REVEALING

Did any of you listen to the Katie Couric interview with Obama that interrupted the Superbowl pre-game? I hadn't then, but I just listened to it now.

There is plenty of fodder for someone like Glen Beck to pick up on that shows his true colors. He says stuff that he thinks sounds good, but it's full of more dictatorial and hypocritical rhetoric. For instance (my emphasis in bold),

KATIE COURIC: But did some of these special deals, Mr. President--
PRESIDENT OBAMA: They didn't help.

KATIE COURIC: --sort of get it passed at all costs, turn your stomach, too?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: They did not help. They frustrate me. But, you know, this is a democracy. Look, I would have loved nothing better than to simply come up with some very elegant you know, academically approved approach to health care. And didn't have any kinds of legislative fingerprints on it. And just go ahead and have that passed. But that's not how it works in our democracy. Unfortunately what we end up having to do is to do a lot of negotiations with a lot of different people. Many of whom have their constituents best interests at heart.

My reaction to those words is that he'd rather be able to impose his plan without Congress. That's what a king would do. But, at the same time, he didn't even send his plan to them to start with. Also, he's very aware of the deals and strong-arming that have to be done in order to get the votes. He knows that the bill doesn't stand on its own. Force and bribery is required. And here's another that is actually hypocritical in its own peculiar way:

KATIE COURIC Have you ruled out trying confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Muhammad in New York City?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I have not ruled it out, but I think it's important for us to take into account the practical, logistical issues involved. I mean, if you've got a city that is saying no, and a police department that's saying no, and a mayor that's saying no, that makes it difficult. But I think that the most important thing for the public to understand is we're not handling any of these cases any different than the Bush Administration handled them all through 9/11.

They prosecuted the 190 folks in these Article III courts. Got convictions. And those folks are in maximum security prisons right now. And there have been no escapes. And it is a virtue of our system that we should be proud of. Now, what I've also said is that, you know, it's important for us to recognize that when we're dealing with Al Qaeda operatives, that they may have national security intelligence that we need.

And it's important to make sure that the processes and procedures we approach with respect to these folks are not identical to the ones that we would use if we're apprehending the local drug dealer. And that's why we've put in place some very particular ways of dealing with these issues that ensure our security, but also still uphold our due process.

Does he realize his double speak? He says nothing has changed in the way things were handled in the Bush administration as though that is a plus. I thought he fervently thought that they did everything wrong in terms of these arrests. And, the presidency should not be "on the job training". He says the right thing, but then does another. They did treat the underwear bomber as we would a drug dealer.

I also can't help but notice his consistency in not caring about his constituents' or even sub-positioned authorities' opinions when he says,

I have not ruled it [holding terrorist trials in NY] out, but I think it's important for us to take into account the practical, logistical issues involved. I mean, if you've got a city that is saying no, and a police department that's saying no, and a mayor that's saying no, that makes it difficult.

Ah, too bad, it makes it difficult to work around the people's will. We see the same thing, of course, with health care.

I could go on making observations that come from reading the comments to this interview, but I think I've said enough for now.