Where’s Waldobama?

March 2, 2011

Ruth Marcus, a prominent columnist for The Washington Post and an Obama supporter (I know – a redundancy) has some pretty strong tea for Obama. This is from someone who, to quote her, “generally shares the president’s ideological perspective”:

For a man who won office talking about change we can believe in, Barack Obama can be a strangely passive president. There are a startling number of occasions in which the president has been missing in action — unwilling, reluctant or late to weigh in on the issue of the moment. He is, too often, more reactive than inspirational, more cautious than forceful.

Each of these instances can be explained on its own terms, as matters of legislative strategy, geopolitical calculation or political prudence.

He didn’t want to get mired in legislative details during the health care debate for fear of repeating the Clinton administration’s prescriptive, take-ours-or-leave-it approach. He doesn’t want to go first on proposing entitlement reform because history teaches that this is not the best route to a deal. He didn’t want to say anything too tough about Libya for fear of endangering Americans trapped there. He didn’t want to weigh in on the labor battle in Wisconsin because, well, it’s a swing state.

Yet the dots connect to form an unsettling portrait of a “Where’s Waldo?” presidency: You frequently have to squint to find the White House amid the larger landscape. (italics mine – ed.)

Is this really a surprise to any conservative who saw that his 143 days in the Senate and his record of voting “present” to preserve a clean legislative record was all part of a plan to hide his emptiness and promote electability? He was, and is, everything and nothing at the same time.

Here’s a link to a piece I wrote about this last August – a bit dated but still relevant.

Marcus goes on to say (in support of Obama – I think?):

If the president is being simultaneously accused of overreaching ambition and gutless fight-ducking, maybe he’s doing something right.

There is an old saying in poker and sports – “you can’t beat something with nothing”. Politics and elections are entirely something else altogether. In a media driven age where perception is valued more than reality and the saying “image is everything” has transcended from a bromide into the truth, we now have living evidence in the personage of Barack H. Obama that you can, in fact, beat something with nothing.

“Where’s Waldo?” indeed…

21 Responses to Where’s Waldobama?

  1. phineas gage on March 2, 2011 at 5:46 am

    Trying to polish a turd, so they can feel better about themselves for trying to reelect the turd.

    This ongoing liberal kabuki dance of denial will continue for the next year.

  2. IP727 on March 2, 2011 at 6:17 am

    Obammer is like a silent fart, you can smell it, but theire’s no one there to blame it on.

  3. IP727 on March 2, 2011 at 6:17 am


  4. IP727 on March 2, 2011 at 6:38 am

    Good link howard.

  5. anonymous un-RINO on March 2, 2011 at 6:41 am

    It doesn’t matter, because the lefty drones are gonna vote for Obambi no matter what. Voter enthusiasm may take a hit, but Soros will fund enough GOTV money to get the dead votes in and counted.

    So I wouldn’t worry about what the lefties are saying about Obambi. They don’t matter.

    It’s the Independents and Reagan Democrats that are of interest. They went for Obambi last time, and now that they know they went wrong, they’re liable to switch, but only if a responsible alternative is offered.

  6. Nate on March 2, 2011 at 6:56 am

    Yes, but who is the responsible alternative? Gov Kasich looks good so far, but would he even run? And, Newt looks to be throwing his hat in the ring, but how is that going to in down?

  7. IP727 on March 2, 2011 at 7:08 am

    A dried dog turd would be more “responsible” than what we have now.

  8. Jared H. McAndersen on March 2, 2011 at 7:49 am

    I know this is a shameless plug, but Ms. Marcus is about one month too late on this concept, my idea was a bit more graphic:



  9. phineas gage on March 2, 2011 at 8:09 am

    Pawlenty looks to be the best of a bad lot. Let’s hope he comes out of Iowa with a great deal of momentum and knocks Mittens out.

    One silver lining to the cloud that is Pawlenty’s less-than-inspiring public persona is that the media sharks will not be attracted as much, perhaps allowing Pawlenty to slide by with less scrutiny.

    This is particularly true if Palin and Christie act to draw the fire.

    In the general, Pawlenty will have to step it up or he will be destroyed by the marxist.

  10. IP727 on March 2, 2011 at 8:30 am

    <a href="union scum

  11. IP727 on March 2, 2011 at 8:30 am
  12. anonymous un-RINO on March 2, 2011 at 10:24 am

    Kasich is another one fitting the 2012 winning demographic, imo. But he just got elected governor, so he’ll not likely run.

  13. phineas gage on March 2, 2011 at 10:46 am


  14. anonymous un-RINO on March 2, 2011 at 11:27 am

    Santorum’s been out of the game for a while, and is closely associated with social conservative issues only, which isn’t in line with the Tea Party’s zeitgeist. I’m neutral about the guy, but note that he got beat last election, and by a bum. There are better options, and he’s got even less charisma than Pawlenty, if that’s possible. You can’t even be sure Santorum would win his own state, and that’s no way to run a railroad.

  15. jan on March 2, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    I don’t like Santorum. He had his day, and totally messed up. Now, he is trying to mold himself to the teas, or any other constituency who will listen to him. He looks weak in his attempts to put himself out there in such a pathetic way.

    Pawlenty is a ‘nice’ guy, but he makes little to no impressions on people.

    Mitt and Gingrich have so many holes in their constituencies.

    Palin is like fire water. She says stuff that about 35% of the conservative base loves. The rest thinks she is fine as a rabble rouser, not as a presidential leader.

    Daniels runs a finely tuned state, and has received kudos over that. But, many conservatives don’t like his “social truce” stance, in lieu of focusing on economical issues, and have kissed him off.

    Huckabee has baggage and I think likes the attention and caresses of being a potential presidential candidate, but is comfortable with making money and being on TV.

    Who’s left?

  16. phineas gage on March 2, 2011 at 3:59 pm

    Haley Barbour.

    Let’s elect a REAL Bubba this time around.

    If nothing else, that thick Mississipi drawl would drive the leftists into a frothing frenzy.

    So we’d have the entertainment factor. If we’re going to lose, we should at least have some fun.

  17. anonymous un-RINO on March 2, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    Donald Trump.

    Now, if you wanna shake up the game, get him in there. I have no clue what he believes on anything, but like you say, if you’re gonna lose, let’s at least have some fun.

  18. phineas gage on March 2, 2011 at 5:19 pm

    Yes, I should have thought of him

    He was good on Rush the other day.

    Why the hell not?

  19. jan on March 2, 2011 at 5:47 pm

    Donald Trump! Oh please! He’s on a self aggrandizement tour of the media, using a shot at the presidency as his vehicle. Why not that guy from 2 1/2 men series, if you’re going that far for amusement.

  20. anonymous un-RINO on March 3, 2011 at 3:23 am

    Hey, the RINOs gave us McLiar, and he’s at least as kooky as Charlie Sheen.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *