An interesting point was made that Obama is sitting where he is because he was a shining, gilded, glib, and utterly blank slate that individual voters could write onto him whatever they wanted to see. (What other possible explanation could there be for a candidate backed, not even quietly, by the American Communist Party, and by the likes of Christopher Buckley and and other tepid conservatives?)

So that blankness got him elected. Now that same blankness works against him, in that those who don’t like him, or moderates who are starting to not like him, can read whatever they want to see upon that slate, and believe it, true or not. (Much of it is true, but not the point here.)

That could not be done (credibly) with any politician who was much more defined. And the only way Obama can start to reverse the latter, be they true or not, is by concrete actions and accomlishments that prove them wrong.

And I don’t think he has it in him.