And clearly what’s interesting about Obama is he’s very decisive. He has a process of, “We’ve got this problem. Let’s hear everyone out. Let’s look at it.” And then he decides, and in most cases announces it. And so, there are all of those unlanded planes. And I think people are, as you suggest, waiting to see what happens, seeing if they’re collisions, crashes, or if just some of these planes disappear from the radar, which is quite likely.

Obama sounds like Jean-Luc Picard on Star Trek: Next Generation. He just goes to the conference room, listens to his subordinates, comes to a decision, says “Make it so,” and by the end of the TV hour, everything works out.

And sure, a part of leadership can look like that. But Obama lacks both the long and sober deliberation that big issues require and the follow-through as well. Instead he fobs off the $780 billion stimulus to Pelosi and Reid, then goes on to his next 130 major decisions.

Kennedy had the stones to face him down (just), but the Nadless One will invite the Bear to target our interests anywhere: after all, he has nothing but contempt for the nation he allegedly leads, and would rejoice in our pain. As long as he gets to call shots and make strafing runs over Manhattan in Air Force One (whoopee!), and take the First Heifer on obscenely expensive dates on our dime.

Marie Antoinette wasn’t a patch on this guy when it comes to carelessness.

The Van Dyk article is worth reading also as support for Obama’s demagoguery which still eludes nyomythus.

A big part of the Obama campaign that appealed to moderates and independents was Obama’s claims to bipartisanship and bridge-building. Then there were his claims to transparency, honesty, post-racialism, and fiscal responsibility that comforted many voters.

He has not made good on any of those promises.

Of course, as neo notes, Van Dyk gets Obama wrong. VD imagines that Obama got elected and then, was misled by staffers, Clinton retreads, and the Democratic Congress. Obama sadly lost his way but by pressing a RESET button he can return to the Good, Pure, 2008 Obama, and we call get back to hopin’ and changin’.

Bah.

The fact that it was mistranslated was the least of what was wrong. It was the most juvenile foreign policy stunt I’ve seen in my lifetime. Honest to god, that idea should never have gotten out of committee. Obama is representing the United States, not himself, which he mostly seems to believe. If he thinks foreign policy should change direction then he should change it. But by trying to pretend that a country can just blink it’s eyes and call a do over is ridiculous and makes him look unserious. And you don’t want to look unserious in the eyes of the Russians.

I hope that made sense. I’m having trouble putting into words what I’m thinking. Without taking it too far, I think what really pisses me off (and that incident really did piss me off) is that it’s almost a form of treason. He wasn’t just disagreeing with his predecessor and changing direction (which is his prerogative) but he was almost siding with Russia and disavowing the country he’s leading. It was a stab in the back. There is a mature, grown-up way to take a new direction in foreign policy and there’s a petty, ridiculous, immature way to do it that makes your countrymen look bad and that was it.

It’s like a lot of these “liberals” who seem to think international relations are between the Democrats and foreign countries and the Republicans and foreign countries. They seem to have no concept that it’s between the United States and foreign countries. It doesn’t make you lovable to act like a dickhead toward your fellow countrymen in front the world. It makes you look like a dickhead.

I just read the Van Dyk piece. How he makes the case for Obama as of November 2008 is very interesting:

1. Obama would end the toxic partisanship of the last 16 years [by putting the left wing in charge, or just by shutting down the conservatives?]
2. He’s black, and that makes us old Civil Rights veterans feel good
3. He’s smart– “intellect” and “judgment” [so why don’t we get to see his transcript?]

Mrs. Oblio said this line of reasoning is remarkably shallow. If number 1 and number 3 are no longer operative, this three-legged intellectual edifice is in serious trouble.