Reply #15: That's a damningly thorough assessment

[PurityOfEssence]

I go back to the character issue once again, since this is what was used to elect him; there were precious few specifics of policy, and we were reassured that the pristine morality of the man would see his way through troubled waters.

Instead, what we have is not a leader, but a constant campaigner. He left Pelosi out in the wind and sent Rahm to twist left arms, ducking and weaving and never advocating any real specifics, let the health care bill get watered down to a pharma giveaway and a sloppy boondoggle with few true--although some, to be sure--progress. Then, of course, he took credit.

You'll note how many times the concept of taking Qaddafi's money from our banks and giving it to the rebels has been hinted at, too: obviously, the trial balloons aren't really flying here, and that would be a step too far.

Still, for me the flagrant overstepping of the UN Participation Act is a more nasty bit of illegal high-handedness, but it's all one big mess anyway. The very arrogance of it all would be bad enough even if it was sincerely to help innocent civilians, when it's unmistakably about money and oil.

Meanwhile, it's a middle-of-the-road non-war with vague plans and disregard for the very civilians its supposed to be protecting: we're happy to have some sloppy game of attrition and starve people out.

The whole appeal of this man was supposed to be his otherworldly honesty and integrity. He wasn't Bill Clinton, who we knew was a bit shady but presumed had his heart in the right place, he was new politics, a vision of hope and all that rot. It really rings so deeply, deeply false, and the pragmatism reeks more and more of mere opportunism.