If O had stuck to his date on this everyone would tune in or check to see what he said, caving like this beforehand deflates the whole thing before he even opens his mouth. It is clear he is putty in GOP hands.

You just don't get the reverse psychology thing. Obama set them up. Obama knew they would screw with the date because it was the same night as the clown show in Simi Valley. If Rethugs thought they had anything going they wouldn't care if Obama was the same night. Instead they're afraid to go up against him.

In this revised and intended scenario the media will have a field day with the clown show Wednesday night and Thursday. Obama's speech on Thursday comes before the NFL game, so in the aftermath no one is going to listen to the commentary from the thugs that night.

Uh, well that's it. How does that work for ya?

Well put.

All he has to do is tell the Secret Service to take over House chambers. We need Obama to be more like a dictator. The President has to be invited to speak to Congress.

The GOP is on record as not caring about jobs for the American people. This move by Boehner confirms their unpatriotic stance of the GOP.

That sounds all Noble.

But you do remember Gandhi was assassinated?

Two live dogs is better than one dead lion.

The best defense is a good offense.

There are lots of different ways to assert oneself, as you know, tmac. 

If Obama were to come out and be more assertive in a way that's dramatically out of the presidential persona he has established for himself at this point, say in a visibly very angry way, it may very well not come across well or be more helpful to him than not.  I don't think presidents can be effective when their dominant public persona comes off as angry.  It just leaves the public feeling as though they aren't up to the job, and it's unsettling.

Occasional anger, or more likely an occasional "edgy" public remark, isn't necessarily a problem for a president.  But it's unclear to me what that might look like in Obama in a way that would be more helpful to him than not.

There is the happy warrior model--FDR cheerfully welcoming the hatred of his most hating political adversaries.  Reagan was a happy warrior, seemingly almost always doing what he was doing with grace and a smile, whether it was firing the PATCO workers or whatever.  There was an English professor at my college, not mine, who was nicknamed by some of his students "The Smiling Screw".  That could have been Reagan's nickname.

Clinton was assertive at times in gaining the advantage on his opponents, almost always in ways that were relatively subtle and clever and did not publicly convey the sharp anger and vitriol he often directed at, or shared with, his aides.  

If this president does figure out how to be more assertive, and effectively so, it's going to have to be in his own way, almost surely not an in-your-face way.  That's just not who he is and because that isn't who he is, doing it that way probably would only make him look desperate and off kilter.  But that doesn't mean he can't figure out his own way or ways if he concludes that he needs to do more of that. 

I have to think what most folks here actually desire are the results of effective assertiveness, manifested in better policies and policy proposals, as well as in subtle, intangible subtexts this president creates in his conduct of the job--not the appearance of some intense combative attitude for its own sake.       

Given how he has sought to govern so far, this president faces a tricky task going forward if in fact he does intend to give greater attention to differences with his opponents.  His dominant MO, only more pronounced since November, has been all about bipartisanship and seeking and finding common ground and accommodation.  To flip the switch to campaign mode, where he is suddenly highlighting differences with his opponents and aggressively so, is kind of inherently at odds with not only his conduct in office, but his major public message in office so far, which has been an almost purely "process" message stressing the need for bipartisanship and accommodation, as opposed to, say, a focus on one or a small number of signature issues. 

Yes, and Ghandi was also aggressive, disruptive and non-violent in very much seeking to change the hearts and minds, preferably, but at any rate the policies, of the British.  He knew his own mind very well and had at least one clear objective.  He got some of what he wanted, not all by any means (see comment noting the partition he so wanted to avoid).  He talked a great deal about changing oneself and that was powerful and probably also very necessary in keeping the civil disobedience effort as disciplined as it was (same with King).  But he was under no illusions about the need to prevail over others who he saw as inflicting injustice, and committed to doing so indefinitely unless and until they decided to, or were forced to, change their practice. 

So I am challenging what seems to be your "either/or" characterization, in which one is either a Jet or a Shark, or Obama (who seems to me far more passive in trying to bring about change through prevailing over those blocking it than was, to take your example, Ghandi, as I tried to point out.)

Is that because Dick Cheney told you to do that?

The Post hacks strongest point seems to be Republican Senator DeMint's threats to 'tie the Senate in knots' if Obama interfered with his 'watching the Republican debate'.

Since the GOP is not going to listen to, or do a damn thing Obama asks them to do, letting the GOP name the day seems absurd pandering. 

The point about Tupac (2Pac, Tu-Pak) was that people laughed at Chris Rock's joke about the shooting. Do you think the crowd would have laughed if Rock had substituted MLK or Malcolm?

I'd expect Stepin Fetchit to be doing rap songs denigrating women if he was coming along today. Of course Fetchit's trajectory may be telling. Few today find a great deal of humor in Fetchit's roles. The response to the performances is one of rejection. Black in the future may wonder what was wrong with contemporary blacks who went from black is beautiful to hardcore rap.

Do  you think the misogyny portrayed in hardcore rap lyrics is bad?