Why is the guy who came in with 60% approval ratings outsourcing leadership to Congress and its 15% approval rating? I too noticed the change in his demeanor when asked about Gates. It was the Obama I supported and voted for. He was thoughtful, careful and correct. He took the opportunity to calmly assess the situation, tell us his point of view and teach us something. On healthcare he may have accomplished the first. He has made it clear (as have countless others) that healthcare needs fixing. But he has chosen to let Congress figure out the fix. That leaves him unable to tell us his real point of view (because it surely differs from whatever Congress may come up with) or teach us why it's the right course of action (because all of the details remain unknown).

So how did we get here? There is virtually no discussion or analysis of this but I believe it began early in the year when Obama chose to sign his first spending bill even though it was stuffed to the gills with pork. He claimed that the pork bothered him but it was important to get it passed and he would work on eliminating earmarks for the next spending bill/budget. He was probably sincere in his intentions and the public/media gave him a pass. BUT, this is where he lost control of his agenda. He came in with a mandate to change Washington and this was his chance to start doing that. Instead, he signed a bill that was business as usual and Congress (with its 15% approval rating) was reassured that they weren't going to have to change their ways. Healthcare reform along with the rest of Obama's agenda and any hope for change in Washington is now paying the price for this concession that seemed minor at the time.

Kate, you should re-think your post and consider withdrawing your "even if she's lying..." statement. You raise some interesting points and, yes there are many regrettable aspects of our society that embolden and enable rapists. However, if McNulty is lying, she becomes a buttress to the "rape culture" not an example of what's wrong with it.

You correctly point out the hypocrisy of the Republican objection until proof of CO2 emissions reduction is provided. Each of these objectors should be asked to explain how the the same CO2 emissions litmus test impacts all of their future votes.

BUT, the clunkers program should be re-evaluated now that we have more information; specifically in light of the program's "popularity." Our politicians and the media seem to equate the adjectives "popular" and "effective" when it comes to government programs. A thoughtful observer might look at the plan's popularity and wonder why it was so popular.. This observer might conclude that it is popular because we, the taxpayer, are overpaying for these clunkers. Perhaps the particulars of the plan made it too popular. If so many people were willing to trade in their clunkers for $3,500-$4,500 could we have gotten similar results if the trade in amounts were lower? How would the program's popularity been impacted if the reimbursements were cut in half? Could we have gotten twice as many gas guzzlers off the road, twice as many cars through the factories and twice as many new cars off dealer lots without any additional cost to the taxpayer? What would have happened if the fuel efficiency requirements were higher? These are the questions we should be asking as an extension of the program is considered? Will we hear this debate in Washington? Probably not. But 'How the World Works' might be a good place for a more thoughtful, economic and productive analysis.