Without Rose Colored Glasses

President Obama’s popularity is sinking, and commentators as much as many voters are beginning to blame him for his policies, his governing style, his ethos, his personality. Most of those same people a year ago assessed Obama differently. To him then he was a savior figure who was so intelligent, so in control of his emotions, so drama-phobic, so cooperative, so incisive, so savvy, so capable, so refreshing in his approach, so unafraid of criticism, that his campaign’s claim that he would reform Washington, end the war in Afghanistan, pass healthcare, fix the economy, take the needed steps about climate change and immigration was like a done deal. Of course he would, why not, he was this superhuman figure that had emerged from a mostly single parent household, had been deserted by his father, distinguished himself at Harvard and had written 2 bestselling books. Now, a year later when the promised agenda incessantly attacked from a numbers of groups from left to right is in jeopardy, the problem must be with him. Must it? Could it be that Mr. Obama wasn’t seen clearly in the first place, that the euphoria that had led to Obamamania has dissipated removing the rose colored glasses and what now stands before those voters and commentators is a more down to earth capable and unusual but nevertheless human president? And if that’s so, he doesn’t bear full responsibility for his slide, but those who didn’t see him clearly to begin with, those who projected their own wishes and agenda, who wanted a savior more than a president, do.