Obama picks campaigning over leading

read it here: by NOLAN FINLEY

There's always been a disconnect between what Barack Obama says and what he does, but for the last few weeks, the president's rhetoric has been wholly detached from reality.

Many pundits predicted that after the Massachusetts massacre Obama would swing toward the middle, adopt a conciliatory approach and adjust his policies and priorities to reflect the mood of the nation.

Instead, the president jutted his chin a notch higher in the air and launched into campaign-style attack mode. His statements range from outrageous to audacious and risk throwing Washington into total gridlock. It's a risky strategy that ought to worry Democrats who this fall will face an electorate weary of political bickering.

It began with the State of the Union address last week. Obama could have tried to catch some Republican flies with honey, challenging them to meet him in the middle and letting them weigh the political consequences of saying no. He opted for vinegar instead.

The speech started with a call for cooperation and ended with the president taunting Republicans and tagging them with the blame for Washington's mess.

Obama accepted an invitation to the Republican congressional retreat, which should have opened the door to a working relationship. But the president slammed it shut. The session continued the partisan baiting and accusations, and drew comparisons to the raucous exchanges of Britain's Parliament.

Obama isn't missing a chance to spank the GOP. How this fits into his professed objective of ending the destructive rancor in Washington is difficult to see.

More likely, the president is hardening partisan lines and confirming the public's view that Washington is a broken place.

Not only that, but Obama's assertions fail the accuracy test. To suggest Republicans blocked him is laughable. Until Scott Brown is seated as the new Republican U.S. senator from Massachusetts -- which could happen as early as today -- Republicans can't block anything.

The president has to accept responsibility for stubbornly pressing an ideological agenda that was out of sync with the public's priorities and then not effectively advocating for his own proposals.

For a solid year, Democrats held a rare super-majority in Congress. Had Obama been a better politician and a more forceful leader, he could have passed his entire wish list. He squandered his advantage, and now he wants to place the blame elsewhere.

He's good at that. After unveiling his budget earlier this week, Obama crisscrossed the country, lecturing Americans on the virtues of frugality. "We simply cannot continue to spend as if deficits don't have consequences," the president said, adding that the government has to make hard choices and set priorities.

That's a good message. Except that this is entirely Obama's budget. He's the one who failed to set priorities, who didn't make hard choices. The nearly $1.3 trillion deficit built into this budget is historic in its fiscal recklessness, and it belongs to him.

He ought to be wagging his finger in the mirror.

Campaign rhetoric is fine for campaigns, but not so good for governing. Obama needs to face the fact that he's made some pretty serious mistakes in his first year that can't be covered up with campaign sound bites.