"What the fuck has Obama done so far?"

If the title of this piece seems a bit out of character for me, well, you'd be right: it is. It's the reason why I put it in quotations. I'll come back to the title in a bit, but first I have a few observations I'd like to share:

Was it only me? It appears that President Obama and the Democrats were shocked that they didn't do better in the mid-term elections. We all know by now that the House lost so many seats to Republican and Tea Party candidates that the news media had to go back several decades to recall a similar drubbing delivered to a political party. And it didn't stop there: Democrats lost several seats in the Senate.

By all estimates, here was a political party and a president who had accomplished much--an extension of unemployment insurance for millions, a successful cash for clunkers program to keep our automobile industry from going under, "tax cuts for up to 3.5 million small businesses to help pay for employee health care coverage." But Democrats still lost heavily at the polls.

And what did they do in response?

Democrats did what the Republicans did when they lost miserably a few years back, right? Moved more in the direction of their ideological center, which for the Right is right, and the Left, left. I hate to break it to you: Democrats are doing no such thing--they're doubling down on their decision to hold fast to their failed tactic of appeasement, and compromise, with them as the only ones appeasing and compromising, as members of their base continue to flake away like so much old paint.

I won't belabor the point, and make you nauseous, by taking you back through the Left's misery brought on by watching Democrats cave again and again to Republicans to make their legislation as palatable to the Right's political taste buds as is humanly possible, hoping that Republicans will like the results enough to cast much-needed votes for passage, only to watch the Right spit out the mess they helped cook up, calling such legislation like health-care, and wall street reforms "vile," and "evil," promising to repeal the legislation, and replace it with their own confection, if anything at all.

Obama stated in essence that he and members of his party were so busy getting things done, that he and they didn't take time to properly inform the public of what it was that they had accomplished during the first two years of his administration.

Now, here is where the title of this blog entry comes in. That title is the name of an actual site. It's the site's URL. If you haven't seen it, here's a brief description: The site hopes to do what the president and the Democrat congress failed to do--beat the drum for the Democrats by enumerating their many accomplishments over the past two years.

On the site, I like the way the information is packaged. It's like being a visitor, a tourist, in a strange city out for a walk around town, not sure what you'll find, but excited about the possibility that just around a corner something interesting, something surprising, something unexpected, may leap out of the ordinary and the mundane, to give you something to remember and to talk about once you're back home, engaging the family, or a neighbor across a common fence or wall.

Here, take a walk through the town with the funny name, "What the fuck has Obama done so far?"

What's White About It?

The polarization of this country along racial lines, or how it's usually stated--along the color-line--not only points our the insanity of racism, but how this nation over its long history chose to compete with the rest of the world by virtue of tying one hand behind its back, the result of not fully utilizing the black talent within its midst.

Blacks and whites alike decry the supposed lack of black youth involvement in this society. Is what we're seeing a rebelling against a social norm--a norm that has a white vs. black element to it?

A recent study supports that conclusion. It states that violence among young people, blacks in particular, is a direct result of their feeling alienated from the larger society--seen as outcasts.

In our past, blacks have had to resort to extreme measures to become contributing members of this society, and to maximize their potential (some passing as white, if they could). Black Voices featured one such black, and detailed his travails. In fact, he was this nation's first black doctor.

His story is interesting on several levels: One, it points to the necessity of recording family history (Granny's passion), and not allowing family members to fall out of the family tree (regardless of color) lest they remain lost; and, two, it points to the need for any country to appreciate its talent (regardless of race or ethnicity), if it wishes to remain a strong, vibrant, and competitive force among the world communities.

Recently, the country's first black doctor was properly memorialized.

Relatives of the doctor were unaware that they were related to a man who had been the subjects of several books. Consequently, the doctor lay in an unmarked Brooklyn grave for 145 years.

White descendants of James McCune Smith gathered Sunday to unveil the new tombstone on his grave site. The scourge of racism is largely responsible for Smith going unnoticed for so long.

If you're white, and you find out that you're related to someone black, it's a damn sight better to discover that he's a doctor than a horse thief. But the story doesn't end there.

The AP writes:

The story of why Smith was nearly overlooked by history and buried in an unmarked grave is in part due to the centuries-old practice of light-skinned blacks passing as white to escape racial prejudice. Smith's mother had been a slave; his father was white. Three of his children lived to adulthood, and they all apparently passed as white, scholars say.

Greta Blau, Smith's great-great-great-granddaughter, made the connection after she took a course at Hunter College on the history of blacks in New York. She did some research and realized that James McCune Smith, the trailblazing black doctor, was the same James McCune Smith whose name was inscribed in a family Bible belonging to ... her grandmother.

Her first response was, "But he was black. I'm white."

This story can probably be retold thousands of times in this country. How many white families have a member of the black race somewhere among the branches in their family tree, either long forgotten, or long ignored?

Smith was denied entry to medical schools in the United States and earned his medical degree in Glasgow, Scotland.

He returned to New York to practice and also became an anti-slavery advocate through his writings:

"As early as 1859, Dr. McCune Smith said that race was not biological but was a social category," Dr. Vanessa Northington Gamble, a medical doctor and historian at George Washington University told the AP. "I feel that I am standing on the shoulders of Dr. James McCune Smith."

Blau theorizes that all of Smith's descendants began passing for white after his death -- and for good reason. More here.

My mother resides in an unmarked grave. It's on private property, but the marker, if there ever was one, has long disappeared, covered over by the ravages of time, and neglect. She was buried in a place--on a few acres of land--that whites owned and set aside for slaves. She wasn't a slave, herself, but this place was, during her time, the only place where blacks were allowed to bury their own. It wasn't a cemetery, as we often think of the word, but more of a final resting place, because blacks didn't have their own cemeteries at the time of her death in the place where she died.

At least Dr. James McCune Smith is, at long last, recognized, claimed, and properly honored by his long-lost family members. There are other blacks waiting, too, who haven't been lost all these many long years, to be welcomed into the family of this nation, and to be recognized, claimed, and properly honored.

Actually, the time is long overdue.

Who Has The Mandate?

Most of the Republicans who spoke on Wednesday about their recent victories in the House and the Senate, all insisted: The American people gave them a mandate. John Boehner was so moved by it, that he cried.

Pollsters, those who ask the questions and crunch the numbers, believed that the "whipping" would be greater. There's no denying the beating that Democrats took in the House--but, in the Senate, they survived. They weaker now, but they survived. There was a 10% likelihood that they wouldn't. Many pundits felt that the Senate, as well as the House, would fall to the Republicans. They were wrong. To be sure, Democrats received a spanking in the Senate but clearly not a whipping.

Their defeat is easily explained: Many Democrats who voted in the 2008 election sat out this time. This clearly made the difference. They were young, and they were mostly minority. You might reason then: It wasn't the Republicans or the Tea Party who defeated Obama and the Democrats, it was their base. It's hard to say that the low turn out for this group was all about the economy, and not about the inability of Democrats to pursue a progressive agenda, or change how the system works. In the days ahead, Republicans will characterize their victory as a referendum on Obama, on his agenda, and on Democrats generally.

Once again, I think pundits are misreading the tea leaves: They're insisting that Republicans will have to abandon their obstructionist tactics and actually do something. "Surely the Republicans will cooperate now. Surely they want a record on which to run in 2012." I admit: I didn't anticipate the American people falling for this tactic. But now, I'm beginning to take Republicans at their word, whether they're Tea Party Republicans are old-brand Republicans. Early on, these old-brands made clear their position: They said, unequivocally, that they wanted Obama to fail, and, to date, they're making good on their words. With their new congress, Republicans are now threatening the unthinkable, not to compromise, and to make Obama a one-term president.

If I wasn't a believer before, I am now. A true believer. Why should Republicans abandon what has been working for them? Rand Paul, Tea Party candidate, and now Senator-elect, has put Republicans on notice. In his victory speech, he said, essentially, the Tea Party will take no prisoners, and they won't surrender. One thing is clear: It's the Tea Party that feels it has a mandate from the people, and not the whole of the Republican Party. Rand Paul has thrown down the gauntlet. For the Republican establishment the message is unambiguous: The Tea Party is now in charge. It's Tea Time. You'll either do it our way, or we'll show you the highway.

What we have, then, is a prescription for gridlock. The Tea Party, to keep its promises, will have to do something to give the appearance of reducing the size of government. For one, they will attempt to repeal health-care reform, which will, of course, fail. For two, they will attempt to whittle away at the size of the Federal government. Some Tea Party folk have actually gone so far as to call for the abolishing of the Education Department and the EPA. Were this to pass, it would make the Koch brothers happy, as well as some other wanna-be polluters. Republicans may want this, too, but they're not under any pressure to deliver. Expect some infighting on these issues.

Here's my prediction: The Republican Party will soon be obsolete. It will be replaced by the Tea Party. The Tea Party will be the Republican Party on steroids--more intransigent, more conservative, more aggressive, and less likely to reach across the aisle, if at all. Already the Tea Party has made significant inroads--to be followed by one incursion after the other, until they've replaced the Republican establishment.

Before the curtains were drawn on the Democrats, Obama managed to pass two key pieces of legislation (health-care reform, and wall street reform). Mid-term elections, traditionally, present incumbent parties a real challenge to hold seats in either house, regardless of party. It explains one of the reasons for the much-criticized haste to pass legislation before the mid-term, and the reason Obama and the Democrats didn't tackle other major legislation, such as immigration reform (which wasn't popular anyway with the electorate), and is now, after the recent Republican victories, on indefinite hold.

I firmly believe that the reason that jobs weren't pursued with all the vigor that the president and the congress could muster was the perception that the financial sector needed rescuing first to avoid a depression. They may have believed, too, that the much-lauded stimulus bill (which economist agreed was too small) would accomplish that task--but job losses came faster than anticipated, and the stimulus managed only to keep the losses from becoming a tsunami, merely replacing jobs that were being lost, rather than creating new ones.

To make matters worse: Votes passed in the Democrat-majority House were in-boxed in the Senate--because, it was explained, the votes necessary for passage didn't exist. The Democrat caucus gave Democrats 60 votes to defeat filibusterers in the Senate, but "blue-dog democrats (Republicans in my book)," and moderates, may have kept many of these bills from going forward, especially with that nasty mid-term election on the horizon. As an aside: Blue Dogs were unseated in the recent race with a vengeance, twenty-four in all.

Here's a thought: Should progressives start their own movement within the Democrat Party to move it more to the Left? I say: Why not? The country can't be more polarized than it is now. This would be one way to exact change (to assure accountability, maintain transparency, and take the money out of politics) without armed conflict, that second-amendment remedy, once suggested by Tea Party candidate, now defeated, Sharron Angle.

Undeservedly, Obama and the Democrats were stand-ins on Tuesday for Bush and the Republicans. Democrats took the beating that should have gone to Republicans. You can say that the previous mid-term elections and Obama's rise to the presidency was payback for what the Republicans did during their tenure, but, in my view, it wasn't enough. I can recount several things, from the two wars in which we're stilled mired--not so much in Iraq as in Afghanistan--to the economic woes this country still faces, all having their genesis under Bush. So to see Republicans rewarded for their failings is the ultimate slap in the face to Democrats. It further crystallizes my belief that the electorate still doesn't get it.

Will Obama abandon his liberal agenda, move closer to the center, and lean Right? It's no secret that the country is more conservative than liberal, but this hasn't always translated into political capital for Republicans, who, this time around, garnered more of the independent votes than did Democrats.

Rush Limbaugh, the oracle of the Right, states it something like this: "Where is there room for any compromise with Marxism, or socialism, or liberalism? Where is there compromise with evil."

Bullying is in. Issuing threats is in. Hard-line resistance is in. Statesmanship is out. Compromise is out. Working together is out. The Democrats are in a brawl, a bar fight, and they still want to characterize it as a misunderstanding. They say: The Republicans down deep want to work with us. They just don't know it yet.

Unless Republicans are in power, they will hold this nation and its economy hostage. It's clear, at least to me, that what they're after is a one-party nation, where they control both houses of congress and the presidency in perpetuity. We have moved into an era of one-party politics, where the Republican opposition party is just that--in complete opposition to any efforts to reach across the aisle to advance legislation, unless it initiates the legislation, unless it shapes the legislation without interference or input from the opposing party.

If you doubt me, listen to their rhetoric: It's defiant, definite, and deliberate, the four "D's" of a destructive policy.

The Scariest People Award

TONIGHT IS HALLOWEEN. A blog I visit frequently, in celebration of Halloween, offered its list of "scary people," enumerating them, not necessarily in order of who is scariest, but because that's the simplest way to make a list.

Some on the list did not surprise.

Some I didn't know--and that's probably a good thing--since over the last several months, after watching Barack Obama ascend to the office of president, I've come to know many "scary people," and why they're considered scary, and, frankly, my "scary-folk list" is all full up.

Not to be outdone, I picked up on the theme, and countered with my own, now to be an annual observance on Halloween, Scariest People Award. Read on:

For me, The Scariest People Award goes to those folk on the Right (with their failed policies, policies that they'd like to resurrect, if they take over the House and Senate), those folk on the Left who might sit out the election coming up in a couple of days, because of an "enthusiasm gap" (Whatever in Hades that mean!), and those Supreme Court Justices who recently finished off our democracy, of the people, by the people, for the people, for now, by giving to corporations free-speech rights to spend as much money as they wish to impact legislation, and to seat politicians of their choosing.

What the people of this nation will witness, if we're to take Republicans and John Boehner at their word, is a Republican 'no compromise policy,' a kind of "Republican Revenge," if you will, against the liberal policies, and liberal legislation which Republicans steadfastly resisted, using every obstructionist tactic in their playbook, especially the use of the filibuster in unprecedented numbers.

I say pick your poison: Do you wish to die slowly, by supporting the Left and receive a few palliatives, from time to time, to fix our broken, political and economic system, with the hope that, with time, we can change course, or die quickly, by sitting out the next election, and doing nothing, thereby allowing Republicans and Tea Party folk to call the shots--to repeal health-care reform by not financing it, to reduce the minimum wage, standing at $7.25, to God only knows what, to privatize Social Security, to repeal what little was done to rein in Wall Street abuses, and to embroil this nation in another war?

It's strangely emblematic that Halloween and the next election are only days apart.

The grim, unsmiling, faces that the Republicans have been wearing for the last two years, like so many Halloween masks of Horror Movie characters--Freddie Krueger, Jason, and Pumpkinhead--will appear angelic by comparison, if Republicans carry out their threats to punish the American people, liberals in particular, for having the gall to insist that BP set aside billions to cover losses to Gulf Coast residents, for extending unemployment insurance for those out of work, and for forcing health insurers to actually insure people.

Such liberal policies from the Left, that actually put people first, and corporations last, cannot stand. It's un-American.

Speaking of Africa, And Looking Right at You....

Recently, a blogger managed, successfully, to entice me to another blog with this description of the blogger's post:

"Have you ever read a post that moves your spirit? That seems to engulf your soul from all directions, like a jazz composition… jazzuloo. You listen to it over and over again, mesmerized by the notes, nuances and lyrics… not exactly sure that you are actually hearing what you are hearing, but knowing that you are hearing something unique, real… from the heart."

With a pitch like that, it's nearly impossible not to bite. And I wasn't disappointed: The post was precisely as the blogger had recounted, prose set to music--that is, until I came to the following jarring lines:

"When you speak of Africa, do not look at me, I do not want their stereotype to splatter on my being. I am not the martyr of their corruptions and own shortcomings. I have my country and my culture to look after."

I'm not here to chastise, or to castigate my black brother. He spoke his mind. He spoke from his heart. He conveyed his truth. And that's a good thing. Yet, there are other truths, truths that are held just as passionately as his. And that, too, is a good thing.

Over the years, John Donne, in one of his "meditations," has spoken my truth for me, and I'd like to share it with you once again. I'm sure that I have, at least on one occasion during the months that I've posted here, shared this, my truth, with you:

"No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

Like Donne, I, too, "am involved in mankind." It matters not from whence they hail, be it Africa, still troubled by its colonial past, and European oppression, or China with its billions of souls, or Iraq with its fallen thousands, a number which, incidentally, Wikileaks, only days ago, updated for the world community--correcting and revising the official count of war dead, using leaked military documents as its source:

The reports detail 109,032 deaths in Iraq, comprised of 66,081 'civilians'; 23,984'enemy' (those labeled as insurgents); 15,196 'host nation' (Iraqi government forces) and 3,771 'friendly' (coalition forces). The majority of the deaths (66,000, over 60%) of these are civilian deaths.That is 31 civilians dying every day during the six year period. For comparison, the 'Afghan War Diaries', previously released by WikiLeaks, covering the same period, detail the deaths of some 20,000 people. Iraq during the same period, was five times as lethal with equivallent population size.

The writer of the blog described an amalgam of races, and cultures, to which he belonged, the whole of which, he suggests, is now greater than the sum of the parts:

Africa has always remained a standstill from the time it was the cradle of humanity, a kingdom of spears, a colony and independent. My ancestors [those of the Black or African Diaspora] moved and shake the world. They went from the cradle of humanity, chased out with spears, broke the chains of slavery and gained liberty. Do you have another name for freedom?

And with one final thrust, one final act of divestment, and repudiation, one final act of defiance, the blogger threw off the yoke that is Africa, and aligned himself fully and completely with the diasporic black people around the world:

"Africa calls 'come back, come back to mama Africa. Give to mama Africa'.
I don’t understand their languages. My tongue moves to English, Spanish, French, Dutch, Portuguese and few others which my culture created. I am not going back; I don’t want to be Africa’s house Negro. I will not give either. I will not give back the sweat and flesh of my ancestors. I am European, from the West Indies, and quite happy about my diversity!"

And his words were seductive: The many who commented there were enchanted by his words. For, in his words, they found their own truths validated. His words were so many Sirens beckoning their hearts and souls toward the rocks of an unshakeable certainty.

Yet, as I read, all I could hear were the words of John Donne, speaking eloquently of the interconnectedness of life, and of the oneness of humankind. Almost daily, it's becoming clearer that we humans are connected at the three levels that comprise our humanity--at the level of the body (We now know that it's highly probable that "all humans alive today are descended from a single African man"; at the level of the mind (A book asked once, "What do all people have in common?" The answer: "They're all conscious at the same time"; and at the level of the soul (We're emotional beings: All things being equal, we can all feel happiness, and sadness, love and fear equally.)

If I were to expand upon John Dunne's words, and apply them to nation states and to the people of the world, I'd say this:

"No nation is an island, entire of itself; every nation is a piece of the continent, a part of the world. If a nation be washed away by the sea, the world is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any nation's demise diminishes us all, because, whether we like it or not, we're involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."

U.S. [S]Chamber of Commerce

If the reports are correct, then we're seeing President Obama's prediction come true, as well as the predictions of a number of other Washington insiders, who warned--giving First Amendment, free-speech rights to corporations will engender a strain on our democracy never before seen in this country, as corporate and foreign money is used to influence policies and elect candidates who can contribute, in some fashion, to their bottomline.

When Obama sounded the alarm during one of his addresses to the American people, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito visibly shook his head--a serious breach of decorum. Alito had to know the can of worms that he and the court had opened. Yet, his shake of the head was a clear indication that he was deeply perturbed to have it brought to his attention in a forum that didn't allow him a rebuttal. If Alito could have looked ahead to the following article in the Christian Science Monitor, would he have ruled differently?

The focus of particular attention this week is the US Chamber of Commerce, a powerhouse in campaign financing with funds directed largely to the coffers of Republican candidates.

Liberal groups say the Chamber – which has budgeted $75 million to support its favorite candidates this year, almost exclusively Republicans – is using foreign money as part of its huge campaign war chest, which would be illegal. Chamber officials deny the charge.

But it's hard to know for sure, because under federal law the Chamber doesn't have to detail the sources of its campaign spending.

At the time of the Supreme Court decision, I wrote about this under the title, Whose Country Is It, Anyway?, and scolded Jonathan Turley, noted U.S. Constitution scholar, for praising the decision, seeing it as a victory for free speech. With this recent revelation, I wonder if Turley still believes that free speech was served as a result of the Supreme Court decision to extend a First Amendment right to corporations, effectively paving the way for an eventual corpocracy, if steps aren't taken by Congress to bring a halt to this corporate take over of our most precious freedom--to practice our democracy without undue influence either from within or without our country.

Embattled Democratic candidates, the target of Chamber-funded campaign ads, are crying foul, some pointing to the need to revisit last January’s US Supreme Court 5-to-4 decision in the Citizens United case, which makes it easier for corporations and labor unions to influence elections through campaign advertising.

Why must there be this supposed natural-enemy battle line drawn between labor and management? One of the reasons: Management has never been reluctant to put profits ahead of workers, treating them more as disposables than assets. Now that these multinational corporations have the workforce of countries like China, India, and others, from which to draw their labor, outsourcing of production is becoming more and more commonplace. So it follows that these multinational corporations, as well as government-backed foreign corporations, will do whatever is necessary to influence outcomes favorable to them.

And if that means backing "free-market" forces within our country with money--which is mostly synonymous with Republicans, their more likely targets--so be it. We have Tea Party Goers chafing at the idea of socialism, but backing a "free market" ideology which is nothing more than an "outsourcing" of American jobs. How long will it take them to recognize the real enemy to our democracy, our economy, and the continued growth of our middle class?

What we're seeing is an assault upon our democratic process--Supreme Court decisions that favor corporations, and government entities (think the recent eminent domain ruling), lobbyists paying out record sums of moneys to buy off legislators, and now, insult upon insult, foreign money pouring into our elections--so much so that what we now have is not an actual democracy, but a democracy in name only.

Multinational corporations will fly the flag of any country that will give them the most bang for their buck, whether it's China's cheap labor practices--demanding from some of its workforce 35-hour shifts at 31 cents an hour to make an American corporation's products to be sold back to us--or India's cheap labor practices.

Not only can't American workers compete in this global marketplace, they're virtually at a disadvantage--one of the reasons why we're hearing such terms as "economic patriotism" being thrown about these days. Unions, and out-of-work Americans, are often seen as the problem, with the results that they're viciously attacked from some quarters. What these workers need, instead, is more time to retool, or, in some cases, extended unemployment insurance.

The irony: I'm told that many American jobs aren't being filled, because too many Americans don't have the requisite skills, training, or education to fill them. And these aren't a handful of jobs, but millions of them--enough to put quite a dent in our unemployment numbers.

Who's Your President?

I'm witnessing a very disturbing trend--and on MSNBC of all places. It's not enough that Republicans are doing all they can to bring down President Obama, some liberal pundits are pitching in, as well.

David Corn of Politics Daily, and other liberal pundits are quick to compare Obama with President Clinton, and, you guessed it, Obama is coming up short in every category: Obama's not as politically savvy as was Clinton, not the leader he was, and not as politically focused.

Why this sudden need to elevate Clinton at the expense of Obama?

Forgotten is the Clinton sex scandal that rocked the White House; forgotten is Monica Lewinsky and the stained dress that was preserved as proof of Clinton's infidelity. Gone is Clinton's failed attempt to provide health-care reform, and a host of other failures and scandals that marred his presidency. Remember e-mailgate, and few other gates that plagued his administration: Cattlegate, Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewatergate, Troopergate, and Chinagate.

Because of Monicagate Clinton had to face down an impeachment. I'm not saying that Clinton was guilty of any of these political indiscretions, but that they have mostly been forgotten, as the New Clinton takes the stage in his new role of Obama defacer. In the clip below, you can hear a little bit of this, as well as an explanation for why Clinton's reputation is undergoing a rebirth.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

If you don't wish to watch the whole vid-clip, here's a transcript of the part where Obama is compared to Clinton--a comparison that's mostly unwarranted, and unnecessary.

SIMON: I agree with almost all of that, except one small point I would like to make. One reason Bill Clinton is doing so well now is that he's not viewed as a political figure anymore. He's viewed as this philanthropist, this man who's raising hundreds of millions of dollars to, you know, cure AIDS, to solve environmental problems, things that are not especially political. Sure, he's going to go out on the trail for Barack Obama, but I might -- I think, once he does, you might see those figures shift a little.

FINEMAN: Well, I hate to disagree with Roger--boy, we are really disagreeing a lot -- but I haven't seen the poll numbers on that. I can't imagine that there's anybody in the United States who doesn't still regard Bill Clinton as a political figure. Bill Clinton oozes politics out of every pore. And that's what made him infuriating, but what also makes him charming, and also what makes him able to explain in kitchen-table language what Barack Obama can't always seem to do. And it's a fascinating thing. It's a mixed blessing for Obama.

Not only is President Obama's accomplishments--only two years into his presidency--towering over Clinton's presidential years, the challenges facing his administration dwarf those of Bill Clinton's, and Ronald Reagan's administrations combined.

And I think that that is the nub of the problem: Obama's achievements to date, although not as impressive, or as progressive, as many would like for them to be, clearly has him standing out among those in the pantheon of presidential achievers.

First, it was comparing Obama to Woodrow Wilson, and, of late, to Bill Clinton. No matter whether it is on the job-creation front, or handling the Gulf oil spill, or protecting this nation from terrorists, or the handling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan--President Obama finds himself being measured by the shadows cast by his white predecessors.

It's as though the conversation has taken a sudden turn, for both liberal and conservative pundits (We have always known where Republicans stand!): "We can't have a black president eclipsing the white ones of the past. We can't have him achieving more. We can't have him succeeding where others have failed. We can't let him achieve the stature or the greatness that's reserved for those of a much lighter hue."

Perhaps I'm reading this all wrong--that it has nothing to do with Obama's race--but I'm hard pressed to find another motive.