Is it the job of the President to be Uniter-In-Chief?

[tgnyc]

I ask because that seems to be the Obama candidacy's whole reason for being.

Obama has made quite a show of "reaching out" to entities with which most Democrats do not agree on key issues of the day.

He has attacked his own party for trying to block the Supreme Court appointments of nominees it considered highly inappropriate.

He has attacked his own party for refusing to generally drag personal religious beliefs into the political sphere.

He has proudly campaigned alongside a minister who has proudly espoused beliefs most gays consider bigoted.

Joe Lieberman is his ace homeboy.

In hindsight, then, his declaration at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that he doesn't see "a white America and a black America," but simply "America" seems less a post-Star Trek, we-are-the-world kind of kumbaya speech -- which almost always seems right on time -- and more of a literal refusal to acknowledge the racial divides that exist in America.

If all of that is part-and-parcel with "bringing the country together," I could live with us being divided for a little while longer. I'd rather have a president who sees his mission as primarily undoing everything wrong that had been done over the last eight years, and setting our domestic and foreign policies on the right track -- no matter which non-Democrat-leaning groups or institutions feel left out or slighted.

What's most important to you all?

[stray cat]

1. No - but he shouldn't intentionally tear it apart like Bush has

[mmonk]

2. No.

It's to carry out constitutional duties of president.