President Obama went on Sunday television talk shows yesterday to make his case for his administration’s plans. In some ways, his performance was successful, but in others, it left me feeling somewhat disappointed. To be sure, part of the problem was many of the answers were essentially the same ones, so after the first couple of programs, it became almost like watching the same play several nights running. The comparison to an actor isn’t entirely fair, of course, but it did pop into my head. President Obama is an effective speaker, like Ronald Reagan. Both men work well with a written text,and the have good delivery. But what struck me was this seemed to be Mr. Obama falling back into what he has excelled at – campaigning. As each program aired, it seemed much like the same speech, with slight modifications. Which is what candidates do on the campaign trail. I think the Sunday speech campaign had mixed results.

I think President Obama deserves credit for trying to put a stop to the excessive race-mongering from the media, and from selected members of his own party. In the response to the Wilson “you lie!” outburst, the problems of perpetual campaigning seem very obvious. The Democratic Party has used identity politics as a campaign and organizing tool for forty years, and it seems stuck in the rut of responding to every Republican comment as if it must be an act of classism, sexism, or racism. To President Carter, members of the Congressional Black Caucus, and selected Democratic partisans, Wilson was clearly an unreconstructed bigot, if not a Secessionist. The protesters at the August town Hall meetings were portrayed by some in Congress and some in the commentariat as dangerous rabble rousing populists or nativist bigots objecting to President Obama because ‘they can’t stand to see a Black man as their President.” This claim is a lot less credible, coming after eight years of an administration with two Black Secretaries of State, one a woman, and a Latino Attorney General. We might also remind President Carter and Congresswoman Maxine Waters that a substantial number of citizens supported Colin Powell for President on the Republican ticket rather than then-Governor Bush, and that President Obama received a substantial percentage of White votes. None of this suggests a broad, deep racial animus towards African-Americans. Are there some bigots who voted against President Obama because of his race? Certainly. To President Obama’s credit, he addressed this directly, noting that while there were people who voted against him for this reason, there were also people who had voted for him based on race. Then he made the crucial point: He is truing to effect a major change in the US government, and major changes are always controversial. Making a comparison to FDR, in this sense, is helpful, and Mr. Obama deserves credit for that. The New Deal was not uniformly welcome, and those who objected to FDRs programs included people doing so on the basis of principle – as do many of the protesters who made themselves heard at town hall meetings and last week end in Washington DC. Thank you Mr. President. The nation, and especially your friends in the Democratic leadership, needed to hear that. Now, whether they will listen remains to be seen.

Much of the remarks seemed to be the same support for the reform of health care, and renewing America’s place in the community of nations. All very much like a campaign. But was it effective? I don’t think that was as successful. Apparently others, such as Edward Lucas, at the Telegraph, are having second thoughts about President Obama as well. Lucas, in an article dated September 20, argues that President Obama is “beginning to look out of his depth.” Lucas notes that President Obama has not shown much muscle standing up to foreign powers, and instead seems to be offering concessions to Russia, North Korea, and Iran, but picking a trade fight with China over tires to garner support for his health care plan from US union workers.

As I remarked after the election, President Obama’s greatest challenge might not be the Republican opposition, but his Democratic leadership, especially the hard left. This seems to be proving to be the case. Is the President “a pushover,” as Lucas claims? It certainly looks like it to me. President Obama needs to reign in Speaker Pelosi and the “Paul Wellstone” wing go the party before they destroy his presidency. Although the media tries to avoid making much of the fact, the US is still very much a center-right nation, especially by world standards. That means effective Democratic presidents govern slightly to the left of absolute center, but generally well within the center of the political spectrum. Bill Clinton, for example. President Obama’s a bit late making that case. he is also, as Lucas notes, going to have to show some real accomplishments. Soon. Right now, h is looking much less like a man in charge than a perpetual candidate. That is not going to be a successful method of governing. The president needs to get some solid accomplishments to take credit for if he wants to succeed. Perhaps the critics who savaged Sarah Palin’s lack of high caliber education and lack of accomplishment as signs of her unsuitability to be President might ask themselves two questions: Aside from managing the Harvard Law Review, what executive experience did Mr. Obama have that makes him well qualified and suitable for the Presidency? Is an Ivy League education really all that is required to become President? Mr. Obama is a talented and able speaker. He is a natural campaigner. Now he needs to manage a large, complex government. That requires different skills than those of a community organizer or a law professor. The president needs executive skills and experience. The first eight months are decidedly mixed. To succeed, Mr. President, you need to stop campaigning, and actually govern. Govern from the center, unless you want to be a one-term president like Mr. Carter. Good luck, sir.