There's been a lot of talk about the President lately, and I think most of it is missing the point. I'm going to try to look at things from a different angle.
If you look at what the administration - the President, the White House, and the Democratic Party in Congress (It is true that Rahm Emanuel, Harry Reid and Max Baucus should be considered, not just one man, regardless of his job title.) have done the last two years - it all falls into three catagories:
- Efforts that would be positive, but are inadequate or ineffective because the entire American structure is too badly corrupted. Perhaps the most visible of these is bank reform, or the stimulus package.
- Outright broken promises. DADT. In this catagory I would include things like the midddle east war, where he (Obama) did not actually say that he would do something, or even said that he would do something else, but was elected on the assumption that he would do what was clearly the right thing. Withdrawing from Afghanistan, prosecuting Bush, Cheney, et all.
- Outright betrayals. Signing the Patriot Act extension and expansion.
I think most would put HCR under #1; personally I say #3 - but that's another argument; here the details are not the point. Where you put anything specific says more about you than him.
At this point most discussions devolve into arguing over why. I say why only matters if you think it is important to know why because you think that his and his administration's intentions can be addressed. Personally, I don't think it matters why, but I'll go there to explain why I don't think it matters:
- President Obama believes that because he is a black man, or because he is not a right-wing sociopath, he must appear rational, and thereore reasonable, and therefore conciliatory. Any competent observer would look at the results of this strategy and conclude that anyone who believes in this strategy must be insane. If so he must be politely but strongly criticized until he listens.
- He believes that the situation is better than it appears. My personal opinion is that anyone who believes that is insane.
- He is afraid of the consequences of taking stronger action. "If I regulate them they'll completely collapse the economy out of spite." "If I try harder I'll just sound partisan and lose the election." If he believes that if he fires Ben Bernake he will get 25% unemployment we need to tell hin that we have his back - but only if he deserves it.
- He is corrupt. If so tell him having a "D" after his name isn't good enough and make it stick. It may be hard, it may even be suicidal, but it's the only way. (This is a safer strategy if we are talking about Blanche Lincoln rather than President Obama, but the concept still holds.)
In conclusion, respectful, but strong, criticism is the best strategy, regardless; accusations and vitriol are counterproductive, but telling a Democrat that he can be corrupt or spineless as long as he is less corrupt than the Republicans is how we have found ourselves with nothing but Republicans and corrupt, spineless Democrats.