Robert Gentel wrote:
P.S. Anyone who believed his campaign bullshit about being different from "Washington" deserves their disappointment. Obama is all about Obama. If he thinks that sticking to his purported ideals on stuff like Gitmo or torture would hurt him politically he will swap for a new set of ideals instead.
"These are my principled ideals, if they are politically inconvenient I have others."
That certainly does not describe my disappointment in Obama as a leader. It has always been clear that he has no problem tacking to the prevailing political winds. For instance, he supported "don't ask-don't tell" and opposed gay marriage when those were the politically safe positions to take, and then opposed "DADT" and abandoned DOMA when those became the politically safe positions to take. He came to Chicago not from any great love for the city but solely from political considerations. And I think it's pretty obvious he even chose his church affiliation because of political expediency. Believe me, he didn't shatter too many of my illusions.
When he spoke of the "audacity of hope," however, I expected a little more audacity from him. It turns out, though, that the audacity he was referring to was that of the voters in believing they could elect a guy like him to the presidency. As for himself, he has shown remarkably little audacity in office (apart from health care, which was audacious only in its initial concept). For the most part, he has carried over to the White House the worst traits of a typical Democratic senator: a dithering, cowardly unwillingness to do anything that might upset the petulantly loudmouthed Republican leadership. Indeed, his first major decision as the party nominee -- his choice of Joe Biden as a running-mate -- almost guaranteed that this style of non-leadership would be the hallmark of his administration.