were the ones with the entire tape – why didn’t they speak on her behalf, if indeed they had the basis to do so?

Perhaps Andrew Breitbart was wrong to show the edited tape of Sherrod’s remarks. It is up to you to decide whether you believe he did so less to slam Sherrod and more to slam the audience at the NAACP dinner who reacted appreciatively to what he felt were reverse racist sentiments on her part.

Dowd also complains…

“At some level, [Obama] acts like the election was enough; he shouldn’t have to deal with race further. But he does.”

…“Who knew that the first black president would make it even harder on black people?” asked a top black Democratic official.

Um. I did. So did a lot of other folks on this blog.

In May of 2008, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson penned a piece entitled The Card Clinton Is Playing – accusing Hillary Clinton of playing the race card to advance her candidacy while ignoring the fact that the Obama campaign had been playing that card daily and with impunity. I responded to Mr. Robinson’s accusations. In pertinent part, I wrote:

…The few like Tavis Smiley, who criticized Sen. Obama for skipping the State of the Black Union, and I believe [Senator Obama] also decided not to speak at MLK’s anniversary event, raise an interesting point. Senator Obama is, perhaps of necessity, courting the white vote and taking for granted the African American community who vote for him in droves. I believe, if he were to be elected, aside from the great symbolic value of having him in office, which I grant you is no small thing, the AA community may suffer because the white liberal elite in the party pushing to elect him will feel they’ve put a band aid over the racial divide in this country, while in actuality doing little to heal it.

Apparently Dowd agrees, complaining that Obama is “light years” behind Bush on developmental help to Africa and wouldn’t let Muslim women in head scarves appear behing him at a rally because Obama staffers were afraid he would be painted “as a radical/Muslim/socialist.” She accuses his staffers of insensitivity — as if Obama were somehow not involved in these decisions. Isn’t he the President?

Ms. Dowd – it is not “insensitivity.” It is Obama’s ‘you are a notch on my bedpost, I use you for my own purposes and otherwise you can get lost attitude.’ This White House is run by a bunch of arrogant frat boys. What do you expect?

Dowd also reported:

“I don’t think a single black person was consulted before Shirley Sherrod was fired — I mean c’mon, “ said Congressman James Clyburn of South Carolina. [snip]

“The president’s getting hurt real bad,” Clyburn told me. “He needs some black people around him.” He said Obama’s inner circle keeps “screwing up” on race.

A laughable comment to be sure. I don’t know whether President Obama needs “some black people around him” as much as he needs to grow some genuine leadership ability and the willingness to do his homework before making a judgment on an issue of which he knows nothing.

A disproportionately high number in the black community have been adversely affected by high unemployment, something NYT columnist Bob Herbert has pointed out many times. He too, is wondering why the President is “screwing up on race.”

Perhaps Rep. Clyburn and others are now regretting having played the race card on the Clintons during the primaries, who have done more for the African American community than Obama ever has.

President Obama had never in his career exhibited compassion or understanding of these issues, certainly not to the point of taking action on them. How did Dowd, Herbert, Robinson, Clyburn or anyone else assume he would be magically transformed once elected?

President Obama’s administration only uses the race card as a defensive tool and a shield against criticism of his inane policies and actions. That has officially backfired. It backfired in Massachusetts with his “the Cambridge police acted stupidly” remark, as it has once again with Shirley Sherrod.

More is required than different advisors.

The White House has a horrible habit of working reactively, resorting to a “don’t blame me — it’s the other guys fault” mantra. That is not genuine leadership, which, of course, has been the problem all along. Every time one of these incidents gets played out before the American people, it is further evidence that those in charge have not done their homework and cannot grow beyond making pathetic excuses for the same. Slowly but surely, the country is getting a glimpse into the real character of this administration.

ABC’s Sunlen Miller reports on Political Punch:

While visiting with Louisianan residents last week during his trip to Grand Isle, President Obama expressed a little frustration that he was not able to plug to hole still spewing oil in the Gulf by himself.

“Even though I am President of the United States my powers are not limitless,” Obama said last Friday at Camardelle’s Live Bait and Boiled Seafood, “So I can’t dive down there and plug the hole. I can’t suck it up with a straw. All I can do is make sure that I put honest, hardworking, smart people in place.”

“I will do everything in my power to do right by you guys. And everybody along the coast.”

The president’s quote – previously unseen by the pool of reporters traveling with him not allowed access to this specific exchange – was posted today on the White House website as part of their weekly video posting, “West Wing Week.” The weekly video summarizes the president’s week by featuring behind-the-scenes footage shot by White House videographers.

I had to post this. I think the comment just stands by itself.

First President Obama wants to know whose ass to kick.

Now he is speaking with local residents suffering horribly because of the BP crisis and actually has to make the snarky, petulant comment that “He can’t suck it up with a straw.” I understand this is a very difficult situation, but I think it is safe to say that he has no reserves whatsoever to deal with adversity if he resorts to making offhanded petulant comments like this.

Kudos to Sunlen Miller for reporting on it. Those non-teleprompter soundbites are priceless.

* Bumped Up *

What a difference a year makes.

While President Obama, flanked by the arrogant and clueless Pelosi and Reid, endeavors to ram through his health care disaster, two articles from vastly different sources make clear Obama has lost the spring in his step and been blindsided by his inability to move mountains on the force of his own personality. No sensible person thought he would – or should – be able to do this. Clearly, his inner circle and the fawning media were betting his messianic abilities would overcome the mountain of difficulties he would inherit as President.

First, Fred Hiatt of WaPo discusses Obama’s Happiness Deficit:

Here’s a theory about why President Obama is having a tough political time right now: He doesn’t seem all that happy being president.

I know, it’s the world’s hardest job, and between war and the world economy collapsing, he didn’t have the first year he might have wished for. And, yes, he’s damned either way: With thousands of Americans risking their lives overseas and millions losing their jobs at home, we’d slam him if he acted carefree.

Still, I think Americans want a president who seems, despite everything, to relish the challenge. They don’t want to have to feel grateful to him for taking on the burden.

No, we shouldn’t have to feel grateful. Don’t do us any favors. Yet, judging by the fact that the President’s personal popularity still eclipses that of any and all of his policies, he has not done us too many favors so far.

I started thinking about this a few weeks ago when Obama confidant David Axelrod, noting that the president always makes time for his daughters’ recitals and soccer games, told the New York Times, “I think that’s part of how he sustains himself through all this.”

Really? Is the presidency something to sustain yourself through?

He did ask for this job; we didn’t make him take it…

Good point, Mr. Hiatt. Mr. Obama spent $750,000,000 to get the job. At most press conferences, speeches, and the State of the Union, he seems put upon and exasperated, as if he is doing us a favor by being here. This echoes Mrs. Obama’s earlier statements during the primaries where she intimated a person of Barack’s “caliber” was lowering himself to enter the political fray.

But schmoozing with foreign leaders, like President George H.W. Bush? In a column last week, Jackson Diehl pointed out that Obama’s relations with just about every counterpart are prickly.

Does he recharge by heading back to the campaign trail, rolling up his sleeves and wading into the crowd? Obama will do that if he has to, to save his health-care bill. But he can’t persuade us he gets much of a kick out of it.

And here’s what makes this so complicated: The fact that Obama doesn’t get a kick out of adoring throngs is one of the qualities that made him so appealing in the first place. Unlike with Clinton, we never felt as though he needed us; he’s a secure, self-confident adult.

Is this guy kidding – all Obama enjoys are adoring crowds. Has Mr. Hiatt forgotten all the stagecraft involved in the fainting fans, or those who shouted “I love you, Barack!!” from the throngs in the audience. They are life’s blood to this man.

He talks about Obama’s family values and tries his best to be supportive. Hiatt is loathe to admit what really has gotten this President’s goat is that the job isn’t as easy as he thought it was going to be. Hiatt continues:

We understand that, even without war and recession, it wouldn’t be easy. His predecessor partied and stuck him with the tab. The Republicans are reliably obstructionist; his Democrats reliably unreliable. The media are carping, superficial and relentless. He is a prisoner of the Secret Service.

And yet. It’s hard to remember so far back, but the administration didn’t come to town with the sense of weariness and duty that it now projects. Unlike the Bush crowd, which never stopped kvetching about having to leave Texas, the Obamas and their circle spoke about the honor of service and the excitement of being in the nation’s capital.

A year later, here’s how they came across to People Magazine:

“It was their first interview of the New Year on Jan. 8 in the rose-colored library on the ground floor of the White House. President Obama spoke in such a hush about the loneliness of his decisions on war and terrorism that one could hear between his words the tick of an old lighthouse clock across the room.”

Less lugubriousness wouldn’t necessarily buy him a health-care bill. But in the long run, Americans might find it easier to root for or with Obama if he’d show us, despite everything, that he’s happy we hired him.

You can’t keep the balloon filled with air forever. Eventually, substance has to overtake style. It is folly to think otherwise.

Hillary knew from the beginning how hard this was going to be. That’s why she made a point of saying she is a fighter who will fight for us. Clearly, that is why her popularity has overtaken Obama’s. The lady never stops working. We may not agree with her every move, but know she is making the best of what is in front of her, working within the policies she has been charged to implement. She never makes us feel she is doing us a favor by being here.

I don’t think the President needs to look happy. No President could look happy in the current world climate. But he – or she – does need to look like he relishes every challenge and can’t wait to dig into the problem with determination and focus. A “Fellas, can’t I just eat my waffle” attitude isn’t cutting it.

Second, Der Spiegel offers a devastating article, Losing Faith in the Messiah, Obama Unites Israelis and Arabs in Disappointment:

Hopes were high in the Middle East when US President Barack Obama took office last year. But instead of progress toward peace, he has shown indecision and hesitancy. With many in the region united against Iran, he is in danger of letting a golden opportunity slip through his fingers.

US President Barack Obama glided off the stage to thunderous applause. He had just given a speech that commentators around the world, particularly those in the Muslim world, would characterize within minutes as “historic.” [snip]

As the Israeli reporter, Nachum Barnea, recalls, Obama was “like a teacher, full of knowledge and persuasiveness.”

Eight months later, the president was forced to admit that he had not even come close to reaching the goal he had set for himself. “We overestimated our ability to persuade [both sides] to [negotiate],” he told Time reporter Joe Klein in the White House Oval Office in January. “If we had anticipated some of these political problems on both sides earlier, we might not have raised expectations as high.” It was an astonishing admission.

Never before had a US president enjoyed such trust in the Middle East — and gambled it away in such a short time. Obama has vacillated to an extent that has confused friend and foe alike, even baffling veteran observers of the region.

It is an astonishing admission – and one that smacks of incompetence. Prior Presidents have been stronger, smarter and better students of world affairs, yet they were still not able to bring peace in the Middle East. How many times did Hillary tell us that his foreign policy was naïve at best. It is astonishing, and somewhat frightening to think this man was hitting his own koolaid more than the history books.

Confused friend and foe alike? If President Obama has in fact confused both his friends and foes alike, it is done with deliberation. He is repeating his behavior out on the campaign trail – telling a different story before each audience. This is no longer possible. Governing is choosing. Not campaigning.

No wonder he looks unhappy.

Further, an article was just posted tonight indicating President Obama will be on ESPN to fill in his brackets for the Final Four for men and women.

Where does he find the time?

There are two statements that turned out to be prescient in the run-up to the 2008 Presidential election:

“In the oval office, you can’t just vote present.”
— Hillary Rodham Clinton

“If you want to know what someone is going to do, take a look at what they’ve done.”
— General Wesley Clark

Huffington Post of all places offered a brilliant article by Drew Westen, Ph.D*.,entitled Leadership, Obama Style, and the Looming Losses in 2010: Pretty Speeches, Compromised Values, and the Quest for the Lowest Common Denominator. Westen’s skillful deconstruction of President Obama laments that Obama doesn’t believe in anything enough to fight for it. He points to the real reason Obama’s polls are tumbling –- the American people are waking up to his continuously voting “present” on issues that matters to them.

I am humbled by Westen’s comprehensive article. I may not agree with everything he says, but this is a true believer with a rational argument. I will not quote the bulk of it, though I’d like to. While principle stops me from including a link to H/P, I do suggest you read it in its entirety. So many of us who were ostracized and insulted last year more than suspected this would be Obama’s style of “governing.” Prof. Westen states it very well:

What’s costing the president are three things: a laissez faire style of leadership that appears weak and removed to everyday Americans, a failure to articulate and defend any coherent ideological position on virtually anything, and a widespread perception that he cares more about special interests like bank, credit card, oil and coal, and health and pharmaceutical companies than he does about the people they are shafting.

Bingo. By the way, if this piece appears on HuffPo with many echoing agreement in the comments, hell has indeed frozen over:

Somehow the president has managed to turn a base of new and progressive voters he himself energized like no one else could in 2008 into the likely stay-at-home voters of 2010, souring an entire generation of young people to the political process. It isn’t hard for them to see that the winners seem to be the same no matter who the voters select (Wall Street, big oil, big Pharma, the insurance industry). In fact, the president’s leadership style, combined with the Democratic Congress’s penchant for making its sausage in public and producing new and usually more tasteless recipes every day, has had a very high toll far from the left: smack in the center of the political spectrum.

What’s costing the president and courting danger for Democrats in 2010 isn’t a question of left or right, because the president has accomplished the remarkable feat of both demoralizing the base and completely turning off voters in the center. If this were an ideological issue, that would not be the case. He would be holding either the middle or the left, not losing both.

Consider the president’s leadership style, which has now become clear: deliver a moving speech, move on, and when push comes to shove, leave it to others to decide what to do if there’s a conflict, because if there’s a conflict, he doesn’t want to be anywhere near it.

…We have seen the same pattern of pretty speeches followed by empty exhortations on issue after issue.

But the true fighter who would have been able to act as Westen wishes is Hillary. She would lead, unafraid to deal with a tough issue or go to the mat and fight for it. Her frank demeanor, history of reaching across the aisle, indefatigable nature and willingnesss to take on President Bush (as she did with RU486, benefits of Guardsman and first responders) demonstrates her credentials in that regard. Her tireless work now as SoS only enhances that reputation. Westen continues:

The president has, on more than one occasion, gone to Wall Street or called in its titans (who have often just ignored him and failed to show up) to exhort them to be nice to the people they’re foreclosing at record rates, yet he has done virtually nothing for those people. His key program for preventing foreclosures is helping 4 percent of those “lucky” enough to get into it, not the 75 percent he promised, and many of the others are having their homes auctioned out from right under them because of some provisions in the fine print. One in four homeowners is under water and one in six is in danger of foreclosure. Why we’re giving money to banks instead of two-year loans — using the model of student loans — to homeowners to pay their mortgages (on which they don’t have to pay interest or principal for two years, while requiring their banks to renegotiate their interest rates in return for saving the banks from “toxic assets”) is something the average person doesn’t understand. And frankly, I don’t understand it, either. I thought I voted Democratic in the last election.

Same with the credit card companies. Great speech about the fine print. Then the rates tripled. …

The president has exhorted the banks, who are getting zero-interest money, to give more of it to small businesses. But they have no incentives to do that. …

The time for exhortation is over. FDR didn’t exhort robber barons to stem the redistribution of wealth from working Americans to the upper 1 percent, and neither did his fifth cousin Teddy. Both men told the most powerful men in the United States that they weren’t going to rip off the American people any more, and they backed up their words with actions. Teddy Roosevelt was clear that capital gains taxes should be high relative to income taxes because we should reward work, not “gambling in stocks.” This President just doesn’t have the stomach to make anyone do anything they don’t want to do (except women to have unwanted babies because they can’t afford an abortion or live in a red state and don’t have an employer who offers insurance), and his advisors are enabling his most troubling character flaw, his conflict-avoidance.

Westen’s next comment is as surprising as it is damning.

Like most Americans I talk to, when I see the president on television, I now change the channel the same way I did with Bush. With Bush, I couldn’t stand his speeches because I knew he meant what he said. I knew he was going to follow through with one ignorant, dangerous, or misguided policy after another. With Obama, I can’t stand them because I realize he doesn’t mean what he says — or if he does, he just doesn’t have the fire in his belly to follow through. He can’t seem to muster the passion to fight for any of what he believes in, whatever that is. He’d make a great queen — his ceremonial addresses are magnificent — but he prefers to fly Air Force One at 60,000 feet and “stay above the fray.”

As a lot of bloggers on this and other sites have noted, who would have thought the façade would peel away so quickly?

It’s the job of the president to be in the fray. It’s his job to lead us out of it, not to run from it. It’s his job to make the tough decisions and draw lines in the sand. But Obama really doesn’t seem to want to get involved in the contentious decisions. They’re so, you know, contentious. …

Do you think Americans ought to have one choice of health insurance plans the insurance companies don’t control, or don’t you? I don’t want to hear that it would sort of, kind of, maybe be your preference, all other things being equal. Do you think we ought to use health care as a Trojan Horse for right-wing abortion policies? Say something, for God’s sake.

He doesn’t need a chief of staff. He needs someone to shake him until he feels something strongly enough not just to talk about it but to act.

Odd that Westen describes Obama, a man elected because of his “vision” as clearly lacking a coherent vision or message, likewise condemning his willingness to throw women and gay voters under the bus to the bargain…

He doesn’t want to talk about social issues, even though they predictably have gotten in the way of health care reform and will do the same on one issue after another. Abortion? You don’t advance a progressive position by giving a center-right speech at Notre Dame that emphasizes cutting back on the number of abortions without mentioning that sex education and birth control might be useful means to that end, mumbling something about a conscience clause that suggests that pharmacists don’t have to fill birth control prescriptions if it offends their sensibilities, and allowing states to use health care reform to set back the rights of women and couples to decide when to start their families based on somebody else’s faith. If you believe that freedom includes the freedom to decide when you will or won’t have a child, say it, say it with moral conviction, and follow it up with action. Perhaps something as simple as this: “I won’t sign a health bill into law that forces women and couples to have a child they did not intend and are not ready to parent because of the dictates of someone else’s faith or conscience.” You know what? A message of that sort wins by 25 points nationally, and you can speak it in Southern and win with evangelical Christians in the deep south if you speak to them honestly in the language of faith. That shouldn’t be hard for a president who is a religious Christian.

Gays? Virtually all Americans are for repealing don’t ask/don’t tell (except for conservatives who haven’t yet come to terms with their own homosexuality — but don’t tell them that, or at least don’t ask). This one’s a no-brainer. Tell Congress you want a bill on your desk by January 1, and announce that you have serious questions about the constitutionality of the current policy and won’t enforce it until your Justice Department has had time to study it. Don’t keep firing gay Arabic interpreters. But that would require not just giving the pretty speech on how we’re all equal in the eyes of God and we should all be equal in the eyes of the law (a phrase he might want to try sometime). It would require actually doing something that might anger a small percentage of the population on the right, and that’s just too hard for this president to do. It’s one thing to acknowledge and respect the positions of people who hold different points of view. It’s another to capitulate to them.

Make your case to the American people, make it evocatively, and draw the line in the sand. That’s how you earn people’s respect. That’s the only thing that will bring Independents back.

This White House has no coherent message on anything. The message on health care reform changed even more frequently than the interest rates on credit cards last Spring, and turned a 70-30 winning issue into its current 30-50 status with the public. Last week on the Sunday news shows, I remember watching in disbelief as Larry Summers smugly told the 15 million Americans out of work that the recession was definitively over and that all economists agree. Then Christina Romer, another of the President’s chief economic advisors, announced on the next show that the recession is definitely not over.

That’s simply inexcusable. [snip]

To be honest, I don’t know what the president believes on anything, and I’m not alone among American voters.

[snip]

Abortion? Who knows. Gays? I suspect intellectually he believes in equal rights but deep down he thinks they’re icky. Something is sure holding him back from doing the obvious. Immigrants? He probably has an opinion, but he’s not going to waste political capital on them; he sold them out in 15 seconds on health care. Foreclosures? Nice speeches, and I’m sure it really concerns him when he hears the stories of families firsthand. But not enough to divert the cash from the lenders to the borrowers. And the problem is, the average American knows it. Job creation? Would be nice, and I presume he believes that people who want to work ought to be able to work. But when 700,000 people were losing their jobs a month in his first few months of office and over millions have lost their jobs on his watch… three letters should have come to mind: W – P – A. President Roosevelt had no legs to stand on, but he sure had spine.

Westen concludes by discussed the concept of “Obampromise” – no policy or principle is enough to fight for if it means pissing off the moneyed interests he relies on.

And here are a few more choice quotes. Frankly, I couldn’t agree more:

…[The] international community is just starting to learn that his eloquence doesn’t always have much behind it.

…[I]t would be hard to name a single thing President Obama has done domestically that any other Democrat wouldn’t have done if he or she were president following George W. Bush.

What’s they’re seeing is weakness, waffling, and wandering through the wilderness without an ideological compass. That’s a recipe for going nowhere fast — but getting there by November.

If one’s entire being has always been about pleasing people, ‘being a blank slate onto whom people can project their dreams,’ how should such a person suddenly grow a spine of steel when the number one quality they possess is the ability to craft a façade and protect it at all costs.

Secretary Clinton warned everyone about voting for a man who voted “present” 130 times in the State Senate, and who waffled on his positions constantly on the campaign trail. His stalling for months on the Afghanistan decision, then pretty much doing what we figured he was going to do anyway, is just one case in point. President Obama had never before evidenced the ability to lead or make tough decisions. In 2008, we were told that didn’t matter. The very qualities he lacks are precisely the ones he is lost without. Only no one is willing to give him memo. Certainly not his staff.

Years from now, books will be written on the mass delusion that captured the nation to put such an inexperienced and insincere man in office.

*Westen is a Professor of Psychology and Psychiatry at Emory University, founder of Westen Strategies, and author of The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation.

(Bumped up from Friday.)

MSNBC carried a blip of President Obama speaking in New York at a fundraiser. Sadly, the President is up to his old tricks. Remember when he was at a hoity-toity fundraiser in San Francisco and complained of Pennsylvania voters “clinging to God and guns”? That didn’t go over so well. Remember Gates-gate where Obama declared that “the police acted stupidly” before he knew all the facts?

Here, in the name of passing health care he says that “Democrats are an opinionated bunch” likely referring to the trouble he’s been having with the Blue Dogs. He said “y’all thinking for yourselves.” Then he says that Republicans basically “do what they’re told.” His robotic arm movements to make fun of “the other party” are really a sight to behold. When is a President supposed to make fun of American citizens — some of whom actually voted the man into office.

See for yourselves…

Interesting however, is that while he pretends to praise the fact that Democrats are “thinking for themselves” what he is really saying is that he wants Democrats to “do as they are told” as far as passing his fiasco of a health care proposal. Yet he belittles Republicans for “doing as they’re told.”

Which is it Mr. President?

When exactly would he like us to think for ourselves? I guess we already know the answer to that. The real problem is Republicans and quite a few in his own party are not following his instructions.

I don’t like bullies and I don’t care which party they belong to. It is grossly inappropriate for the President of the United States to belittle millions of people. This health care bill has never been adequately explained, nor is it formed. Yet in the midst of a disastrous economy, struggling citizens are asked to forego all good sense and follow the President and this Congress off a cliff without first asking any pertinent questions.

No one, regardless of party, whether an average citizen or a representative in Congress should be “doing as they are told.” What is required now is something we have all too little of — people thinking for themselves, getting all the facts and making a reasoned decision based on what is best for their families and for the country.

The President’s arrogance is staggering. And like the senseless feud he has started with FOX News, the one organization that refuses to pour the Kool-Aid, this is another example of behavior that lessens the gravitas of the office to which he was elected. As Hillary Clinton said during the primary last year, “You don’t need a President who looks down on you.”

I wonder if even those who voted for him are starting to feel this behavior is divisive and destructive.

Thoughts?

I would like an answer to my question. How can someone be so determined to knock everyone else off the stage that he would spend nearly a billion dollars to do it, and when his waffling and doubling dealing in office don’t yield the desired result, blame President Bush and everyone else under the sun for his predictable lack of leadership skills. The Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006. With overwhelming Democratic majorities in Congress now, what’s the problem? Could it be our Democratic Commander in Chief was not as ready or right on day one as he promised? I next want to know how he dare take this job at such a difficult time if that was the case.

The American Idol president is running his own reality show and we are picking up the tab. Mr. Obama seems to think that he and his wife are the most fascinating part of the American narrative. Last Friday, the IOC clarified the butter for the Obamas. In the past months, we have published many articles reporting on Kool Aid drinkers who have lifted their heads from the pink trough, dazed and confused, wondering where the “Change” is. The list is long: Peggy Noonan, Frank Rich, Susan Estrich, Andrew Sullivan, Camille Paglia, Robert Reich. Feel free to add your own. Today I add three more to that growing list.

First WaPo’s Richard Cohen complains Obama Doesn’t Seem Ready to Lead:

Barack Obama’s trip to Copenhagen to pitch Chicago for the Olympics would have been a dumb move whatever the outcome. But as it turned out (an airy dismissal would not be an unfair description), it poses some questions about his presidency that are way more important than the proper venue for synchronized swimming. The first, and to my mind most important, is whether Obama knows who he is.

This business of self-knowledge is no minor issue. It bears greatly on the single most crucial issue facing this young and untested president: Afghanistan. Already, we have his choice for Afghanistan commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, taking the measure of his commander in chief and publicly telling him what to do. This MacArthuresque star turn called for a Trumanesque response, but Obama offered nothing of the kind. Instead, he used McChrystal as a prop, adding a bit of four-star gravitas to that silly trip to Copenhagen by having the general meet with him there.

Mr. Cohen is blaming Gen. McChrystal for someone else leaking his report to the President. The more important point is, as Gen. Wes Clark or anyone else who’s actually been in this position will tell you (and as he did say in an interview this weekend), you’d better listen to your commanders on the ground. Cohen is right that the 25 minute meeting with McChrystal on Friday was merely a photo op. He’s still deliberating. How many more months of ‘deliberating” are required while our soldiers are dying in Afghanistan?

This is the president we now have: He inspires lots of affection but not a lot of awe. It is the latter, though, that matters most in international affairs, where the greatest and most gut-wrenching tests await Obama. If he remains consistent to his own rhetoric of just last August, he will send more troops to Afghanistan and more of them will die. “This is not a war of choice,” he said. “This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al-Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans.”

President Obama has the disastrous example of Iraq where Bush’s Generals told him from the outset that an overwhelming force was needed. They did not get it. You saw the result. Obama himself admitted that the belated 2007 surge was wildly successful. How much more evidence does he need? Define the mission, and either send the forces in to get the job done or pull all our men and women out of there. Choose. Lead. That’s the job description. Date night I don’t care about. Dog walking I don’t care about.

Cohen concludes:

But the ultimate in realism is for the president to gauge himself and who he is: Does he have the stomach and commitment for what is likely to be an unpopular war? Will he send additional troops, but hedge by not sending enough — so that the dying will be in vain? What does he believe, and will he ask Americans to die for it? Only he knows the answers to these questions. But based on his zigzagging so far and the suggestion from the Copenhagen trip that the somber seriousness of the presidency has yet to sink in, we have reason to wonder.

Has the seriousness of the presidency sunk in? Now there’s a question.

You may be surprised to note that NY Times columnist Bob Herbert is wondering the same thing. A huge cheerleader for Obama, Herbert cried racism and even saw phallic symbols in the leaning tower of Pisa in a misguided attempt to defend his chosen hero last year. Now he wonders Does Obama Get It? Well, Mr. Herbert, don’t feel bad. This question has been keeping me up nights, too. He states:

The big question on the domestic front right now is whether President Obama understands the gravity of the employment crisis facing the country. Does he get it? The signals coming out of the White House have not been encouraging.

Clearly Mr. Herbert, if you have to ask, then Obama does not understand the gravity of the situation. Where is his good judgment? How can one not understand 9.8 unemployment – in reality a much higher number filled with Americans out of work for so long they have fallen off the rolls.

The Beltway crowd and the Einsteins of high finance who never saw this economic collapse coming are now telling us with their usual breezy arrogance that the Great Recession is probably over. Their focus, of course, is on data, abstractions like the gross domestic product, not the continued suffering of living, breathing human beings struggling with the nightmare of joblessness.

Even Mr. Obama, in an interview with The Times, gave short shrift to the idea of an additional economic stimulus package, telling John Harwood a few weeks ago that the economy had likely turned a corner. “As you know,” the president said, “jobs tend to be a lagging indicator; they come last.”

The view of most American families is somewhat less blasé. …

Nearly one in four American families has suffered a job loss over the past year, according to a survey released by the Economic Policy Institute. Nearly 1 in 10 Americans is officially unemployed, and the real-world jobless rate is worse.

It is a nightmare. No one is blasé when they are worried how they are going to feed their families. What about the porkulus package? Is this administration waiting to release most of the funds in 2010 to help them at the polls? If that is the case, shame on them.

Why should Obama understand when he isn’t spending his own money? Half million dollar pizza parties, an obscene amount spent on the inauguration and several million on this reckless Copenhagen junket show a frightening disconnect between Obama’s priorities and his fiduciary responsibility to the American people. Herbert continues:

The Obama administration seems hamstrung by the unemployment crisis. No big ideas have emerged. No dramatically creative initiatives. While devoting enormous amounts of energy to health care, and trying now to decide what to do about Afghanistan, the president has not even conveyed the sense of urgency that the crisis in employment warrants.

If that does not change, these staggering levels of joblessness have the potential to cripple not just the well-being of millions of American families, but any real prospects for sustained economic recovery and the political prospects of the president as well. An unemployed electorate is an unhappy electorate.

Mr. Herbert, they are already crippled, but instead of addressing the urgency of the economy and Afghanistan head on, we get what George Will calls The Obamas’ Narcissism on Display. Speaking of Mr. and Mrs. Obama’s speeches before the IOC last week,

…Their separate speeches to the International Olympic Committee were so dreadful, and in such a characteristic way, that they might be symptomatic of something that has serious implications for American governance.

Both Obamas gave heartfelt speeches about … themselves. Although the working of the committee’s mind is murky, it could reasonably have rejected Chicago’s bid for the 2016 games on aesthetic grounds — unless narcissism has suddenly become an Olympic sport.

George Will suggested that since the Obamas used so many “I” and “me” references in their speeches, Obama’s genius speechwriters (Favreau et al) should have substituted the words I and me with “sauerkraut” to underscore the ‘antic nature of their excessive appearances.’ Someone needs to tell the Obamas that what is compelling about America is all Americans – all colors of the rainbow, all states, all social strata – together. All of us. Not just the two of them. And all of us are hurting out here. Our soldiers are hurting, too.

Will also points to Obama’s excessive use of cliché:

“At this defining moment,” a moment “when the fate of each nation is inextricably linked to the fate of all nations” in “this ever-shrinking world,” he aspires to “forge new partnerships with the nations and the peoples of the world.”
…
Does our Cicero even glance at his speeches before reading them in public?

All this is indicative of a man not connected to his words or not caring enough about either his audience or the subject at hand to come up with anything better than patented brand phrases that some focus group told him “resonate” with the public.

Our soldiers and our economy need a coherent plan. Now. He has had ample time to figure this out, as has Congress. Too much energy is focused on infighting for a health care plan that is such an incoherent monstrosity that they should trash it and start over. This is not even supposed to take effect until 2013, after the next election. Hmmm I wonder why. Clearly, that leaves health care the lease urgent issue of the three now.

On Afghanistan and the economy, pressing matters where lives, jobs and homes are on the line – where is the president? Will concludes:

Unhappy will be a president whose defining adjective is “vain.”

In keeping with the vanity of this man’s administration, we also see that nothing this man does is his own fault. This is the job he wanted. And a majority of the electorate voted him in to do it. What is he waiting for? There is no one else to blame if he hems and haws so long that Afghanistan is lost. There is no one else to blame if he insists on focusing on parts of an agenda that are not helping put the American people back to work. This is his presidency now. So I’ll ask again.

Mr. President, why did you want this job?

In Newsweek, Howard Fineman opines about The Limits of Charisma. When sycophants like Fineman say “Mr. President, please stay off TV” and are worried enough to warn the President that it’s time to fish or cut bait, we are all in hot water.

My fellow writers and I have posted many stories these last two years detailing the same Obama shortcomings that Mr. Fineman covers here. But of course, we are just bloggers, the people who spread rumors and complain without cause. Right? In February I posted The Cost of Enabling Obama, detailing the dangers of pushing his cult of personality with no vetting. He had just been inaugurated and big media was still honeymooning, defending President Obama’s every move. That phase is over – much to the chagrin and dismay of our Celebrity-in-Chief.

Fineman states:

If ubiquity were the measure of a presidency, Barack Obama would already be grinning at us from Mount Rushmore. But of course it is not. Despite his many words and television appearances, our elegant and eloquent president remains more an emblem of change than an agent of it.
[snip]
The president’s problem isn’t that he is too visible; it’s the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches.

The phrase, “words, just words,” springs to mind. Fineman actually agrees with his conservative WaPo colleague Charles Krauthammer that our President is just a tad narcissistic. Fineman notes Obama’s “endless, worthy to-do list—health care, climate change, bank reform, global capital regulation, AfPak, the Middle East,” as yet has “no boxes checked “done.”” (more...)

ABC’s Jake Tapper reported last night that the President’s Political Arm Follows His Lead in Drumming Up Support for Health Care Reform Push — by Criticizing Media.

In his August 20, 2009, meeting with supporters at the Democratic National Committee and its “Organizing for America” (OFA) arm – formerly the “Obama for America” campaign – President Obama blamed the media for the fact that many untrue claims made by opponents of his health care reform push had been accepted by many Americans as fact.

Stating that end of life care was “previously considered a bipartisan concept,” the president said, “this used to be just a sensible thing that everybody could agree to.”

But it “suddenly became ‘Death Panels,’ and scared Grandma,” he said, “and it’s just irresponsible.”

“Scared Grandma?” Can our President say anything that doesn’t sound condescending and insulting?

The president added, “I have to say, part of the reason it spreads is the way reporting is done today. If somebody puts out misinformation, ‘Obama’s Creating Death Panels,’ then the way the news report comes across is: ‘Today such-and-such accused President Obama of putting forward death panels. The White House responded that that wasn’t true.’ And then they go on to the next story. And what they don’t say is, ‘In fact it isn’t true.’”

Even more preposterous than the President demonizing “grandma” and anyone else angered by the arrogant, flatfooted handling of health care reform legislation, he is now demonizing the press, his strongest allies.

No “death panels” eh? Glad to hear it. But I wonder why a Senate subcommittee then promptly removed a suspicious sounding provision from their bill right after Sarah Palin made a stink about it on her Facebook page. Even Obama cheerleader Eugene Robinson admitted she had a point. His monstrous health care bill (I think there are 5) has not even been formulated yet, but the Obama Administration is going full steam ahead selling it to the American people, criticizing anyone questioning their audacity in ramming through a bill no one understands. The latest we hear is that Obama has backed off the public option. This magical health care legislation morphs into something new daily.

As Tapper points out:

Today OFA sent out an email to supporters continuing this line of criticism. (You can see the email HERE.)

“Over the past few months, two things have become clear about the fight for health insurance reform,” writes OFA director Mitch Stewart. “1. Our opponents will create and spread outrageous lies to try to stop President Obama from creating real change. 2. We just can’t count on the media to debunk them.”

Obama cannot count on the media? Not two months ago, he made fun of the media’s fawning when he joked about rolling over in bed to find Brian Williams lying beside him. The President is also being disingenuous. When the “death panels” comment hit the net, the press was all over itself debunking it, and insulting Palin once again. The American people saw through the many conflicting statements on health care and decided they weren’t buying. That is the real issue. But the President can’t come out and tell the American people off for not being seduced by more smoke and mirrors.

This comment is the pièce de resistance…

Stewart then quoted President Obama from August 20, and said supporters need to “double our own efforts to get the truth out. That means more organizers running door-to-door canvases and phone banks to educate our neighbors, more events to spread the word to Congress, and more ads on the air countering the smears. And we’ll need the money to pay for it all. Can you chip in to help make it happen?”

“Stepping in when the media fails is a daunting challenge,” Stewart writes.

Yes, let’s go door to door for more bullying. Let’s raise lots more money people don’t have to push a plan when we’re still not sure what’s in it.

So far, this administration has not earned enough points with the American people to convince us we should take legislation this important on faith. Stewart has a lot of nerve to talk about what should be done when the media fails to do its job. I think there are still a good number of Hillary’s 18,000,000 voters who might like to get a piece of that action.

No one, not even President George Bush ever had such loving, sycophantic treatment by the press. More than owing contributors to his huge war chest, President Obama owes the mainstream media for their blind praise and abject refusal to vet him throughout 2008. That was reason numero uno why this man was elected. Now he is criticizing the press for actually daring to let a little real news see the light of day. In reality, he is criticizing the fact that press efforts to minimize the gravity of grass roots opposition has backfired.

Of course we need reform, but before we do something drastic to 1/6th of the economy in such perilous times, let’s make sure we are doing something to help, not hurt. The Obama Administration has once again chosen bullying and hubris over returning to the drawing board to fix the problem.

The media still defends the President at every turn. It is an indicator of negative public sentiment when the President feels he must resort to criticism of an organism that has largely functioned as his own personal PR firm for 20 months. It will be interesting to see if any of our so called journalists finally declare enough is enough and remember the way they USED to do their jobs.

We’re waiting…

Even when I don’t agree with Charles Krauthammer, I so enjoy reading him. But his latest WaPo commentary on the President, entitled Obama Hovers From on High is spot on. Few columnists or commentators (well, except us, of course, ahem) came to the conclusion as early or called Mr. Obama out on the carpet as often for his narcissism, moral relativism and use of revisionist history as well as Mr. Krauthammer:

When President Obama returned from his first European trip, I observed that while over there he had been “acting the philosopher-king who hovers above the fray mediating” between America and the world. Now that Obama has returned from his “Muslim world” pilgrimage, even the left agrees. “Obama’s standing above the country, above — above the world. He’s sort of God,” Newsweek’s Evan Thomas said to a concurring Chris Matthews, reflecting on Obama’s lofty perception of himself as the great transcender.

Not that Obama considers himself divine. (He sees himself as merely messianic, or, at worst, apostolic.) But he does position himself as hovering above mere mortals, mere country, to gaze benignly upon the darkling plain beneath him where ignorant armies clash by night, blind to the common humanity that only he can see. Traveling the world, he brings the gospel of understanding and godly forbearance. We have all sinned against each other. We must now look beyond that and walk together to the sunny uplands of comity and understanding. He shall guide you.

Poetry in motion, Mr. K. Here is one of many examples he offers of President Obama’s dangerous moral equivalencies:

(C) Obama offered Muslims a careful admonition about women’s rights, noting how denying women education impoverishes a country — balanced, of course, with this: “Issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam.” Example? “The struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life.”

Well, yes. On the one hand, there certainly is some American university where the women’s softball team has received insufficient Title IX funds — while, on the other hand, Saudi women showing ankle are beaten in the street, Afghan school girls have acid thrown in their faces, and Iranian women are publicly stoned to death for adultery. (Gays, as well — but then again we have Prop 8.) We all have our shortcomings, our national foibles. Who’s to judge?

That’s the problem with Obama’s transcultural evenhandedness. It gives the veneer of professorial sophistication to the most simple-minded observation: Of course there are rights and wrongs in all human affairs. Our species is a fallen one. But that doesn’t mean that these rights and wrongs are of equal weight.

A CIA rent-a-mob in a coup 56 years ago does not balance the hostage-takings, throat-slittings, terror bombings and wanton slaughters perpetrated for 30 years by a thug regime in Tehran (and its surrogates) that our own State Department calls the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism.”
(snip)
Even on freedom of religion, Obama could not resist the compulsion to find fault with his own country: “For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation” — disgracefully giving the impression to a foreign audience not versed in our laws that there is active discrimination against Muslims, when the only restriction, applied to all donors regardless of religion, is on funding charities that serve as fronts for terror.

And here Mr. Krauthammer sums it up perfectly:

For all of his philosophy, the philosopher-king protests too much. Obama undoubtedly thinks he is demonstrating historical magnanimity with all these moral equivalencies and self-flagellating apologetics. On the contrary. He’s showing cheap condescension, an unseemly hunger for applause and a willingness to distort history for political effect.

But this is not the first time President Obama has engaged in this dangerous revisionism, or given a foreign country a pass on their behavior so as to appear warm and fuzzy.

Last summer, I wrote an article, The Panderer Forgets The Panzers, commenting on then-nominee Barack Obama’s speech before the German people in front of the Victory Column (the Siegessäule) in Berlin:

“The Siegessäule in Berlin was moved to where it is now by Adolf Hitler. [Hitler] saw it as a symbol of German superiority…in wartime.
(snip)
Let us put location aside for the moment. His speech, which contains positive and positively vague concepts for how we must work to tear all walls down as part of the global community, is the usual pabulum; fine as far as it goes. No specifics are offered, just a photo op for Obama to enjoy adulation and applause of thousands for clearing his throat.

What is not fine is this statement:

People of the world – look at Berlin!

Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle.

“On the field of battle?” That sounds so honorable! Like two worthy adversaries fighting over a plot of land or a political principle. Look at Berlin, indeed.

His feel good moment designed to pander to his current audience, just as he seeks to pander to any audience for whom he performs, conveniently omits the harsh reality that we were not battling an honorable adversary. We were battling Nazi Germany. You remember: the people responsible for exterminating millions of Jews.

How nice of Senator Obama to leave out any mention of the Holocaust so he wouldn’t make the German people gathered for “Obamafest” feel bad, while vendors were busy selling souvenir buttons depicting him in lederhosen holding a bunch of beer steins.
Instead he chooses to dwell on the Berlin Wall and raised the specter of the Cold War. He makes the Russian people the bad guys in this equation for splitting up Berlin and making half of it communist – suddenly the ‘Wall’ is the culprit. Yes, but surely, there were other culprits.

He fails to mention in his speech that the Russians were allied with the United States against the Germans – the true enemy in World War II.

Obviously, as the child of a Holocaust survivor it is important to me that this fact not be forgotten. Although my father could never forgive the German people, even at the time of his death, I vowed I would never live a life carrying old hatred with me. I would not make his legacy mine. So let me be clear, it is certainly not hatred for the German people living today that prompts my statements; quite the contrary.

The present world will never be able to apologize for the past one.

Nevertheless, I will not excuse revisionist history for the convenience of Obama crafting a sound bite around the concept of “walls coming down.” He cannot omit the fact that the Soviets did fight by our side in this cause. The Soviet tanks he complains of in his speech were also used against the Nazis.

Senator Obama also conveniently forgets how many concentration camps were liberated by the Soviets, including the largest concentration camp of all, Auschwitz – the one that Obama falsely claimed his uncle helped to liberate when he was, again, pandering to a Jewish audience a couple of months ago.

Whatever Russia’s motives, the fact remains that they were very instrumental in breaking Hitler’s back and bringing a faster end to the war – a fact it is most inappropriate for Obama to forget simply because it does not coincide with the narrative of his pretty platitudes.

Once again, Obama works to make his current audience feel comfortable, forgiving them any past transgressions…

On June 4, 2009, when visiting Buchenwald concentration camp, Barack Obama, by his remarks, rebuked Iran and its leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for his repeated insistence that the Holocaust did not happen. President Obama, at that moment, was able to muster all sorts of sorrow and horror over the Holocaust – which was ironically missing from all or any part of his speech before the German people the year before. Most unfortunately, what this says to me is that he is willing to re-craft sound bites and emotions for a political purpose that suits him best at the moment. Obviously, standing at Buchenwald, what suited the purpose is to try to isolate surrounding countries from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and make the man as unpopular as possible. Great idea. However, The horrors Mr. Obama discussed that day were no less horrible the year before when, for political purposes, he completely chose to omit them from his speech.

It is most disturbing that President Obama is continuing this pattern in Cairo and elsewhere, redrafting history to suit his immediate political purpose.

As Mr. Krauthammer correctly concludes:

Distorting history is not truth-telling but the telling of soft lies. Creating false equivalencies is not moral leadership but moral abdication. And hovering above it all, above country and history, is a sign not of transcendence but of a disturbing ambivalence toward one’s own country.