Wow. This just about sums up our president.

It would be interesting to ponder if perhaps Mr. Obama sharpened his "deception skills" by his attendance at Columbia and Harvard. Could it be that Mr. Obama was accepted to schools beyond his intellectual gifts and as a survival mechanism he learned to shape reality to his own ends? Perhaps he learned at the Ivy league how to rhetorically manipulate his peers and teachers for his own academic survival. There's no way to know if that's true but one wonders if affirmative action, in an oblique way, bears some responsibility for president's pathology.

This is so cute, it's almost like a Dr. Seuss poem. Bravo!

"At what point does Obama think it becomes necessary for him to admit that, yes, he’s the president?"

An excellent question! The truth is that Mr. Obama knows he's the president and he's taking his position quite seriously. He golfs, goes to Camp David, makes political trips across the country and across the world, engages in politics, and has a wonderful time. He's in full swing with all the tapestries of the office. And if you still don't believe it, note how many times he says the word "I" when speaking about presidential activities.

Unfortunately for our president, there is more to the office and the job than the perks and trips. There is real responsibility and real work to do. There is oversight of the executive branch, relations with congress, relations with world leaders, and the constant need for U.S. attention to our interests for political and security concerns. Our president is not so interested in these aspects of the job. He is pulling out of Afghanistan, has left Iraq, seeks appeasement with Iran, gave Russia in roads to Egypt, left the drug war to Mexican cartels and gangs, and, even when his name is attached to the program, left ObamaCare to flounder and fail rather than show responsibility and leadership for his signature program. All because he's a president more interested in perks than the works of the office.

The problem is not that Mr. Obama does not think he's president. The problem is that he has no desire to take the job seriously. That, by the way, is the tragedy of Barack Obama, our president.

So, let's get this straight: The websites are slow and next to impossible to use. If, however, a person manages to get through to log in and purchase the product, he may, with high probability, find that the information insurers have is corrupt. Thus, when a person really needs the insurance, he may find that he is not covered because of errors in the insurance data. Or his costs are wrong, et cetera.

Talk about getting it coming and going. Once you manage to sign up, if you can, you find out your personal data are wrong. Can you imagine the nightmare it will be for people to correct the wrong data? Not to mention the logistics and personnel required. And don't forget that people make errors, too. Good grief.

Once again the problem for republicans is how they are perceived. Right now republicans appear as the party of "No." No to ObamaCare. No to an increase in the federal debt. No to this and that. While saying no maybe the best course of action to limit government, it is not a slogan to win elections nor to win the populace to your way of thinking.

Rather, republicans need to companion their own programs. As Jonathan points out, Ryan has a plan. Why are the republicans not talking about it? Why don't we hear more of what republicans want to do to help our nation with health care costs? That is something everyone cares about.

Just saying that ObamaCare is bad only tells a negative; people want to hear a positive. They want to hear what republicans will do and how republicans will help them.

It's not wrong to oppose ObamaCare and, quite frankly, it's not even wrong to oppose a war. But if you want to win elections, if you want to convince citizens to vote for your party, you need to give a positive message with a plan for definitive actions that will help the nation.

"Just say no" was Nancy Reagan's slogan for drug abusers. It didn't work to stem drug use then, it won't work to stop ObamaCare now.

What is the essence of Mr. Obama? It is his political instincts. He beat Hillary Clinton in 2008 and then beat John McCain to become president. These are not small accomplishments. He beat Romney in 2012 when many thought he'd lose. That is where his talents lie. So when it comes to ObamaCare the essence of the program is not a web site, it is not a law, and it is not health care for the nation. It is politics.

So when the site was not ready to go, the question was not about technical performance; it was whether the site was good enough for political use. After all, if the issue was purely technical, the president would have agreed to a year delay which would have given his administration time to fix the problems.

Rather, the president knows that any delay will only lead to the eventual defeat of his signature achievement as president (what else, by the way, does he have?). So, of course, we have a non-functioning website. It's not about the site, not about health care. It's all about politics and democrats who can claim some sort of health care law. On that point Mr. Obama scored.

The nation has a non-functioning system, but we have a system. And once the system is in place, it can be continually modified, changed, and updated; but not so easily terminated. The program is here. The political achieved. As anyone in procurement will tell you, once a government system is in place, it is extremely hard to kill.

On that score, Mr. Obama won.

That's pretty hilarious, thanks for the video. I hope the evening was as big a success as the video humor.

Sequestration is not the problem because Congress always has the ability to add funding to the Pentagon and thereby allow our military to train and prepare for war as it needs to do. The problem is that our representatives, senators, and president, have little use for the military and all too happy to see it decline. To blame sequestration, as bad and arbitrary as it is, is to miss the big picture.

The reality is that Americans (overall, I'm sorry to say) are none too keen to support our troops and would rather let the world disintegrate than pay for our military. Moreover, it's equally clear that when the choice is entitlements versus military the military loses. It's been losing for decades if you watch the budgets.

Of course, as Max notes, this is horrible for the country and it will be worse for our friends who depend on American might for protection against hostile countries and other threats. Nonetheless, this is where we are.

Here's a question to Max and Commentary readers: If we had compulsory service as, for example, Israel does, would we see Americans more supportive of our military? Might people want the best for our men and women when they and their children are serving the country?

This excerpt from Mr. Reid is classic: "What right did they have to pick and choose what part of government is going to be funded?" (Which, by the way, Congress has every right to decide what it will and will not fund.)

The follow-up is: What right does the president have to choose which part of a law he will enforce and which part he won't? And, speaking of ObamaCare, what right does the president have to exclude parts as it suits him and not enforce the entire law?

The hypocrisy is astounding.

Max is missing a most important point: time. Everything Max notes the U.S. must obtain has to come with a time table does not allow the Iranians to delay and continue their nuclear work. The real issue with this "new" diplomatic effort is that it gives Iran cover to continue their nuclear work and delay any possible strike.

The U.S. would do well to heed the advice of magicians who deploy misdirection: If a magician tells you to look in one place, you can be certain the magic is happening elsewhere. Let us be careful not to become distracted and only too late realize we have been deceived.