If you wanted to be the center of attention where you live or work you could prepare a speech nearly every day and, if no one else was doing likewise, your communiques would become the sound of the realm. 

The risk, of course, is that someone might actually be listening, taking notes and/or recording your monologues. 

It's easy to predict where such monitoring would eventually end up.  After all, it's human nature of Biblical proportion that the rank and file will always murmur about those who pontificate.  The masses are always eager to criticize when leaders misspeak, exaggerate, contradict themselves or fail to follow through on threats and promises. 

Only a totalitarian regime can keep the voice of the workers from getting louder than the leader's.  But even then, everyone knows about the hypocrisy but, out of fear, zip their lip.

"A smidgen of good news and suddenly everything is doing great. A little bit of bad news and ooh, we're down on the dumps.  And I am obviously an object of this constantly varying assessment. I am the object in chief of this varying assessment."

Well yes, Mr. O, but that's because of how you have it set up.  Instead of taking the advice of predecessors -- asking not what the country can do for you, keeping a low profile while carrying a big stick and proving by your actions (not your words) that the buck stops at your desk -- you have chosen to be the "object" of just about everything as a result of making those daily speeches.

At home or away the "transparency" game continues.  If only it was about hard facts and not merely about being in your face for the sole purpose of face time. 

"I don't think things are ever as good as they are, or ever as bad as they say.  Things two years ago were not as good as we thought because there were a lot of underlying weaknesses in the economy. They're not as bad as we think they are now."

But, Mr. O, what about those speeches you made less than a month ago in which the word "catastrophe" was part of every prepared teleprompter paragraph?  Are you creating "change" yet again because of the criticism you have received from supporters and critics alike that your daily speeches have been, on the whole, way too pessimistic? 

More importantly, are you saying now that your original assessment was inaccurate?  Or is the fact that the stock market -- which you earlier opined was not to be observed on a daily basis -- had a rally this week and started to make you look better for it? 

What a chance to make a daily speech in which you take credit for something you've spoken against without actually saying so.  What a chance for those who are paying attention to roll their eyes again today.

And since you were in the Senate two years ago, Mr. O, why shouldn't equal blame be placed on you and your liberal cohorts in Congress for the "underlying weaknesses" during the previous administration that you have cited?

"My long-term projections are highly optimistic, if we take care of some of these long-term structural problems."

It's all about the O -- the self-proclaimed "object in chief". 

O is for Obama.  O is for Optimism.

Then there's that other 0, which is more like what we've seen from Mr. O thus far.