Green Room

Looking Back and Crying

posted at 11:04 am on December 5, 2009 by

“Some day we’ll look back on this and laugh.” That’s the standard cold-comfort line that one supposedly utters when in the midst of a dire situation.

The line came to mind as I perused this morning’s headlines at Real Clear Politics. It appears that several columnists have already begun looking back on the presidency of Barack Obama to date. But they’re not laughing.

Dana Milbank of the WaPo writes in a column titled “Obama the Mortal” of the discovery by “parishioners in the Church of Obama” that “that their spiritual leader is a false prophet.” Milbank, who got into a little hot water during the campaign when he called Obama presumptuous for behaving as though he had already won the election (heavens!), seems to take some perverse delight in chronicling the disillusionment of Obama acolytes like Michael Moore. Good for Milbank.

Writing from the myopic side, NYT columnist Charles Blow (rhymes with schmo) writes in typically high-blown fashion of his own pain and that of other blacks who “dared to dream anew, envisioning a future in which Obama’s election would be the catalyst for an era of prosperity and more racial harmony.” Is it not amazing for a black to write in the most public of forums of “the cultural capital” he and fellow blacks expected to accrue from “the ascension of the first black president”? You have to admire the man’s chutzpah, I suppose, for openly acknowledging the outrageous expectation many black people had in pulling the lever for Obama last November.

Even Mary Mitchell of the Chicago Sun-Times is cynical about the Lord God Obama’s turning out to be little more than just another shucking-and-jiving politician. Her column addresses the mini-scandal surrounding White House Social Secretary and Michelle Obama bud Desiree Rogers, who has been granted immunity from testifying about her role on the recent State Dinner gate crashers on the basis of “executive privilege.” My prediction, incidentally, is that Rogers will soon be joining that growing crowd beneath the bus, made up of people Barack Obama “thought he knew.”

My only question is when the American people will consign Obama himself to that same well-deserved fate on the grounds that he’s not the man they thought they knew.

Cross-posted at Zombie Contentions

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Really only two choices Howard: 2012 and the location of his Presidential Library. Unless of course he finds some way to commit an act more egregious than Clinton, poor enough behavior to get the Senate to vote “aye” on impeachment also.

Step right up, place your bets…..

Robert17 on December 5, 2009 at 11:49 AM

We still have to wait for both the 2010 midterm elections and for Obama to decide whether or not he wants to do Clintonian triangulation on as many issues as possible to save his job in 2012.

He was forced to triangulate on the Afghan troop committment after putting it off as long as possible, because unlike, say, health care, where passage of a bill that creates a train wreck could still be at least attempted to be spun the left’s way, Obama couldn’t take the chance that a quick pull out would lead to a Taliban win, a new al Qaida safe-zone and a new round of terror attacks on the U.S. But on the other issues he and his aides can delude themselves into believing the Obama ‘charm’ and his omnipresence on TV through 2012 will allow him to continue to try and push a far-left agenda, even if his party gets clobbered next November.

Doing that would avoid those “Obama is a traitor to the cause” columns by people like Moore or Blow, but it wouldn’t solve the “Obama is a wimp” column assault from those same people, who in the back of their minds were expecting the conservatives to either vanish after the 2008 election or for Obama & Co. to solve the problem in a Hugo Chavez-like manner (i.e. shut down talk radio via renewal of the Fairness Doctrine, regulate Fox News into insignificance and clamp down on freedom of speech on the Internet).

But if Obama had a take-charge, authoritarian personality, voters would have sniffed that out in the 2008 primary, and he would have lost to Hillary. He is a wimp, who wants others to do the hard lifting and ego-brusing of factions of his own party while he comes in at the end and takes the credit (kind of like not arriving in Copenhagen until the end of the climate summit). But the president can’t do that.

Obama will have more people on the left like him through 2012 if he toughens up and fights for the left’s causes. But he’ll lose the moderate independent voters forever. Or he can follow the Clinton-Morris plan and toss the left overboard in 2011, and secretly hope the Republicans win at least one house of Congress next year so he’ll have something to triangulate against in ’12. But that would mean throwing virtually everyone who brought him to power under the bus, and I don’t know if Obama’s got the stomach to do that.

jon1979 on December 5, 2009 at 1:25 PM

hoodwinked, bamboozled, etc., etc…

homesickamerican on December 5, 2009 at 3:23 PM

I am thinking if this Republic survives till 2012, this bho will be in the history books as the worse president in our history. If we have the 1984 thing, the history books may not even give us the true picture of what is happening now. It might be nice to keep a record if any person would like to know what was happening.
L

letget on December 5, 2009 at 4:38 PM

Writing from the myopic side, NYT columnist Charles Blow (rhymes with schmo) writes in typically high-blown fashion of his own pain and that of other blacks who “dared to dream anew, envisioning a future in which Obama’s election would be the catalyst for an era of prosperity and more racial harmony.

For the most part, politicians interfere with prosperity, they certainly don’t create it. In fairness, Obama did run as a tax cutting, deficit hawk moderate – but you would have to have had very little interest in looking into the man’s record to believe what he was claiming.

On the “racial harmony” front, the man is the protege of Bill Ayers and Rev Wright, how on earth could one ever presume that he would do anything but consistently play the race card? I would expect that in 10 years the “black community” will sorely regret the fact that Obama ended up being the first “black” president. And to go a step further, considering Obama’s particular ancestry, we may soon see the accusation that he isn’t a real “African-American” gaining traction.

18-1 on December 6, 2009 at 12:05 AM