What Obama Needs To Learn

My first post at TalkLeft in 2006 was titled "What Obama Needs To Learn From Hofstadter, Lincoln and FDR." A precursor to that piece was a post I wrote in 2004 at daily kos, Lessons from Lincoln. In these posts, I liberally borrowed from the writings of Digby, of "What Digby Said" fame.

Digby returns to that theme in this post:

This flawed system hums along most of the time fairly well, but in times of crisis it depends upon the good will of the minority to stop using its built in extraordinary powers to obstruct and join with the majority to solve the problem, whether its war or depression or, conceivably, environmental catastrophe. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a rump, regional minority party today which does not believe in compromise under any circumstances. They are very much like the people Lincoln spoke of in the famous Cooper Union speech I've referenced many, many times on this blog:

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them.

Much like the southern confederates of Lincoln's time, the modern Republicans believe that until Democrats sign on to their ideology, openly and without any deviation, they must stop them, no matter what the consequences. When they are in the majority, they dominate without apology and when they are in the minority, they throw themselves into the machinery to obstruct anything that isn't part of their agenda. They are perfectly willing to destroy the country.

Indeed. And I would add the lessons of FDR, and my new favorite speech, FDR's 1932 address at Oglethorpe University:

Here again, in the field of industry and business many of those whose primary solicitude is confined to the welfare of what they call capital have failed to read the lessons of the past few years and have been moved less by calm analysis of the needs of the Nation as a whole than by a blind determination to preserve their own special stakes in the economic order. . . .

. . . [O]ur basic trouble was not an insufficiency of capital. . . . We accumulated such a superabundance of capital that our great bankers were vying with each other, some of them employing questionable methods, in their efforts to lend this capital at home and abroad.

I believe that we are at the threshold of a fundamental change in our popular economic thought, that in the future we are going to think less about the producer and more about the consumer. Do what we may have to do to inject life into our ailing economic order, we cannot make it endure for long unless we can bring about a wiser, more equitable distribution of the national income.

. . . It is toward that objective that we must move if we are to profit by our recent experiences. Probably few will disagree that the goal is desirable. Yet many, of faint heart, fearful of change, sitting tightly on the roof-tops in the flood, will sternly resist striking out for it, lest they fail to attain it. Even among those who are ready to attempt the journey there will be violent differences of opinion as to how it should be made. So complex, so widely distributed over our whole society are the problems which confront us that men and women of common aim do not agree upon the method of attacking them. Such disagreement leads to doing nothing, to drifting. Agreement may come too late.

Let us not confuse objectives with methods. Too many so-called leaders of the Nation fail to see the forest because of the trees. Too many of them fail to recognize the vital necessity of planning for definite objectives. True leadership calls for the setting forth of the objectives and the rallying of public opinion in support of these objectives.

Do not confuse objectives with methods. When the Nation becomes substantially united in favor of planning the broad objectives of civilization, then true leadership must unite thought behind definite methods.

The country needs and, unless I mistake its temper, the country demands bold, persistent experimentation. It is common sense to take a method and try it: If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all, try something. The millions who are in want will not stand by silently forever while the things to satisfy their needs are within easy reach.

We need enthusiasm, imagination and the ability to face facts, even unpleasant ones, bravely. We need to correct, by drastic means if necessary, the faults in our economic system from which we now suffer. We need the courage of the young. Yours is not the task of making your way in the world, but the task of remaking the world which you will find before you. May every one of us be granted the courage, the faith and the vision to give the best that is in us to that remaking!

FDR delivered change the nation believe in. Obama must do the same. And phony lobbyists bans, and fruitless attempts at the post partisan unity shctick will not get it done. Obama must engage in "bold, persistent experimentation." The times and the problems we face demand it.

Speaking for me only

< Who's To Blame For The "Business As Usual" Disappointment ? | Tuesday Morning Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I guess I just don't get Obama (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by ruffian on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 09:53:09 AM EST
    It is possible he is playing an entirely different game from anything I can understand. How else can I explain his belief that Bill Richardson is the only Dem fit to be commerce secretary, and if we can't get him we need to get a Republican that is so partisan that he won't take the job for the sake of his country unless his senate seat stays in partisan hands? Doesn't Obama condone that stand by appointing him? That is way beyond post-partisan unity schtick.

    He is making bold experiments, but not in the policy areas where they are warranted.

    "A rump, regional party" (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Radiowalla on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 11:08:27 AM EST
    Once again, Digby nails it.

    It's time for Obama to flick them off, like so many flies, and get about the business of delivering on "the change we need."  

    Our new Secretary of Commerce once voted to abolish the department he now will head.  Is that what Obama has in mind?  Was that part of his platform?  

    I've begun to lose interest in this new administration.

    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 11:34:38 AM EST
    The brother from another planet will help him with the schooling.  I particularly liked this part:

    The stylistic and philosophical implications of the choice became even clearer when Mr. Steele appeared before House Republicans at a retreat on Saturday. Mr. Steele celebrated their refusal to give Mr. Obama a single vote for his economic recovery plan -- albeit in language that was perhaps a tad eyebrow-raising, given the soberness of the country's economic problems and the concern of some Republicans that the party was skating on thin ice.

    "The goose egg you laid on the president's desk was just beautiful," he said.

    Goose egg indeed.

    Michael Steele...oy. (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Anne on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 11:52:09 AM EST
    Maryland would like to take this opportunity to thank the RNC for finally taking Steele off our hands.

    [shaking head, rolling eyes]


    Image. The Rs wanted (none / 0) (#17)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:21:44 PM EST
    their own tall, telegenic black spokesperson.  I hope he has a handsome wife and really cute kids for the magazine photo ops...

    Is the public that shallow? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Fabian on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 01:39:24 PM EST
    (IMO - yes.)

    Ipso facto. (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 01:43:20 PM EST
    The evidence speaks for itself.

    American Idol.


    The media is that shallow (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by BernieO on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 02:45:36 PM EST
    and they are the ones generally calling the shots, unfortunately. Steele apparently also said "bipartisanship is overrated". If the Dems had half a brain they would be all over TV pointing that out along as proof that Republicans have no intention of being bipartisan.

    This shouldn't be OJT (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 11:38:54 AM EST
    If two decisive defeats of the Republican platform hasn't convinced Obama that they really don't have a lot of good ideas, I don't know what will.

    He needs to get a grip on reality and face the facts that the American public has flat out rejected the Republican Party. He should quit denying he's a Democrat. His omnipotent image of being above the parties is wearing thin.

    Obama is still campaigning. (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by oldpro on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:25:15 PM EST
    Not good.

    Digby and BTD nail it but Obama doesn't seem to fit the necessary role of Democratic leader of the country.

    Gawd, this is so painful to watch.

    Obama is "devising ways to limit (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:30:17 PM EST
    executive pay" but bandaids aren't going to work.  What is needed is a semi-socialist framework for the both the stimulus package and rest of the bailout.  The banks are using tax money to make themselves richer by sucking off profit now and being in position to receive obscene profits if the economy recovers.  They're buying other banks, and they're using our money to hurt unemployed Americans hurt by the economy.  Without the "no-restrictions bailout," banks would negotiate settlements with people who've lost their jobs.  Instead, they're using tax dollars to pay lawyers to go after Americans in trouble.  The banks screwed up the economy, not the American workers who can't find jobs.  Our government should be by the people, for the people, of the people.  Why are we allowing the very same people who caused high jobless rates to use our money going after good workers who are only out of work because of the economy, not due to any fault of their own?  Our government and our greedy corporatists created this mess.  We should have every expectation that our government take care of our needs now, not the super wealthy's wishes.

    We need to immediately cancel the rest of the $350 billion bailout and use our money to invest in our future, not the super wealthy bankers and investors.  Add those funds to the stimulus plan, and increase it to cover costs for stabilizing the middle class, not the banks.  Step one is to offer low interest, long term mortgages to anyone facing foreclosure on an owner occupied property with at least 25% equity (sorry, no flippers) and who can pay at least the first half year or 12 months of lowered payments using savings, unemployment or wages, even if they have to dip in to retirement accounts to do so.  Then we need to allow people to withdraw from retirement funds without penalty or tax withholding, if used for the purpose of making payments on their owner occupied homes.  Then we need to retool & retrain the workforce, not just slap together a bunch of disjointed expenditures (like the $650 million allocated for the Digital-to-Analog Converter Box Program and the $1 billion for the Census).  Funding the arts is nice ($50 million for the NEA), but in a time of emergency, focusing on the basics is more defensible.  For economic reasons, we need to immediately reduce redevelopment money in Iraq and withhold funds from Israel, especially given the recent bombings of the West Bank.  (Small example: We've been paying for five years for Iraqi professors and students to attend college in the US. It would be better to fund retraining for unemployed Americans.  The State Dept and US AID are full of goodies like this.)  Add all of that up and we should have a tidy sum available to help out the millions of Americans who just lost half their retirement funds and are losing their homes because of the economy, not because they're not good workers or because they're flipping real estate.  

    Buying mortgages should provide relief to banks, but not an infusion of capital that they can immediately pass on to their CEOs or throw Super Bowl parties with.  It fixes the root of the problem while avoiding embarrassment as people find out about the opulence of bank executives.  Without the infusion, some of those executives will be out of work like the rest of the country.  If buying their distressed mortgages is not enough for them, tough luck.  As banks go out of business, the government should buy assets that will eventually pay off returns back to investors:  Us.  If the government can't manage them, credit unions will gladly step up to the plate to provide no-risk management of investments.  Again, the pay back should be to the people, the taxpayers and their children and grandchildren who will have to bear the cost of this stimulus program.  

    The key here is that changing our framework from plutocratic to semi-socialist or ptochocratic.  Taxpayers should get to own and reap the benefits from what we pay for.

    Amen! (none / 0) (#40)
    by otherlisa on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 05:30:55 PM EST
    Because right now we the taxpayers get nothing.

    Josh Marshall's calling it "Sh1tiBank." I guess the kidnappers released him and took back his imposter.


    I am sad that (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by Mike Pridmore on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 04:26:39 PM EST
    I had it so right almost a year ago here:

    Digby described it this way:

        The truth is that Republicans out of power believe in total obstruction. They are perfectly happy to block all progressive legislation because they know they will suffer no consequences for it from the mild mannered Democrats and the bipartisan zombies.

    I agree with Markos Moulitsas who said the problem Democrats have lately in Washington is "valuing compromise over confrontation."  (link) Markos's schtick has been to rail against the DLC centrists which he associates with the Clintons.  But he has failed to appropriately apply that same venom to centrist triangulator Barack Obama. (Obamaism = Clintonism)

    Inaugural balls (4.40 / 5) (#2)
    by Dadler on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 09:53:59 AM EST
    He needs to get a pair of them and quickly.  But I fear, instead, he is going to try even HARDER (read "more capitulation") to be post-partisan.  If he has a genuine intellect in that head, he will realize how naive he has been.  If not, we're in deep, Deep, DEEP sh*t.  My real hunch is he simply cannot bear the thought, much less the reality, of having to be truly confrontational, which, it goes without saying, is what the Dems need to do with the Repubs and yesterday.  Will they?  I hate to say I doubt it, but I do.  And it will all start from a lack of will, spine, what have you, from the top.

    I fear you're correct re confrontation (none / 0) (#9)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 10:45:49 AM EST
    as a fear of his.  He avoided it throughout the campaign.  Instead, it was incredibly passive-aggressive -- and that connotes a fear of confrontation.  I heard psychologists having a field day talking about it, and books will be written about it.

    Love your opening line.  Cracked me up.


    Hey, maybe he gives his enemies (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:27:21 PM EST
    the finger when they're not looking---
    i'm referring to the Democrats, of course.

    Why spend time referring back to the primaries (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:36:48 PM EST
    when you could be thinking about what we should be doing to climb out of this mess our country's in?  Maybe you don't like Obama, you think he was rude to Hillary, that's understandable.  But isn't fixing this mess more urgent than taking silly jabs at Obama?

    We have a president who's asking for our involvement.  Let's get over the resentment from last year and start the long process of taking our government back.  If progressives don't come up with valid, useful suggestions, the Repubs will get their say instead.  


    I don't believe his spiel about (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:41:43 PM EST
    getting the people involved. What I see so far is that Obama is involved more in kissing Republican a$$ than in trying to pass urgent legislation.

    If a$$ kissing gets Senate votes (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by MyLeftMind on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:54:57 PM EST
    I can live with it.  If Repubs vote for the stimulus, they own it on some level.  Sure, they can still criticize components of it, but how much more can a president do than Obama's outreach for their involvement?  My preference would be to remove most of the fluff, replace it with specific support for the middle class (mortgage and credit relief) and get just enough Senators to pass the thing.   I would also ensure that most of the money is spent in Blue states (our prez, our congresscritters voted for it) with comparable funds directed to states whose elected Repubs also support it.  

    But that's me.  If you prefer to say he's no good, he's not really asking for our input or help, so there's no point in getting involved, then I have to ask how are you different from the House Repubs who made a statement with their unified No votes?  


    So how did that work last week? (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 04:42:49 PM EST
    All those Repub votes for Obama's bill.  Zero.

    Doesn't matter. What is important is (none / 0) (#45)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:02:20 PM EST
    whether or not the stimulus works.  If it works and the economy is picking up, any Repub who supported this Dem stimulus plan is going to look better than the jerks who didn't.  In fact, their lack of support can be held against them at the voting both.  Like McCain's foolish vote against veterans' benefits last year, some of the info about what elected Repubs do actually gets through to the otherwise mindless drones who have voted for them in the past.

    If the stimulus fails, Dems will look worse than ever, but so what, we'll all be screwed anyway.


    By the way, that moment was (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:45:59 PM EST
    supremely revealing about Obama's character.
    I have never seen another candidate do anything remotely as immature.

    ohmigosh... (3.50 / 2) (#30)
    by JThomas on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 03:12:35 PM EST
    you are still clinging to that imaginery finger the Obama was supposed to be giving to Hillary?

    This is truly funny. Do you ever listen to yourself?  Sad,but funny.


    Another creepy denier. (3.25 / 4) (#31)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 03:49:02 PM EST
    Look, the  action couldn't have been any more clear.
    Don't try to "re-educate" me.

    Huh (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 04:02:43 PM EST
    Let's get over the resentment from last year and start the long process of taking our government back.  If progressives don't come up with valid, useful suggestions, the Repubs will get their say instead.

    Progressives have come up with valid, useful suggestions.  Where have you been? It's Obama who appears willing to toss them out. Obama is the one who's going out of his way to accomodate Republicans.

    So far as the resentment of last year is concerned, the overwhelming majority of us voted for Obama in the general election.

    The problem now is that Obama appears to be doing exactly what many of us feared he'd do if nominated and elected.

    Get over your hero worship and look at what's happening.

    If he starts getting ripped from his own side maybe he'll wise up.


    Hero worship? I don't think so. (none / 0) (#46)
    by MyLeftMind on Fri Feb 13, 2009 at 06:25:44 PM EST
    I'm happy to criticize my own Party and our Prez.  But if he reaches out and makes a big deal of being bipartisan, I'm glad to use his efforts to our advantage in the future.  

    The continuing references to the primary, the implications that Obama was mean to Hillary, or that he gave her the finger during a debate, those are the not-so-useful comments I'm referring to here.


    Those who ignore history . . . (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by Cream City on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 04:42:04 PM EST
    and you know the rest.  The past is prologue.

    Or you can be like my new kitten, who lives in a perpetual state of startlement (no other word for it).  And chase your tail a lot, too.


    My kitten (none / 0) (#39)
    by otherlisa on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 05:27:44 PM EST
    is afraid of nothing and attacks the 22 pound cat. And me! My kitten doesn't mind a little confrontation.

    She's also fuzzy and purrs.


    He's no FDR. I don't know why you didn't (4.40 / 5) (#3)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 10:00:27 AM EST
    see that all along.  He ran on "phony lobbyists bans" and a "post partisan unity shctick".  He believes in it.  Still, I hope he learns, we all have to hope he does.  What I want to know is what are Obama's principles?  What does he believe in, particularly in regards to income inequality?  It's early, but so far I really have no idea.

    I don't recall Obama ever (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by dk on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 10:07:51 AM EST
    being described as a policy wonk (correct me if I'm wrong, anyone) so I assume he relies on the opinions of others.  So, it's important to see who he surrounds himself with.

    So, apparently his next major appointment, Judd Gregg as Commerce Secretary, believes in privatizing social security (h/t Lambert at Corrente).  And there you have it.


    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 04:25:00 PM EST
    I remember his Milton Friedman Memorial Economics Team during the primaries.



    He said so himself - (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by denise on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 09:08:09 PM EST
    that it didn't matter if he was up on the issues because his advisers would be.

    Since he was going to be listening to all points of view, this was not reassuring. Depending on who gets his ear, he could come up with just about anything. And we are in the dark.


    Economically, Obama's principles (none / 0) (#20)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:29:23 PM EST
    are Eisenhower Republican or worse, IMO.
    He can't help mouthing off the vague nonsense about industry and initiative that works so well when Republicans want to raise taxes on the poor.
    On other issues, including foreign policy, he is better---well, unless Afghanistan becomes the next Iraq.

    The subject of the post (2.00 / 1) (#38)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 04:53:17 PM EST
    is what Obama needs to learn.

    He needs to learn what FDR and Lincoln both knew BEFORE they entered office.

    Both knew that the opposition was incorrigible and insincere.

    I don't really know if Obama will ever understand.  He seems to have few if any convictions and seems to have a conceit that stands in for evaluating reality.

    The GOP vote in the House should have been an education in reality but it appears that he's willing to do anything to maintain that conceit.

    well, maybe Obama knows that (none / 0) (#42)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 07:27:34 PM EST
    we can all get along, Kumbayah!

    Was FDR flip flopping after he got elected? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Saul on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 10:18:15 AM EST
    I don't know, but if FDR was flip flopping maybe after he got elected maybe he might  not have been able to  accomplished what he did.

    I say that Obama must do both now.  Stick to his promises and yes solve the crisis. You don't have to sacrifice one for the other.  It is his fault for setting his I am the good guy bar so high.  Now people are going to hold him to it regardless of the crisis.  

    Sticking to his promises is the least I expect of Obama.  If he happen to solve the crisis then more power to him.  Solving the crisis is his job but that does not allowing to go back  on his promises no matter how bad the crisis are.  

    The problem here is, (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Radix on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 10:22:12 AM EST
    if Obama sticks to his promises and doesn't solve the problem, he's a one term wonder. If, however, he solves the problems and doesn't stick to his promises, he serves two terms. Which do you think he'll shoot for?

    This one could be different though (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Saul on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 10:37:19 AM EST
    Yep if you solve the crisis and broke all your promises in doing it, you are assuming most people will forgive him after four years.  I say many will not.  

    I know I won't.  

    He preached his promises before he got elected and millions voted for him on those promises.  If he happens to be lucky and solve the crisis at the sacrifice of these promises then I not so sure that it will be a wash.


    I don't understand this thinking (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by esmense on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 11:24:58 AM EST
    I want leaders to do what the realities of the moment require -- and often, in terms of policy, that may turn out to be something very different from what they proposed during a campaign.

    Of course, promises like having "the most honest administration in history" or "the most bipartisan" aren't policy proposals. They are campaign gimmicks meant to assert the candidate's moral superiority over the competition. If you voted for candidates on the basis of their presumed greater moral purity, of course you might be righteously disappointed and angry when they turn out to be just very human (bright and savvy) politicians after all.


    It's deeper than that (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Saul on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 12:43:17 PM EST
    This one was to be the one that really changed things.  I am aware that pol are pol but I have not seen anything that precludes Obama from keeping with his original promises and still be able to solve the crisis. There is no need for a trade off.

    Also if you tricked me just so you could get elected then shame on you and I will not support you no matter how good you solve the crisis.


    If people (none / 0) (#35)
    by cal1942 on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 04:34:39 PM EST
    go back to work they won't give a damn what was promised.

    They won't care how it was done or whose sensibilities were assaulted.

    People who are really up against it need good paying jobs.  If they get a good job and you ask them if they forgive Obama for breaking some of his promises they'll look at you like you're a space alien.


    Eveyone has their level of scruples (none / 0) (#44)
    by Saul on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 09:14:13 PM EST

    Yes, he was. He ran on reducing government (none / 0) (#7)
    by masslib on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 10:34:41 AM EST
    spending by one/third, which of course he didn't even attempt.  Instead he put 1000's of people to work within his first 10 days as President as temporary workers of the federal government.  That number swelled to 2.5 million, so yeah, he flip flopped.

    I guess that was a positive flip flop (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Saul on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 10:50:09 AM EST
    If FDR's promise was to keep a bunch of people from being unemployed and then he flip flops to employed them then I guess he saw the wisdom of his mistake.

    If Bush would have flip flopped from allowing torture to no torture  then yes that would be a positive flip flop.

    I'm concerned when flip flops are negative.  When they promote the worse and not the better.  


    I am hoping Obama doesn't need (none / 0) (#11)
    by vicndabx on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 10:56:34 AM EST
    an in-your-face crisis to either grow some stones or see the light.  Lincoln had the (at the time) threat of civil war, FDR had the Depresssion.  Both impacted a whole lot of folks before either President kicked it into high gear.

    Not gonna happen (none / 0) (#41)
    by blogtopus on Tue Feb 03, 2009 at 07:17:30 PM EST
    If I were to hold my breath waiting for Obama to act like the President we need (and WANT, fer chrissake), I might as well start swimming to England the long way.

    I'm not saying Obama is a failure. We are being given exactly what we should have expected. He is a tremendous success for the low standards we're setting.