You have to be both the book and the tweet in politics.

Obama stood for a more accessible health policy, reform on climate change, protecting American jobs via trade policy (?!) and a more consultative and open approach to foreign policy.

He also made great speeches. He has substance its just easier for some of his critics to pretend he doesn't. We've already seen that he's had a major go on health care - though its been hijacked by the Republicans. He tried hard at Copenhagen but China played interference. His foreign policy approach has been a success - it is so different than the Bush years.

If you actually study the structure of American politics a President has less power than people think. The President has to work within a Congressional system. So that has to factor into any assessment of Obama.

This article exaggerates the absence of Obama's policy specifics. Anyone who was even remotely engaged with the various think tanks and grassroots organisational machinery which helped put Obama in the White House could tell you his major important promises made during the campaign, as well as myriad other policy expectations that came with the Democratic platform. All that required was an internet connection.

To deny this because of a myopic focus on his lofty rhetoric during speeches and the gloss of celebrity isn't clever or insightful. The comparison to Orwell is also absurd.

What about Sarah Palin and her "message" to the Tea Party protestors who pretend that they are the vanguard for the "revolutionary" impulse in USA politics.

And what about George Bush too. Try googling: narcissism George Bush.

And what about the "great communicator" Ronald Reagan (Palins hero and inspiration)

Check out a book titled The Man Who Sold the World: Ronald Reagan and the Betrayal of Mainstream America by William Kleinknecht.

Also http://www.psychohistory.com/reagan/rcontent.htm

Particularly fine article. Written with good research, style and verve. It's an extension of Neil Postman's thesis about amusing ourselves to death and some of the research that Putnam and others have done on death of community and sense making.

I wouldn't entirely agree re Obama but it's close enough to be a valid point. Tweets, Facebook, TV, blogs all have a 'look at me' entertainment factor. The technology trivialises the discourse (a word I used to use in lectures when ever the teacher saw my hand up). That's one problem but it's even worse if you've got an ignorant publc because we've trivialised political discourse out of existence.

It's a pretty, postmodern sort of metaphor, but seems it is necessary to remind Jorgensen that Obama is functioning in a complex democracy, not a Fascist state, and is not one man but a party of diverse individuals, think tanks, expert advisors and vested interests. The sort of 'leader' Jorgensen appears to desire does not exist in the western world, yet, and hopefully never will. Who has not sat on a community committee and damned democracy for its stubborn recalcitrance to good sense? I'm sure Obama is having more than his fair share of that sentiment right now.
And he's also facing this much hyped 'popular uprising' from the Loony Right, the 'Tea Party' - for God's Sake! - led by the gun tot'n Ms Palin. And what are they complaining about Obama doing? Stopping the American economy going into a tailspin and freefalling into Depression? Trying to introduce a health scheme that provides basic health care to those who can't afford it and prevents whole families being bankrupted over one member's illness? Didn't hear a peep out the same lot when Bush Jr drained the coffers to trash Iraq and Afghanistan, and let cronies siphon off a few trillion, did we? Hmmmmm..

Good points Dr Merlyn but Jorgensen is an undergrad so lets cut him a bit of slack.