namely, people fell for eight years of Bush...until the economy crashed.

From what I've noticed from people on the streets of my own city and on the blogs, people had way too much hope on Obama that he could solve EVERYTHING including cancer just by touching it. Again, the messiah complex.  

No, not the messiah complex...human nature.

When things are going badly ,people reach out to  anyone or anything that appears to be able to provide them comfort..and dare I say it, hope. That could be booze, religion, a charismatic figure or a bombastic talk show host.

The mechanism is the same for Obama and Rush Limbaugh. Obama gives people hope by doing, Limbaugh by blaming. Nothing new about that. When Obama doesn't do what you think is important then you get discouraged. Nothing new about that either.

Every administration ratings I can remember, and that's quite a few,  went down after the first 6 months or so in office. There are only two choices for President... neither candidate can be all things to all people.

In that regard Obama is picking his battles wisely I think. Hit the big ticket items first while he has significant majorities in both houses of Congress and 50+ polling numbers

Then the "B" list probably after the midterms when statistically he can expect to lose some seats.

His approach to security is wise as well. Going in and scraping existing programs with a machete is not a good idea.

I don't think many people realize how close Reagan came to being a one term president. The recession hung on to well into his third year in office.

Rating On Reagan Lags At Midterm - Gallup Poll Says Public Finds Job Performance Is Poorer Than 4 Predecessors - The New York Times  July 1983

 Also making gaffs like this didn't help:

"I don't know of any authoritative figures that there are hungry children. I've heard a lot of anecdotal stuff, but I haven't heard any authoritative figures...I think some people are going to soup kitchens voluntarily. I know we've had considerable information that people go to soup kitchens because the food is free and that that's easier than paying for it...I think that they have money."

 But the economy took an up turn in late 83 early 84 and the rest is history.

So relax.

There were ostensibly throngs of people who were in love with Obama because they did think he would cure every one of their problems.  The vast majority of those people are politically novice or ignorant--they don't know that the Congress passes laws, they don't know about the history of Wall Street regulations or the CIA or medicare, they don't follow politics any more than watching the occasional ad during election season, the first presidential debate, and/or gossipy issues (people know that Palin's team overspent on clothes, they know that Obama bowls poorly, they know that "that gay guy from, like, Iowa or wherever, had a wide stance in the bathroom," and they have never heard of Mitch McConnell or Kathleen Sebelius.)  Those people may have lost the feeling of newness that Obama brought a year ago, but they largely are still not paying attention, so either they still love him or they don't, but it is largely irrelevant.  These people are not about to start voting for Club for Growth Conservatives in 2010 or for the freak parade of GOP hopefuls in 2012.

The people who are paying attention largely did not have a "Messiah" complex as regards Obama.  They figured he would be a great president who would be on the side of the people and usher in a new age of productive, re-juvenating policies.  But in theory, people should think that of anyone they elect.  You don't have to be thought of as "Messianic" just because you project a better country under your leadership than under the previous leadership.  If you remember, Bush promised to restore "honor" to the White House, promised to carry forth the strong and humble ideals of America, promised not to engage in expensive programs we couldn't pay for, promised not to nation-build.  People just reasonably expected that Obama might keep a few of _his_ promises.  Not much to ask of a person, let alone a deity.

But people are at best quite nervous about Obama's presidency thus far.  No one (who is paying attention) believed that he would solve all eight major crises facing the US simultaneously (energy, health care, the economy, the nuclear terrorism threat, illegal immigration, education, manufacturing competitiveness, and the environment/climate) and also solve all social ills and restore the Constitution within 6 months.  But a) he is going in the wrong direction on a lot of these issues (handling the banks terribly, inexplicable decisions about the 4th amendment, gay rights, transparency, etc.), b) he seems very reluctant to push hard for almost any Progressive policies (EFCA, single payer health care, drug legalization, cutting the defense budget), c) he has once-in-a-political-lifetim e grass-roots and (mostly) media support AND a friendly Congress AND a decrepit opposition party, and so the clock is ticking very loudly, and d) most presidents get most of their big legislation done in the first year.  It is too distracting (usually) to try for something big during the run-up midterms and re-election season and then permanent lame-duck status.  So these weeks right now matter a ton more than the prospect of him finally getting to something big in March of 2012 or August of 2014 (assuming he is re-elected, which is likely).  6 months is an 8th of his entire first term, and he should be zipping along, giving us some inkling that he will be a good president, that he will do the right thing a year from now when he really _has_ had plenty of time to affect some change if he wants to.

  In addition, Washington is a slow-moving place--yes.  But Obama has the ability to executive-order many things he has not yet.  He could INSTANTLY affect some of the social issues.  He could INSTANTLY change military policy (he is the Commander in Chief).  He could instantly usher in greater transparency, or lean on the DOJ to prosecute torture, etc.  Do I wish Obama would "be more like Bush" when it came to unilaterally pushing through an agenda specifically designed to negate and remedy Bush's mistakes?  Absolutely!  The alternative is that those remedies die a slow, compromised, grandstanded, cowardly death on Harry Reid's desk every single time.  If you believe that Obama's judgment is generally good, why NOT want for him to occasionally use a stroke of the pen to improve the country immediately?

Star Trek the Next Generation was a pretty lousy show in the first season, as were Cheers and the Simpsons.  (Please, no complaints--I have a right to my opinion.)  A few shows take a while to hit their stride, and almost no show is "great" after 13 episodes.  But if you watch the first five episodes of a show and it just isn't compelling in any way, the odds that it will grow into genius are 1 in 1000.  You don't often say "well, let's watch for 4 years and then judge."--you have a pretty good idea from what you have seen thus far.  The seeds have to be of good quality to grow a good tree even if it takes a few years for us to see the tree.

I don't think there have been many presidencies that have begun by facing so many large emergencies as this one.  I think that he is postponing some of the "smaller" issues (I put quotes around the word smaller because they aren't small to people directly affected) because they may dilute the public's limited attention away from the more urgent, acute issues that affect everyone.   Fundamental change takes time, and I think he is merely being careful.   Sometimes it feels like he's being much too ginger, but it's early yet and I am taking a wait and see attitude.  I think he's trying to turn the train without derailing it, which is probably a lesson he took from the Jimmy Carter years.  My guess is that he will get less and less accommodating to the opposition as time moves on if things don't start to happen.

Many predicted last autumn that we were headed for a depression, and it certainly looked that way for a while.   While a lot of the decisions he has made have seemed like they didn't go far enough, or have gone too far putting us into greater debt, or were too easy on the banks, etc. he can at least make a case that the economy has not collapsed.   It could still happen, and even if it doesn't we may never know if it would have or not, but that's the way it is when you avoid a catastrophe, you can never get full credit because you can never know for sure what would have happened taking a different path.  The same thing will be true of problems like global warming.   If we avoid the worst effects you will never see a day when the critics stop their frantic griping and congratulate those who acted for averting a crisis, they will claim the crisis would never have occurred in the first place.  If it proves catastrophic I suppose those who saw it coming will be small able to say, "I told you so", but that will be small comfort.  C'est la vie.

I think that a man expected to solve so many titanic problems deserves a certain amount of patience.  There are reasons that these issues have been kicked from presidency to presidency without being addressed.  Changing that is very unlikely to happen overnight and with the pantywaist Democratic majority that we have out there it won't be easy even taking it slowly. In any case I think it's way too soon to draw any conclusions. 

I'm African American and I could care less what Obama thought about Michael Jackson.  

This goes back to what I was talking about. Why do we care about what Obama thinks about these pop culture issues?  I mean, the media has an agenda and that's to get ratings, obviously.  But are we as a country the citizens so invested into knowing every single detail about what our President (Obama) thinks and feels?  In some ways I feel Obama is being forced into some of these stupid useless "news" reports on giving his opinion on Michael Jackson's death,  giving his choices for March Madness on his bracket, Obama swatting a fly, what kind of Dog Obama gets... hypoallergenic.  and so on...  

I have never seen a President in my lifetime and through my learning about American history who has had THIS much attention on some useless issues.  I think I'm getting to the point where it's too much Obama kind of like right now, TOO much Michael Jackson...  ALL day news coverage on Michael Jackson on EVERY news network.  I didn't realize the Iranian conflict and all the other problems in the country have been taken over by gossip "news" and more information about Mark Sanford (his story is interesting but it's getting to the point where it's TOO much)

What ever happened to journalism in this country?  It's like all news organizations today have turned into TMZ or People magazine.  

I'll admit that I did fall for the Obama is the Messiah storyline a little bit. It felt romantic (in the ideal sense, not the love sense) to have this good looking, intelligent, thoughtful man of principle who was going to sweep away all the bad caused by Bush and the Conservatives for the last eight years. I have been a Democrat literally since I was five years old, and I have been a Liberal since I was 15. I'm 35 now, but in all that time I had never fallen in love with a candidate the way I did with Obama. I desperately wanted, and perhaps needed, him to be a man of strong convictions who would defeat brainless Conservatism at every turn.

Unfortunately, in the six months he has been in office I have seen him capitulate too many times to the Conservative line of thinking in the guise of "bipartisanship". I don't WANT bipartisanship if it means capitulation. I want bipartisanship if it means that Obama was successful in convincing some Conservatives that they were HORRIBLY wrong and need to allow Liberals to push our agendas forward. If an idea is a good idea, you should be able to convince a logical person to see your side and hopefully sway them. The fact that this isn't what goes on in Washington seems indicative of a host of problems with our government (lack of intellect of elected officials, corruption, blind competitiveness of the two political sides).

And, I don't expect Obama to fix everything in six months. But what I do expect is that he will, on a consistent basis, show that he is living up to the standards that he convinced us that he believed in, such as transparency in government. He has regularly sided with those who want to continue to keep the truth hidden from the population, such as the torture photos, and not being interested in pursuing the criminal acts of Bush and Cheney.

We NEED a fully transparent government if we are to ever be able to fully trust it, and its claim that it has our best interests in mind. Part of the reason people are skeptical of things like the stimulus plan and healthcare reform is because we don't have clear evidence that the government is trying to do what is best for the people on the street. Transparency and a  willingness to go after Bush and Cheney to show that NO ONE is above the law would go a long way to gaining the people's trust.