I was in absolute agreement with you about the media pile-on. It reminds me of the scandal-storm that was supposed to wreck Obama's presidency: Benghazi, IRS, and another "gate" I can't remember. Yeah, whatever.

But then I read Politico's What's Wrong with President Obama? and the counterpoint, And What's Right With Obama? Actually, I didn't read "What's Wrong..." b/c I've already read a few hundred variations of that article. But I did read "What's Right..."

It's terrible. Politico obviously invited the authors to write the counterpoint so they could do the twin headlines, and they had trouble with it. Inspired, it was not. This what they came up with:

• He has a nice personality
• He's not crazy
• His opponents are crazy
• The Democratic Party is doing OK
• He's lucky

Seriously. It's perhaps the dumbest article on Obama strengths that I've ever read.

But then I thought about it a little and contemplated what I might write if I were asked. I couldn't come up with much. I mean, better than these dumbasses, but the truth is, Obama's greatest strength is that he's not a disaster. The economy hasn't tanked, he hasn't mired us in any new wars, there have been no horrific "gates", he was reelected, and his poll ratings aren't terrible. But he hasn't done anything that in any way sets him apart, no brilliant tactics, no impressive victories. Even his triumphs, like the ACA, were slightly depressing. I can't think of any president in the 20th century who has been so consistently unexceptional. And that, in my opinion, is What's Wrong with Obama.

Rambling thoughts.

Dowd didn't say anything I haven't thought. (She specializes in making naughty thoughts public.)

What none of the armchair psychologists (or psychobabblers, if you like--it's just naughty fun sometimes) ever talk about, though, is something that always mystified me (having never seen anything beyond vague manipulative babble about hope and dreams in all those campaign speeches that turned so many on.) And still mystifies me to this day:

Why did he want to be President so bad?

He never even held an executive position before (except Harvard Review?), had never tried it out to see if he'd like it.

Wazzit? Dreams from his father?

Which takes me back to what Dowd said. The only thing I can think of as an answer is that he thought he could inspire people, i.e., hold a room. And seems like he waaay long ago seems to have given up on that.

And why did he run again? To finish what? Was it like "for the good of the country" so not to have a risk of GOP taking over again? Even though the job was becoming tortuous for him to execute?

Another thing. See lotsa Congressional Dems complaining that things have gotten much worse on the interaction front since Rahm Emmanuel left. Why didn't he get another Rahm Emmanuel type if he doesn't like dealing with Congress himself? What was that decision all about, to just say "fuck it I'm just gonna do what I can all by my lonesome"?

Oxy,

I was going to do a separate blog but I think this fits here as it relates to various assessments of Obama's performance to date.  Some of the regulars here might remember me as one of the last supporters of a futile HRC campaign back in '08, but I guess I'm not surprised that I've become one of the president's more regular defenders--in a very relative kind of way.

Don't get me wrong, because I have quite a bit to be disappointed about.  I knew, as most of us the union field knew or should have known that his promise to pursue necessary labor law reforms back in '08 was a pipe dream--and that is because given the presence of Democratic senators in Red States there was no way he as a political matter was going to waste "capital" on an issue when he was pursuing healthcare.  And, I'm not an economist--and full disclosure I do represent building trades unions--but I just don't understand how the marriage of job creation and a crumbling nationwide infrastructure has not been a national priority.  It's absurd I think--like eating the seed corn.

On the ACA, which you refer to above, I have to be careful because I understand very well why many American unions are unhappy--I've been at the table more times than I can tell you in situations where working folks have given up pay increases to hold on to affordable and quality medical care.  There's a real disconnect between long-standing American labor policy that favors the voluntary resolution of labor disputes and the application of the ACA to collectively bargained plans.  I've read at times from folks on the left that unions are being selfish in this area--I respectfully disagree.  On the other hand, I never bought into this notion that the president could have achieved the type of Canadian or Western European systems many of us favor--that, I believe, just reflects a wishful disregard of Washington politics.

On foreign policy, I'm not sure if anyone noticed something Acanuck posted the other day about the dismal display of diplomacy in connection with our southern neighbors in Brazil.  It's embarrassing to say the least, and our brother from up north is right to call us on this. 

But. . .betcha knew this was coming! :)

But focusing on foreign policy, Obama goofed quite a bit in his first term.  On the other hand, who can fault him for authorizing his secretary of state to spend so much time trying to bring Palestinians and Israelis together?  What if it works?   And who can fault him on his fundamental understanding that we need to  listen better to folks in the Middle East and Asia?   I have serious doubts about the current Iranian overtures, but hell at least it looks like the president is going to do the right thing and take Rouhani at his word and give diplomacy a chance.  And, for those who might not pay so much attention to Israel, one might not have noticed that Kerry just went there and from what I know of Israeli politics and Bibi and those to his right, it will be a diplomatic success if Bibi et al, to the extent that they can, just keep their collective mouths closed on this one.  So I see that as positive.

And, here's the kicker, because really the most recent issue is the whole chemical weapons debate we've been participating in.  Like David Ignatius in the column I link to and quote fully below, I submit that style and $2.50 get you on the IRT.  

And I think that this is the way history works--I'm sure Michael W. can tell us how awkwardly the U.S. entered WWI, after he ran in 1916 on a platform of "He Kept us Out of the War."  And, when we went in, folks like my great uncle were placed in trenches with wholly inadequate training, and at first it was disaster.  Funny anecdote, my grandfather of blessed memory, followed his older brothers to Europe, but he didn't get there until April 1919, and he used to claim -- and I believed him -- that once he got there the other side knew it was time to surrender!! :)

Ignatius makes some really good points in this column, I think, so anyway here it is:

Obama is criticized for right result on Syria

By David Ignatius, Published: September 18

How did it happen that, less than a year after Barack Obama convincingly won reelection, his every move as president now draws hoots and catcalls from nearly every point on the political spectrum?

Perhaps his Syria policy really is a story of “epic incompetence,” as Charles Krauthammer opined last week. Maybe he has an “unbelievably small” presidency, as Marc Thiessen commented, or that no one is afraid of him, as Ruth Marcus argued. And that’s just a sampling of opinion from my colleagues at The Post.

What’s puzzling about this latest bout of Obama-phobia is that recent developments in Syria have generally been positive from the standpoint of U.S. interests.

Obama has accomplished goals that most Americans endorse, given the unpalatable menu of choices. Polls suggest that the public overwhelmingly backs the course Obama has chosen. APost-ABC News surveyasked Americans if they endorsed the U.S.-Russian plan to dismantle Syrian chemical weapons as an alternative to missile strikes; 79 percent were supportive.

Yet the opinion of elites is sharply negative.

Here’s what I see when I deconstruct the Syria story:

●Russia has been drawn into a process of collecting and destroying Syria’s chemical arsenal. This has been a goal of U.S. policy for two years. It finally worked, thanks in part to Obama’s pledge to use military force to punish Syria if the Russians didn’t step up. In this messy world, there is considerable value in agreement by Moscow and Washington on the “soonest and safest” destruction of Syrian chemical weapons, with a timetable for implementation.

●The United Nations has taken new steps to affirm the international norm against the use of chemical weapons. The 41-page report delivered this week to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is not a joke, as some predicted; it’s a surprisingly thorough, careful documentation of the horrific attack on Aug. 21. The report doesn’t directly accuse Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of using the weapons; assessing blame, unfortunately, wasn’t part of the U.N. mandate. But the evidence demolishes the absurd Russian-Syrian claim that the weapons were used by the rebels.

If you’re frustrated by a feckless and unreliable United Nations, you should be encouraged by a line in the opening paragraph of the report: “The international community has a moral responsibility to hold accountable those responsible and for ensuring that chemical weapons can never re-emerge as an instrument of warfare.”

●The United States and Russia have restarted their push for negotiations in Geneva toward a cease-fire and a political transition in Syria. Yes, it’s unfortunate that Assad is still in power, but is his hold really stronger now that he has been forced to admit he has chemical weapons and agreed to destroy them? I’m not so sure. The United States and Russia have agreed to meet in New York in late September with U.N. representative Lakhdar Brahimi to continue this political process. The Russians know that Assad must go eventually; they’ve now moved a little closer to a framework for beginning the transition. Suggestion: Assad’s official “term of office” expires next year.

●Amid all this diplomacy, Obama has pressed ahead with a covert program of training and assistance for the moderate Syrian rebel forces headed by Gen. Salim Idriss. My Syrian sources say that these CIA-trained commandos make a difference as they take the field: They begin to tip the balance away from the jihadist fighters associated with al-Qaeda, who (as the Russians correctly warn) are a dangerously potent factor in the opposition.

The showdown ahead between moderates and extremists was signaled this week when the al-Qaeda-linked Islamic State of Iraq and al-Shams announced a military campaign, emphatically code-named “Expunging Filth,” against two of Idriss’s brigades in Aleppo. This second Syrian war is coming, and even the Russians may end up relieved that the CIA is training fighters who can counter the jihadists.

The mystery is why this outcome in Syria is derided by so many analysts in Washington. Partly, it must be the John McCain factor. The Arizona senator is in danger of becoming a kind of Republican version of Jesse Jackson, who shows up at every international crisis with his own plan for a solution, sometimes through personal mediation (as with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt), other times demanding military intervention (as in Syria). Because McCain is a distinguished figure, he commands respect even when his proposals have no political support at home.

Not so Obama. He can propose what the country wants, succeed at it and still get hammered as a failure.

I don't care what kind of tattoo he has on his back.  He is a good president for this time. The country is still transitioning out of the conservative area into a new direction.  It looks like it will take all eight years for the country to make it's leap.  I can tell you that the leap is not going to be in the direction of the far right.  That train has already derailed and is a mass of wreckage.  

The sad part is, that there is a built in inertia to our government.  Parlimentary systems respond much faster to needs then the system we have.  History will be good to the current presidency.  The GOP isn't going to make much inroads in 2014.  They have angered many different groups of voters, moreover they haven't stopped ragging on these groups. Besides we are into 5 years of a depression and that is thinning out the conservative rank and file.  I see it in Florida.  

Frankly, I blame Congress for the slow results.  That is where  the bad guys are.