Maureen Dowd doesn't think he's bi-polar. Not sure I'd want to take that bet! But her NYT piece seems to be similar to the theme I noted a little while ago, about Obama being firmly on both sides of the automation issue! Ms. Dowd:
Our president likes to be on both sides at once.
In Afghanistan, he wants to go but he wants to stay. He’s surging and withdrawing simultaneously. He’s leaving fewer troops than are needed for a counterinsurgency strategy and more troops than are needed for a counterterrorism strategy — and he seems to want both strategies at the same time. Our work is done but we have to still be there. Our work isn’t done but we can go.
On Libya, President Obama wants to lead from behind. He’s engaging in hostilities against Qaddafi while telling Congress he’s not engaging in hostilities against Qaddafi.
On the budget, he wants to cut spending and increase spending. On the environment, he wants to increase energy production but is reluctant to drill. On health care, he wants to get everybody covered but will not press for a universal system. On Wall Street, he assails fat cats, but at cocktail parties, he wants to collect some of their fat for his campaign.
On politics, he likes to be friends with the other side but bash ’em at the same time. For others, bipartisanship means transcending their own prior political identities. For President Obama, it means that he participates in all political identities. He does not seem deeply affiliated with any side except his own.
Maureen, we are in rare agreement. But you may not have come out and pinpointed the exact reason that Obama is on both sides of every issue.
On some of the most important issues facing this nation, it is time for the president to come out of the closet.As just an ordinary, scum sucking, tell the people whatever it is they want to hear, politician.
I'm with you, Maureen!
Cross posted at Proof Positive