Armed Liberal's Obama and the Competence Gap offers this thought:
"The issue from my POV is that what attracted many of us to Obama was the competence that his campaign displayed.... So even if you disagreed somewhat with his politics or policies, you had comfort that the nation would be well-run.... The problem, as I see it, is that in his first year he's shown very little domestic competence (I think foreign affairs are a separate matter), and that he either never believed in the "new^2 liberalism" or got completely stuffed by the interest groups and their Congressional sponsors.
So the question is "now what?"
There's some truth to that, but overall, I lean more toward David Gerson's assessment in the Washington Post:
"Yet the main problem with his agenda was not its boldness but its utter predictability. In every early crucial domestic decision, Obama embraced, or deferred to, a conventional, unreconstructed congressional liberalism. His main legislative achievement -- the stimulus package -- was shaped more by pent-up congressional spending demands than any discernible economic theory.... A health-reform proposal that tried to achieve similar ends through market mechanisms - giving individuals an incentive to control costs - would have divided Republicans, ensuring its passage. The House and Senate health bills united Republicans in opposition to government price-setting and the prospect of rationing.
The administration's main problem is this: It has not contributed a single innovative, bipartisan idea on a major issue during its first year in office. Instead, it relied on its congressional majority to impose a tired leftism.... Obama's role in all this is difficult to read. Either he is a pragmatist who always seems to choose conventional liberalism or a liberal impersonating a pragmatist. It matters little. Obama has polarized the electorate in unprecedented ways. A recent Gallup poll found a 65 percentage-point gap between Democrats and Republicans in their approval of Obama, the largest for any president in his first year in office."
That would be more or less the opposite of what he promised on the campaign trail. Which can hardly be a surprise. What Sen. Scott Brown's [R-MA] victory showed is that the President is also beginning to polarize independents against him. Obama either reverses that, or he's cooked - and his party with him.
And the irony is, the State of the Union speech can't save him. The gap between rhetoric and reality is making itself felt, and it's eroding both his credibility and the effectiveness of his speeches. So whatever he says, it had better be appealing to those independents - and then, he had better get it done.
I don't personally believe he can. Marc wonders if he "either never believed in the "new^2 liberalism" or got completely stuffed by the interest groups and their Congressional sponsors." Gerson wonders if "he is a pragmatist who always seems to choose conventional liberalism or a liberal impersonating a pragmatist." That has an empirical answer, in his history and voting record. It made him one of the most left-wing Senators, and did not always, to put it politely, square with his publicly espoused views. And he has certainly been a very willing passenger on the President Pelosi Express since his election.
Which says to me that's he's a liberal, impersonating a pragmatist. One who never believed in any kind of new^2 liberalism but does believe in the Old Left a la Alinsky. He has had a lot of help in this from the Democrat-Media complex, which is increasingly seen as such, and from a cult-like following that's beginning to grate on folks who aren't members.
An impersonation running thin would be fine if the liberal solutions were popular, or working. Neither is true. So now we get to watch Obama manage the rhetoric-reality gap tonight, and look to see if he'll double-down (by stealth or open confrontation), or change course in some substantive way.
It won't be the defining moment of his Presidency. But what comes next might be.
I really liked that WAPO article; it crystallized why I was thoroughly unimpressed by Obama. Even though I come from a different political "place" than most of them, at least Clinton and Gore had some ideas about government that weren't "just give the bureaucrats more money and trust them to spend it wisely".
OTOH, Obama is an utterly predictable bore, who can be modeled with an expert system with ten or so production rules when it comes to decision-making. This is why I never bother listening to his speeches anymore - he never says anything remotely surprising or interesting.
The best thing Obama could do would be to go to war with Congress. But he won't, because in his mind he's one of them. Congress won't climb out of their earmark soup to save the nation from bankruptcy, what chance theyll do it to save Obama? But he doesn't believe that.
The real answer, too painful to mention, was known from the get-go: Obama lacks experience. He had very little experience in Illinois, the political system there wouldn't have allowed it. Now, we have a President likely to defer to the so-called experts in the room: COIN generals on Afghanistan policy, the State Department on foreign policy, the Congress on spending, former bankers on banking, and campaign consultants on running for office. This isn't necessarily outrageous. Foggy Bottom is certainly used to running foreign policy on its own. It's not innovative. It's not change. People are going to be disappointed.
It seems increasingly clear that they won't do it, even to save their own seats.
Don't be so sure. The man tends to shoot a little wild. If the country were a Swift Boat on the Mekong, he'd be the wrong guy to man the twin 50s.
Just wait until his own political doom is 10 months away, maybe even at the hands of a Democratic primary challenger. He'll declare war on dead orphans if he has to.
Not a bad speech. The man's a very good speaker.
What's also clear is, he's doubling down.
Gays in the military is the right move, morally. I've supported it here before. It's also savvy politically, because it's easy to defend as the right security move. We need all hands in this war.
Not so much with Immigration Reform. That's a major doubling down, and how it plays is going to be a big question mark. It's clearly aimed at the hispanic vote for 2010... but in insecure economic times, the potential for backlash is much greater. Especially if it's compounding doubts about the guy and his party that already exist.
Cap-and-Trade is gone - formally. No mention. Which means Obama will continue to use the EPA to try to do the same thing without a law, unless Congress blocks it. A bill to that effect has been introduced. We'll see what happen if it gains traction; it already has bipartisan co-sponsorship. Does Obama fight that, or fold?
I suspect he folds, and pushes immigration amnesty in its place.
The economy? Sounded like lip service to me. But that's what people will be watching.
The liberal-left agenda, modeled in about 10 decision rules, sounds about right to me.