I have been struck recently by more and more opinion pieces in the Post where reliably liberal writers write increasingly/incrementally critical pieces on Obama. Richard Cohen, who never has a bad word to say about the President (as long as it isn’t Bush), wrote a rather amazing piece on Tuesday entitled “Time for Obama to Act Like a President”, in which he roundly criticized Obama for continuing his presidential campaign in lieu of starting his presidency. In other words, it is time to stop talking and start doing. He focused a good deal on his “handling” of the situation in Iran, but he used that as a proxy for Obama’s performance (or lack thereof) in other areas. The piece struck me as much by its tenor as its content – Cohen seemed angered by the president’s behavior and performance.
I was not moved to write this piece however, until yesterday when I read Thomas Frank’s (the token liberal columnist of the Journal) column and almost fell out of my chair. I always read Frank’s columns with a mixture of shock and awe – I can’t think of a writer with whom I more profoundly disagree. Yesterday’s piece focused on the K Street lobbyists that continue to plague Washington in general and the White House in particular, despite Obama’s promise that lobbyists would hold no sway over his administration. The column’s title said it all: Obama and the K Street Set – Whatever happened to ‘change?’ Frank is clearly not amused, and given that he was questioning one of the core “planks” of the Obama platform – change – I wondered whether he is starting to regret his over-the-top support of Obama since well before the election.
I was at an event sponsored by the Hoover Institute yesterday and mentioned this to a fellow attendee who explained the increasing negativity of the “mainstream” media as Obama being “caught in the middle”. In his mind, Obama is being criticized by the left for not going far enough and the right for trying to go too far. I made the distinction that neither Cohen nor Frank was unhappy for individual policy positions but rather, Cohen blasted Obama for not being presidential while Frank practically accused Obama of being corrupt.
I thought that if Richard Cohen and Thomas Frank were going negative on Obama, who would turn against him next, the French?
Well in fact, yes.
Yesterday I read that French President Nicolas Sarkozy is incredibly frustrated with Obama’s handling of Iran – something that was clear from his statements made to the UN and the G-20. I also read from “reliable sources” that Sarkozy thinks Obama is “naïve”, “egotistical” and “utterly immature in foreign affairs”. This is somewhat of a contrast to Sarkozy’s reaction after Obama’s election, when he said, among other things: “in choosing you, the American people have chosen change, openness and optimism”, and “[your election] raises a great hope in France, in Europe and in the world – that of an open, united and strong America that will show a new way…” Contrast that with his sarcastic assessment this week of Obama’s dream of a nuclear-free world and his handling of the Iranian situation in general.
Just after the election I wondered how long it would take for people to understand that “hope” and “change” were not good reasons to elect an inexperienced man to be leader of the free world and frankly, it is happening sooner than I thought. My first glimpse of this was when two of my neighbors approached me individually over the summer and admitted they made a mistake with their votes. Then Obama’s ratings started (and continue) to drop across the country as more and more people woke up and started to pay attention to what Obama was proposing to do with his “mandate”. And the more I listen to people, the more negative comments I hear about the President and the state of our nation – they don’t have to say it, but I know many of them wish they had their votes back.
There will be nowhere for Obama to hide if the media, to which Obama owes much of his success, now starts to pile on. And if the media realizes they were duped into supporting Obama by “hope” and “change”, only to see him for what he really is – a smooth-talking, politics-as-usual, ineffectual president, the piling on could be as ugly as anything George W. Bush ever saw.
Posts
