"Obama Has A 'Reputation For Playing A Little Soft' (Sam Stein reports Kucinich & Rather comments)

[KoKo]

Obama Has A 'Reputation For Playing A Little Soft'

Sam Stein
[e-mail]

One of the more surprising features of the pohttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/dan-rather-obama_n_779676.htmlst-midterm-election handwringing that has occurred on the Democratic side of the aisle has been the general unwillingness to pin the blame on the president.

By and large the retrospective criticism has been directed at the larger, more amorphous, party; as in, 'the party failed to aggressively defend its agenda,' or, 'the party reached too far after the 2008 elections.' Obama hasn't been absolved, by any measure. But he hasn't really been targeted forcefully either.

But on Friday, the one lawmaker who would seem likely to level the personalized critiques did so. Speaking at a Georgetown University event assessing the fallout of the midterms, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) argued that the cake was largely baked for Democrats when Obama failed to take advantage of the bully pulpit he was handed on inauguration.

"The dynamic that the country was expecting was stronger leadership from the White House," said the Ohio Democrat. "It would then pull the Congress along. And if the Republicans had a plan to basically frustrate the president, the president could go over their heads to the American people and summon their support and you would have seen a different result in the election frankly. That didn't happen."

"I want to go back to Inauguration Day," he added. "I had the chance to just sit up in like a catbird seat and see it all. And it was an amazing thing and I could feel the energy. I was thinking, my god we are at a moment.' And the energy dissipated. It was gone. And it didn't have to be that way.

More at........
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/05/dan-rather-obama_n_779676.html

[tularetom]

1. Kucinich is right on as usual - Dan Rather, who cares?

The congressman's words describe my own thoughts perfectly, but I don't see any value in including comments by an over the hill, never was, Walter Cronkite wannabe in any article about, well, anything. Rather is irrelevant.

And he's been irrelevant since at least September 17, 2001 when he did this fawning interview with David Letterman, crying like a little Boner and pledging undying loyalty to little boy bush.

http://www.nyjtimes.com/cover/terror/DaveandDan.htm

[Dennis Donovan]

3. Not for nothing, but...

He didn't pledge "undying" loyalty to Bush that night. He said we should stand behind him during the crisis. Many DUers did the same during that period (myself excluded, as I wasn't a member of DU until March 2002). Serch the DU archives for that time period and you'll see what I mean.

[onehandle]

2. President Obama chose to be Presidential rather than President.

There is a difference and this is a textbook case.

I think he chose this path to not appear as the opposition characterized him.

What he didn't understand was that nothing was going to stop them from painting with that brush.

Nothing.

[Dennis Donovan]

4. What troubles me the most is that he's had more-than-ample proof of this...

...since being elected, yet he still chooses to do so.:shrug:

[KoKo]

5. It's hard to fathom what he reads...what his real "core of belief is" at this point ...

when so many thought they "knew him" from his books and his background...that they could see inside his soul and see "A GOOD MAN...WHO WOULD TO THE RIGHT THING ...BECAUSE HE HAD A CONSCIENCE...and AN ACTIVIST BACKGROUND...and grew UP in CIRCUMSTANCES of BROKEN HOME like so many of us..

We don't know where that guy went? We thought one thing...and it's another thing.

People are complicated, for sure. But, should you run for President based on something you PRESENT TO THE PEOPLE as WHO YOU ARE?...and then TURN.

Who Knows? :shrug: