Let us enterain you

The Village Idiots on Fox, along with their separated at birth twin, Chris Matthews, just don't seem to get it. Right now, folks aren't looking for their president to entertain them. They're looking for sobriety, reason, thoughtfulness, and the confidence that their president knows what the fuck he's doing. Obama delivered on all that -- again -- last night, on a crazily wide array of pressing issues.

I don't think he -- or anybody else -- cares that Karl Rove was bored.

And, I might add, while I was watching the press conference, the Yankees scored seven runs in an inning. He can give a press conference every night as far as I'm concerned.

Chewin' gum and legislatin' at the same time

I realize we just closed out eight years in which the President of the United States could not reliably be counted on to ride a Segway and...ride a Segway...at the same time, but this is getting truly ridiculous.

This notion that the president is "trying to do too much" also misses the policy point of the administration's agenda. Obama would no doubt love to take these crises one at a time. If these different moving parts -- economic growth, health care, energy, education, infrastructure -- weren't interconnected, I'm sure the president would gladly go slower.

What's more, Burgdorf's argument that consumer and investor "confidence" would get a boost if the president devoted 100% of his waking hours to overseeing the economy is just silly. Consumer and investor confidence is weak because the economy is in the toilet, not because the president took a few minutes to sign an executive order on medical research.

Risk and the sleight of hand

The Village line since Obama's address to Congress has been and will continue to be, the risk of overreach. John Harwood is the latest deliverer of this message. But this is a rather bizarre comparison.

What makes Mr. Obama’s reach even more striking is that he has followed a president with similar ambitions.

Accepting the 2000 Republican nomination, George W. Bush scalded Mr. Clinton for failing to lead and promised to “confront the hard issues.” Privately among aides, he disdained the “small ball” other politicians played.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. Bush sought to transform the Middle East by invading Iraq. Later he pursued partial privatization of Social Security over the misgivings of fellow Republicans. Whatever the merits of either endeavor, both became costly political failures even before the economy fell into crisis.

There seems to be a key distinction between the two administrations. "Whatever their merits," George W. Bush didn't campaign in 2000 to restructure the Middle East by attacking a country that did not pose a threat to us. Quite the contrary.

And in 2004, there was not so much of a mention during his re-election campaign to privatize Social Security.

On the other hand, all three areas for reform Obama presented to Congress last week -- health care, education, and energy -- were all key pillars of his campaign platform. Not only his, as Matt Yglesias points out, but pretty much every Democratic candidate.

So, unlike George W. Bush, who with the help of the media, was able to obfuscate, confuse, but charm too many voters, with Obama we're getting exactly what we voted for. There are always risks in pursuing an agenda -- Bill Clinton was elected in part on his calls for health care reform -- but in this case at least we are not being surprised by the agenda.

Oh, and note earlier in Harwood's piece, that "Mr. Obama’s only apparent deference to overloaded circuits so far was his decision to slow his initial push for Social Security solvency, which rattled Democratic liberals." Indeed, Obama, after making some tentative comments that quickly showed him that this was a non-starter for primary voters -- did not talk about SS during the campaign, except to remind voters that John McCain was for privatization.

The Villagers, though, would like us to believe Obama is trying to pull off some breathtaking sleight of hand.

Experience and leadership...oh, whatever

Shorter Actual Kathleen Parker:

Bush's contempt for the media meant he never stayed long enough to bore us.

Ah, the Village. Where attempts to actually explain complicated issues to the American people are considered boring and met only with the contempt of the clueless.

No. 6

Patrick McGoohan, RIP

Mr. McGoohan’s career ranged from success on the stages of London’s West End to starring in a popular spy series called “Secret Agent” in the United States. He was critically praised for his King Edward I in Mel Gibson’s 1995 film “Braveheart” and won Emmys as a guest star on “Colombo” in 1975 and 1990.

But it was as the lead character in “The Prisoner,” identified only as No. 6, that he struck a remarkable chord with audiences, one that has continued to reverberate in re-runs, festivals, university courses, doctoral theses and a quarterly magazine — all on the strength of just 17 episodes. The show’s legions of interpreters have perceived elements of the cold war, mob mentality, mind control and more in the show.

Color me "skeptical"

When you read stories like this one, you can be pretty sure that when they say "skeptical public," what they really mean is, "skeptical Villagers."