Maureen Dowd Down On Obama "Dude"- Lib columnist blasts Obama

The Left's love affair with Barack Obama is slowly fading as people become increasingly disenchanted with the man for various, often opposing reasons. For some, he's just not liberal enough to stay in favor, for others I think the misty veil of illusion is finally being lifted and they are finally seeing him for what he truly is: an arrogant man with little to no substance. Of course, there are still many people (and I know plenty) who refuse to let go of that initial attraction to an individual that suckered the world into thinking he was God incarnate, ready to right the world's wrongs. It's a little like the battered woman in an abusive relationship who doesn't have the courage to leave. She keeps hearkening back to when the love was still alive, even though the honeymoon is over.

It does still surprise me, though, when certain liberals actually have the courage to criticize their messiah, as did Maureen Dowd, queen of the liberal op-ed columnists. Her article entitled, Can The Dude Abide is chock full of interesting insights, and for the most part- so true.

Barack Obama became president by brilliantly telling his own story. To stay president, he will need to show he can understand our story.

At first it was exciting that Obama was the sort of brainy, cultivated Democrat who would be at home in a “West Wing” episode.

But now he acts like he really thinks he’s on “West Wing,” gliding through an imaginary, amber-lit set where his righteous self-regard is bound to be rewarded by the end of the hour.

Hey, dude, you’re a politician. Act like one.

As the head of the Democratic Party, the president should have supported the Democratic candidate for governor in Rhode Island, the one the Democratic Governors Association had already lavished more than $1 million in TV ads on. If Obama was going to refuse to endorse Frank Caprio out of respect for Lincoln Chafee, the former Republican who endorsed him for president and is now running as an independent, the president should have at least stayed out of Providence.

She goes on to say:

His arrogance led him to assume: If I build it, they will understand. He can’t get the gratitude he feels he deserves for his achievements if no one knows what he achieved and why those achievements are so vital.

Once it seemed impressive that he was so comfortable in his own skin. Now that comfort comes across as an unwillingness to be wrong.

We want the best people to govern us, but many voters are so turned off by Obama’s superior air that they’re rushing into the arms of disturbingly inferior pols.

As for trying to push his own agenda rather than listening to the people, which is an indictment of his ramming through Obama care, she says:

Obama admitted to The Times’s Peter Baker: “There is probably a perverse pride in my administration — and I take responsibility for this; this was blowing from the top — that we were going to do the right thing, even if short term it was unpopular.”

But who defines what’s “right”?

With the exception of Obama, most Americans seemed to agree that the “right” thing to do until the economy recovered was to focus on jobs instead of getting the Congress mired for months in making over health insurance and energy policy. And the “right” thing to do was to come down harder on the big banks for spending on bonuses instead of lending to small businesses that don’t get bailouts.

The mid-term elections will signal if the Obama party is over and if people are brave enough to cut the umbilical cord.

Click here to read the full op-ed.