No, I don't think he's all that consumed with making money, post Presidency. That's pretty much a given....even at the low end.

I wrote several posts on Salon, and elsewhere, about several meeting I sat in on during the campaign. What made them slightly different than the norm was that they were comprised of psychiatrists. Open collars, feet on coffee tables, and beers in hand, the discussions were, to say the least, fascinating.

Not that it's possible, but I'll make a feeble attempt to boil it down to a sentence or two. Their premise (after the requisite caveats) was that he scared them to He!!. Due to his early abandonment by the Male figures in his life, they hypothesized that he was on a life long mission, no goal mind you, just mission. One guy who had met him said that when they were talking, Obama had all the mannerisms: smiles, friendliness, closeness, but the Dr. couldn't get beyond the feeling that Obama was talking "through" him, or "over" him, as if he couldn't wait to get past him and move to his next contact.

They even had a slang expression, also used to describe the many super stars who went on to self destruct after reaching the seeming "Top," .......The "is that all there is syndrome."

Just a parlor, Yenta gab fest, but it struck a chord. What happened to the fiery, purpose filled Knight of the Campaign? He seems so bored now, like a spoiled, rich, brat whose mother is scolding, "You can go out and play with the boys After you finish your homework."

Well, I call BS on that, and so should everyone else, because it is not just defeatist, throwing a suffocating blanket of inertia over the whole thing, but it is helping to harden the divide between the haves and the have-nots.  It's sending a loud and clear message that "we don't care that you don't have a job, can't afford to keep your house, still can't afford health care: if you can't make it on your own, maybe you weren't supposed to, so just quit whining and get out of the way!"

What?

I was skeptical about Obama from the beginning.  Maybe it was his seeming rise out of nowhere in such a short time, with little, really, that should have impelled him to such prominence so quickly.  His so-called accomplishments pre-presidency were, on closer inspection and research, over-inflated, and in some cases, the result of others allowing him to take credit for things he hadn't been particularly involved in - and in some cases, others have suggested that it wasn't a case of him being allowed to take credit, but him just taking it.

I didn't like what that might portend.  

His Senate career, such as it was, seemed to be more of the same, with him once again glomming onto the work of others to boost his own resume.  I didn't find it encouraging, nor did I think it spoke well of his interest in the real work of the Senate, that he pretty much blew off his sub-committee chair responsibilities.  

Listening carefully to him, I wasn't hearing the kinds of things that gave me any encouragement that he would lead in a progressive manner; I was often left feeling that he could talk the talk, but wouldn't walk the walk.

So, there's no question that while I wanted him to succeed at the things that mattered to me, there was little I was seeing, hearing or reading that suggested he would - or that he was really interested in doing so.

Wanting a politician/elected official to succeed does not mean that one should suspend one's doubts, does it?  If he were a family member or friend I had regular contact with, I can see the importance of conveying utter confidence so as not to discourage, but with politicians, I think the doubt and the skepticism should make them rise to the occasion - I see no reason why Obama, or anyone else holding elective office, should not have to prove to me that they stand behind their promises.

From the Get Out Of Jail Free card for the Bush crowd that came really early, to the single-payer-off-the-table, to embrace of the Bush policies, to the execrable health whatever thing, to using women's health as a bargaining chip, to the weak stimulus, to his failure to fight for Dawn Johnsen, to his constant nods to Republican policies, to the Cat Food Commission, he has shown me that I was right to be skeptical and right to believe that he wasn't the president we needed him to be.

So many of the things he has done are not the kind that evolve over time to be good policy or good legislation, so this "he needs more time - it's still so early" mantra just doesn't cut it with me.

And for those who will react - perhaps even you - with "well, you never liked him, so of course you weren't going to give him any credit for anything," I would simply say that there were reasons - valid reasons - why I didn't like him, and he has done nothing to prove me wrong for feeling that way.

He's had two years' worth of chances, on some very important issues, and the choices he's made are going to be with us for a long, long time - and not to our benefit.  I don't need more time  to know this, and neither should anyone else.