A Message President. It's Just Not His Message.

I spoke with my first, genuine Obama remorse voter last week. When I asked her what she thought about Barack's healthcare reform plans, she shook her head and said "It's all just too much. We can't afford all of this." She said, "I voted for him because I thought it was time for a change. But what's going on now is not what he presented himself as during the election."

This woman is one of Barack's "sweet spot" swing voters. Evangelical Christian. Suburban mom. One of the "more feel than think" voters. And he's already losing her 6 months into his presidency.

Obama came into office after winning the election handily. Most of the mainstream media refrained from using the word mandate, but you did hear a bit of it. The mandate was for hope and change. The electorate had bit on his message: hook, line and sinker. And Obama opened his first term like he had a genuine mandate on the end of his line. Jerking legislation through Congress - hinted-at ideas from lightly-covered town hall campaign stops. Reeling in votes for dramatic policy changes that the media had hardly noticed.

But did the public really give his policies a mandate? Polls show that just weeks into office, people largely supported Obama much more than they supported any of his policy proposals. And that was his peak. Support has dropped off the cliff since.

This disparity seemingly makes no sense. How could the public support a man but not his policies? The only logical explanation is that their vote was sending a message. It just wasn't Barack Obama's message.

Obama, the man and what he symbolized, was the electorate's message. They still like Obama because they still like the message they sent to the world by voting for him: It's time for change. Anyone can be president. We're beyond the racism. It's that same old song: "Look at how open-minded I am. I voted for Obama." And that sentiment is still valid as long as Obama doesn't undo it pushing policy people don't like. In fact, if Obama were to accomplish nothing at all in his first term, he would probably end it with a 65% approval rating.

As Obama remorse grows (currently 63% of independent voters are against ObamaCare) the electorate has been sending another message. I wonder if they'll hear it in the White House over the braying of the mobs?

Democrats: A Party for the Risk Averse

Growing up we all knew one of those over-protected kids: the 12 year-old left standing on the other side of street because his mom wouldn't trust him to cross the street by himself; the kid wearing the ski hat with earflaps in 50 degree weather. Remember that kid? He grew up to become the Democratic Party voter.

Everything about the Democratic Party (probably since FDR) is about limiting risk for helpless and stupid American voters. Terrified that your retirement might tank? Don't worry, mama's here with your Social Security blanket. Afraid that shiny new condom might fail? Papa will dump that fetus in the garbage pail. Worrying your shares in GM might crash? Daddy Tim's here with some bailout cash. Fear you might get sick and your insurance won't pay? Berry's gonna take all the fear away.

Life's full of risk. That's why we have insurance in the first place. Something horrible may happen to you, and it may be expensive. So smart consumers buy insurance for — as the ads go — "Justin Case."

Health insurance isn't healthcare. It's a hedge against the risk of costs associated with becoming unhealthy. The fact that health insurance has become too expensive, or that some people can't get it, doesn't mean they will get sick. Or even that if they do get sick, they won't get treatment. Nobody in this country can be turned away for lifesaving treatment.

So really the whole healthcare debate ( and frankly the entire agenda of the DNC ) is about nothing more than the cushy, feel-good coddling of the American electorate. If Joe Voter is so sheltered from risk and harm that he can't contemplate the idea of crossing the street without holding Harry Reid's hand, he'll never vote to remove Reid from political office. This strategy is depressingly effective.

Imagine if the founding fathers had wanted someone to protect them from the risks of revolt against the King. We'd still be sipping over-taxed British tea on the docks of Boston Harbor.

As Benjamin Franklin might say, "He that's secure is not safe."

Why Isn't Clinton Smiling?

Bill Clinton was called in for pinch-hit diplomacy to rescue two American journalists imprisoned in North Korea on trumped-up charges. The result of his trip was seemingly a miracle. The message from the State Department is that the very presence of Clinton (along with a healthly dose of Obama's favorite medicine: apology) secured the women's release in record time. So why isn't Clinton smiling in ANY of the photos? Perhaps he knows something we don't.

Clinton's "miracle" trip to North Korea is clearly anything but a miracle. Does anyone really think that he would have gone over there if the journalists' release wasn't already a done-deal? Of course not. Bill Clinton isn't Jesse Jackson or Jimmy Carter — shameless self promoters who believe that there's no such thing as bad PR. Clinton, the king of "triangulation" is all about getting bang for his buck. He does not tilt at windmills — having learned that lesson the hard way early in his presidency. Someone high in government certainly had already secured the release of those women long before Clinton got on the plane to North Korea. Bill was diplomatic "cover" for Obama — used to make it appear that our State Department wasn't negotiating with Kim Jong Il, and hide what the price was.

I long ago gave up expecting our press to be curious when it comes to unexplained phenomena related to the Obama administration. But come on! Why isn't anyone seriously asking what we GAVE to that pot belly dictator in order to secure a bit of largess from one of this nation's most hostile enemies? Clearly Bill knows it will come out soon enough. And he's not happy about it.