“we see no sign that [Obama and Mitchell] were thinking more than one move down the board,”

That’s no way to play 3-D chess.

“DIPLOMACY 101”: A remarkably tough, even hostile, NYT lead editorial Saturday on Obama’s MidEast peace efforts. Beneath the headline “Diplomacy 101”, the paper says POTUS’ plan has “unraveled,” his “credibility is so diminished,” “we see no sign that [Obama and Mitchell] were thinking more than one move down the board,” and that “Obama backed down.” It even shoehorns in a parenthetical note that while “We don’t know exactly what happened … we are told that Mr. Obama relied more on the judgment of his political advisers – specifically his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel – than of his Mideast specialists.”

The only sop: “Washington isn’t the only one to blow it.”

I think this deserves a dead fish award to Rahm. Keep up the good work.

I think the sophisticates on the Left are discovering something really distasteful about Obama: he’s provincial. No matter what happens, his only reply is “But this is what we did in Chicago!” That’s his only experience, and he thinks it’s applicable to the whole world. Furthermore, he seems oblivious to the fact that his Chicago smarts are NOT working outside the little universe of Chicago politics; he just sails on, as if he’s convinced himself that somehow, in some invisible, under-the-table way, it IS working, and he has nothing to learn from anyone else. He’s like Mrs. Elton from “Emma”, perpetually talking about Maple Grove, which is her template for elegance and comfort, and cannot be dislodged from its position in her brain by anything else she may see or experience.

For quite a while I thought that Obama was ill served. Let’s face it, Rahm Emanuel is still a putz who plays power politics as if the White House was just a precinct of Chicago. Worse, he is immature, short sighted, not as smart as he thinks he is. And, all the while, he is extremely ambitious and vicious. Axelrod is still in campaign mode and, as a result, so is Obama. His mind is on astroturf at a time when the country has moved on. He can’t tell the difference in impact between the people who show up at the many tea parties and the phony astroturfers he invented and probably still manipulates through the SEIU and ACORN.

In the ordinary scheme of things, when you are losing your base of support and they are telling you it’s time to “change” advisors, Obama would throw Emanuel, Axelrod and the rest of the insider losers a dead fish but I don’t think he can. The high class liberal crowd is still enamored of Obama’s brilliance and thinks that if he brings in a new and more mature and dignified crew he will restore his stature as the “won”. He will actually act presidential not just read the speeches. But my take is that Obama is not as smart as they give credit for and the Chicago crowd knows just who Obama is and what he is (and is not) capable of doing. A new bevy of advisors would quickly discover, to their horror, that they voted for a guy who can read a mean speech but does not take advice or direction, no matter how wise or well intentioned. And, do you think Emanuel is the kind of loyal advisor who would keep his mouth shut? His book on his brilliance, his travails in the White House and how sorely he was needed to keep the program on track, is probably half written and presold to a publisher. Axelrod will also be hawking his a book, probably called something like, “Me Giapetto, Obama Pinnochio.”

The reality is that a more distinguished group of liberal advisors would not lean not nearly so far to the left as the current crowd and would not be acceptable on that basis.

What I can’t understand is that this White House does not learn from its mistakes. It would be great if they could build on their successes but, so far, there haven’t been any.

Remember, with this President, whatever the situation is today, it is better than it will be tomorrow. Enjoy today while you can!

Sort of like David Dinkins – the first (and last) black mayor of New York. I wouldn’t underestimate the unspoken determination of white Americans never again to invite such disaster upon their own heads. It won’t be publically admitted, but the burned hand teaches best, and they’ll have had many years of Obama-inflicted misery to harden their hearts against the sentimentality that swept him into power.

As for black Americans, I think it was Michelle Malkin who wrote that there was only ONE chance to be the FIRST black American president, and they threw it away on THIS.

Hey, I’m just having that “conversation about race” that Obama and Holder claim to want.

They should be careful what they wish for.

The effect of Obama’s presidency on US race relations is interesting, worrisome, and infrequently addressed.

I think I understand what you are saying about blacks. As individuals, they are just individuals to me, but in aggregate as blacks going on about being black, I’m pretty well done.

I suspect that the greater damage in race relations will occur in blacks’ attitudes whites.

I have to revisit that phrase. I think it’s the other way around.

I can’t speak for all whites, obviously, but my attitude towards blacks has definitely soured since November 2008, especially considering their persistent 90% approval for Obama, as mentioned in the Gallup article.

I have a real problem there.

Obama’s policies are clearly damaging America. Are blacks OK with that?