I want to point something out.

[cali]

I am not, as most people here know, a radical or a purist, yet Obama is losing me. I don't mean that I won't vote for him if he runs again. I will. I tend to believe that the lesser of two evils is indeed preferable and I'm a die hard voter. I mean, I always vote. But I can see casting a symbolic vote against him in the primary. Be that as it may, there are a lot of people who become disillusioned who don't vote or vote third party or vote for republicans. I don't know that it means anything much that Obama is losing people like me who don't believe he's simply a corporate tool or a war monger, but believe that he's ineffective and weak.

We'll see.

[LiberalLoner]

1. I'm thinking like you are.

I always vote D too but have been really losing hope lately and have been very disappointed and depressed.

[AllentownJake]

2. All I have to say is you have been on fire lately

We disagree on some points, but I can't find fault in your logic. There was a vacuum in 2008 for a populist leader, he stepped in it. In 2009 the vacuum is being created again and it is only a matter of time till someone steps into it.

My fear is that it is a GOPer that effectively fills the vacuum and with the way things are right now, and even with the administrations economic predictions, the person in that vacuum wins in 2012.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

3. The odd truth is that he is not a very good politician

That's the one answer that doesn't get considered because everyone--even "haters"--conceded his political prowess long ago. (Haters need an explanation for success... I have never met a pug who didn't concede Clinton was a great politician)

As you know, I always had some of the John Edwards vibe with Obama. He never really reached me... it seemed like focus group hope stretched over a rather alarming desire to have a do-over of the 1990s, overlooking the fact that the nation had completely changed in the interim.

But he draws crowds. He is idolized by many. And he did win the election, albeit by a surprisingly small margin, given the circumstances. (2008 was supposed to be a blow-out, IMO, not a workmanlike win smaller than Clinton v. Dole.)

In our election horse-race culture anyone who wins an election must be a great politician. But his accomplishments were mostly organizational--and the work of others. He didn't win debates. He mishandled scandal-ish issues. He lost a lot of late primaries.

He is a smart, disciplined man who is an excellent manager, but that's not being a great politician.

He has not changed how voters think about any issue. He has done nothing to diminish the opposing party. He is not particularly trusted. And his power to inspire has proved to be as transient as that of an American Idol winner. (His influence in his own party is already reduced to suicide-pact level... it's reported that he told senators they have to pass HCR so he doesn't look bad because if he looks bad he can't help them much in 2010. Inspiring!)

And the worst part is that this is his game. He doesn't have a track record of going down then fighting back. Both Clintons--infuriating assholes that they were and are--performed better after painting themselves in a corner so you got a kind of Perils of Pauline thing... how will they get out of this scrape? But Obama is indeed no-drama. He is a game-plan guy.

Have a good plan and execute it.

But it seems that governing the United States is infinitely complex and thus improvisational.

Something Scarborough once said of Bush seems to apply to Obama also: "He doesn't fight well going backward"

That's what makes the "rope- a dope" fantasy so tedious. The rope-a-dope is a counter-punching strategy and Obama is not a counter-puncher.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

5. "Have a good plan and execute it" - there you go

Obama's step back from the process is the source for all the confusion and that has been noted often by many.

Governing by concensus usually results in stagnation. Lincoln had a "Team of Rivals" to get diverse opinions, but you never doubted that the decisions were coming from him.

Whether true or not, President Obama has appeared to be more of a bystander and an observer than a participantr in healthcare. That is not actually true, because we know he had a lot to do with initial "secretive" dealings with Pharma and lobbyists that took place in the White House, but he certainly was trying to do all that on the QT. The upshot is he is not getting either the credit or the blame (however you may see it ) for any leadership role that he has provided.

[Clio the Leo]

4. And I'm thinking....

... you were exactly the type that I had in mind last night...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x61711