Consider the alternative……….

 While all the folks in the echo chamber, are getting their panties in bunch-because Ezra Klein had the wherewithal to suggest that America needs a more educated electorate– it might be useful to consider where we would be, if the other side had won. Which it very well could have, had not the queen of Wassila been elevated to a lofty status that she had neither earned, nor deserved.

Nonetheless, consider what might have been.

 

On balance, however, I think it is hard to argue that the country would not be in worse shape today under President McCain than it is in under President Obama. In foreign policy we would probably have a revival of neoconservatism, with incalculable damage to America’s reputation in the world. In domestic policy, President McCain might have used his veto power and an alliance with conservative Blue Dog Democrats in a Democratic majority Congress to salvage the Bush tax cuts and thwart an adequate stimulus. Then there’s regulatory reform of the financial sector, which has yet to occur. As deferent as the Obama administration is to Wall Street, can anyone doubt that a McCain administration would have been even more deferential?

The Obama administration deserves, and can benefit from, thoughtful criticism. But before giving up on Obama after only a few months, critics of this president should ask: WWMD? (What Would McCain Do?)

Is going after healthcare this year-a bridge too far? Probably. Clearly, Obama did not realize that this was an issue that  need a "preparation of the battlefield"-especially in light of the fact, as Ezra Klein notes-a hefty percentage of the adult American population has shown their ability to behave stupidly and be led around by demagogues. However, it is what he promised he would do. And like it or not-he appears to be trying to keep his promises.

Let’s start with foreign policy. Within the framework of U.S. geopolitical primacy shared by both parties, Barack Obama has departed significantly from the foreign policy of George W. Bush in both substance and style. With respect to substance, he is fulfilling his campaign promise to draw down U.S. involvement in Iraq cautiously while increasing resources for the fight against bin Laden’s jihadists and their Taliban supporters, who, unlike Saddam Hussein, planned or suborned the 9/11 attacks.

Matthew Dowd had perhaps the most apt analogy, I’ve heard in weeks about the firestorm that Obama let himself in for by not waiting till later to take on health care.  Obama is in the same position as Bush on Iraq. Like Bush-Obama took his eye off the ball, in this case it being the economy. The when things did not go the way it was supposed to-and the "insurgency" devolped, the administration lost the ability to control the message. Dowd is right when he states that Obama made a mistake in making this about the folks who are uninsured-instead of focusing on those who are covered, but are getting screwed by their insurance companies.  And the longer it goes on, the harder it gets to re-claim the initiative.  Obama does not have an overly ambitious guy like Petreaus waiting in the wings-that the people will blindly follow.  There is no surge when it comes to health care.

Its going to be a long summer-longer as people behave stupidly.