Exchange: Obama - ditherer or leader?
From: Daniel Finkelstein
To: Tim Reid
So here's the question, Tim. Ditherer or leader?
When he was elected the question was different, wasn't it. Some thought Obama would be an out and out leftist, others that he would betray the left.
Instead he has raised rather different concerns. He seems at times too laid back, too ready to lead with words and not act. So has this year been a bust?
From: Tim Reid
To: Daniel Finkelstein
No, this year has not been a bust - but we are at a fork in the road and his presidency could go either way at present.
I still think it is more likely than not that Obama will get some universal health reform legislation passed, something no other president has achieved.
The heated and bruising debate on health care has been necessary for Obama to lay out the framework for the compromises that need to be made to get a Bill out of Congress.
Having said that, I think it is fair to say that Obama left far too much of the drafting process to congressional liberals on Capitol Hill, and was too detached from the process for too long.
On Afghanistan, the lengthy wait on the question - to surge or nor to surge? - can be seen as dithering. Republicans certainly accuse him of that.
Yet with Afghanistan such a complex and difficult war, others argue that Obama is right to fully reassess strategy, rather than charge into things like George W Bush.
I agree that Obama's rhetoric and his grandiose promises often fail to match the reality on the ground, and what he is able to achieve. But I would argue that his apparent aloofness, as you call it, is not a major problem for him.
His two major problems are these: his willingness to let ultimatums slip, and the huge budget deficit.
People like Obama, but they don't fear him. He said he wanted health care legislation passed by August this year. Now the debate is sliding into next year.
He set Iran ultimatums on its nuclear programme but has not followed up. There is a pattern emerging: he makes threats, but they increasingly appear hollow.
The budget deficit is now $1.4 trillion. People voted for "change" last year but there are signs Obama has over-interpreted his mandate. Unemployment is now 10 per cent.
Voters see massive government spending, at a time of high joblessness, and it is scaring them. Independents and moderates, who flocked to Obama last year, are deserting him in droves.
The economy was the greatest single factor in his victory last year. It is the greatest danger for him now.
From Daniel Finkelstein
To: Tim Reid
How, then, should we interpret yesterday's election results. they show pretty solid progress for Republicans, despite all their difficulties.
Does this mean that Obama is no longer the stellar figure he once was? Is he still holding the centre?
From: Tim Reid
To: Daniel Finkelstein
Without over interpreting last night's results - off-year elections are often lousy political indicators - I think this much is clear: Obama is losing the centre and failing to hold together the broad coalition, or movement, that swept him to power last year.
For months, opinion polls have showed independents and moderates disaffected and scared by Obama's spending plans, and that was THE decisive outcome of last night's votes.
In Virginia and New Jersey, independents surged behind Obama last year. Last night the vast majority in both states backed the Republican candidates, and nearly all because of the economy.
The excitement of Obama's historic candidacy has also worn off. The young, the first time voters, and African America voters who turned out in droves last year simply stayed at home last night.
Indeed, there are signs of new energy among Republicans. Of the people who voted for John McCain last year, 51 per cent turned out last night; of those that voted for Obama, only 43 per cent showed up.
