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.

It's amazing how many people see the "obvious solution" to the health care issue. Too bad they all see something different. That said, while there may be several decent solutions, Congress isn't going to find it. Obama is failing us (as he did with the budget and the stimulus earlier in the year) by ceding leadership on this to Congress. He was elected with a fairly strong mandate and has tremendous ability to lead and communicate with the American people. Yet he fails to trust his abilities. He should develop the plan he truly believes is right for America and then try to convince the country that it will work. That would be consistent with the man I thought I voted for. More importantly, it would be easier and more honest than his current approach which seems to be trying to convince the country that we should be supporting whatever Congress comes up with in the next couple weeks.

Perhaps he fears the Clinton outcome of excluding lawmakers from the process. But he neglects the fact that he's twice the leader Clinton was and Congress is twice as pathetic as it was even in the 90s.

"My comment regarding the 'wise Latina' was a mistake. I regret saying it. Of course I believe that I reach better verdicts than the next guy or gal. That's why I became a judge and why I hope to serve on the Supreme Court. But I should have kept my opinions as to what makes me a good judge to myself. I am sorry if my comments from many years ago have upset the delicate sensibilities of some Americans, including some in this room."

Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comments are at the same time indefensible and completely harmless. She sounds silly trying to defend them as they are statements she should regret. Even Obama suggested that she shouldn't have put it quite that way. But they are also completely benign and hardly outweigh what appears to be a solid career as a litigator and judge.

It should also be said that Sotomayor is continuing in the long tradition of proving how pathetic our representatives (in this case the Senate Judiciary Committee) are. Say what you want about the Supreme Court selections by Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, etc., they reflect a far greater degree of intelligence, integrity, courtesy and decency than the people on the panel questioning them. Why can't we start electing people of comparable character? Fill Congress with a bunch of Sotomayors or Roberts, or Breyers or Scalias and the country would be much better off than with the rascals we've been electing.

How do we go about stripping Congress of the power to pass resolutions in honor of people and in recognition of events? Reading the text of the resolution it seems as if our representatives believe that Jackson's achievements require Congressional validation; that the achievements are meaningless without a resolution that documents their occurrence. For all his flaws, Micheal Jackson was certainly more talented and quite probably more honorable than 90% of the people in Congress.

The only consolation is that every minute our representatives spend wasting time on things like this is a minute not spent screwing up something important.

Thank you Salon (and Michael Lind) for publishing a thoughtful and thought provoking piece. This article challenges conventional wisdom (in this case three conventional wisdoms) in a way that reminds me why I started reading Salon in the first place. As can be seen in the reader comments (mostly civil, thoughtful and intelligent with few expletives and no references to Dick Cheney or Rush Limbaugh) Salon readers like to think and be challenged. Please give us more of this.