Obama's annoying pattern on tough decisions.

[European Socialist]

First of all--even considering the unacceptable. Then he needs to weigh all options. Then he needs to teeter on the brink of all options for months. Then he decides on the "lite" version of the unacceptable. It's kinda like he is getting you to tolerate cold water by splashing you up with it for awhile.

[jonnyblitz]

1. excellent post. nt

[eShirl]

2. weigh all the options, excluding the most liberal

[Donnachaidh]

3. pissing down my back and telling me it's raining

yup. That's what he's doing.

[SammyWinstonJack]

4. K&R

[Romulox]

5. The above simply describes his PR campaign

The things the President truly supports (i.e. bankster bailouts, war spending, mandatory private insurance) are implemented without fail.

[Lorien]

20. Indeed. Bush got want he wanted by stating what he wanted and demanding that

he be given it. Obama makes no definitive statements about anything, keeps everyone guessing and hoping for the best but fearing the worst, then we end up angry about what passes but it's only 80-90% as horrible as it could have been, so we're supposed to feel grateful. Meanwhile, it's EXACTLY what team Obama wanted all along. Different tactic, same results.

[AndrewP]

6. K&R

[MatthewStLouis]

7. Sadly that's what it seems like.

President Obama is smart and I agree with him on almost everything. But sometimes you have to take a stand from the beginning. Not everything is up for compromise.

[murielm99]

8. For the first time, I am going to affirm a post that is

critical of Obama's methods and actions. I have tried to hold back and give him a chance.

The only options he should be weighing now are all the ways he can get tough with the republicans. How many ways can he say no to them? How many ways can he stop them?

[Marr]

9. Well, it' about to ramp up. He's a one-termer and he knows it.

What's more, he's got a real excuse for pushing corporate legislation and ripping the rug out from under everyone else now; a Republican House. Remember when the Democratic leadership had to bend over backwards to push Republican legislation? All the silly excuses, all the inexplicable "compromise" when it wasn't necessary? Yeah, now the excuse is *almost* plausible.

[conspirator]

10. Don't forget that Obama is a corporate candidate. And so was Hillary.

Only corporate candidates can win the rigged elections

[bullwinkle428]

11. I saw a similarity to the "frog boiling" analogy as well. K&R!

[Demoiselle]

12. It's more than annoying. It's fatal. nt

[joeybee12]

13. KNR

[treestar]

14. So you're annoyed that he does not decide on his gut like the

Decider did, but considers the facts first?

[European Socialist]

16. you are right--I'm more annoyed with the decisions.

[SammyWinstonJack]

18. +1. Annoying life destroying decisions. Yay!

:puke:

[elehhhhna]

15. annoying? that's mild.

[Poll_Blind]

17. K&R. You nailed it.

PB

[Imagevision]

19. I agree, Obama's act is getting old... I actually contributed, I was fooled.

[PurityOfEssence]

21. This has been his modus operandi from the beginning

Why is this a surprise? Look at health care: not even the slightest whiff of an attempt ever at single payer, and the most slippery sidestepping of a public option ever seen outside of the NHL. Then he repeatedly hid behind Congress, stating that it was their purview and that he was letting the system work as it does. The public option was studiously given the loudest of silences, as was much of the substance of the plan, and only when things were floundering and his personal image was at stake did he step in. Meanwhile, Rahm was repeatedly loosed on non-moderates to twist their arms and get them in line.

The whole underpinning of the "plan" was to buy off Big Pharma and try to curry enough favor to get it through. What was cobbled together was the worst of most worlds, with only a few things to its credit, like meek attempts to help people with pre-existing conditions.

Pelosi is one of the real heroes of health care, such as it is, and she had to often fight against the administration and slog through the miasma caused by their studious field-playing to get anything done. Now she may be sacrificed on the altar of the greater glory of the president. I had my last straw well before the '08 election, but this will be a cringe to far for many others. (Yes, I voted for him in '08, and will do so in '12, unless something REALLY outrageous happens, AND there's a credible alternative to the left.)

It's too early to tell what's going on about Pelosi's future, but one thing is clear: the President has NOT stood up loudly and immediately and backed her. If the Dems were to jettison her, it would be craven idiocy of the first order, and just another taste of blood for the reactionaries who HATE any form of coexistence. If the White House either spurs this on or does nothing, it's despicable.

He has had a very good run of things as a one-trick pony: being all things to all people. The problem is that leading is different than campaigning, and one is bound to disappoint some people when those of differing opinion are starry-eyed and convinced you're with them. At some point, one has to choose. This spinelessness that's so inherent is not just artful tightrope walking, there's a bit of a stench of personal self-aggrandizement to it, and with so many people in such social and economic peril, that's just deplorable.

All things to all people isn't really anything to anyone, and for a movement so nauseatingly based on hero-worship of the individual, that's BIG trouble.

Then again, most of this doesn't matter unless extreme action is taken immediately on Global Warming.

Hahahahahahahahaha.

Back to the point of your post, though.

Many people have brought this up from his first appearance on the national stage, and it's not going to suddenly end. He's a smart guy, and if his ego realizes that he's in serious political trouble, he might actually live up to the common delusion that he'll turn and fight at some point. The problem with that supposition is that it comes from a baseless assumption of inherent liberalism. What, if anything, he REALLY believes in is anyone's guess, and only time will tell.

The sad truth at the moment seems to be what it's seemed to be all along: non-committal, glad-handing showmanship and deft evasion done with a balletic virtuosity.