For that I turn to a Carol Felsenthal review of Glenn Thrush's cover article in Politico called, “Locked in the Cabinet: The worst job in Barack Obama’s Washington."
In "Secrets of the Chicago Guys in Obama’s Dysfunctional Cabinet," the always astute Felsenthal spotlights what I think has been Obama's problem, not just with the bungled Obamacare, but his style of governance in general:
Thrush describes the Obama cabinet as “a restless nest of ambition, fits-and-starts achievement and power-jockeying under a shadow of unfulfilled promise.” During the 2008 campaign, Obama pledged that his cabinet would be driven by ideas, innovation and results. He told a reporter for Time magazine, “I don’t want to have people who just agree with me…. I want people who are continually pushing me out of my comfort zone.”
Instead, he got a cabinet—except for the high-prestige positions at State, Defense, and Treasury—largely chosen by his staff and herded and controlled by “ferocious gatekeepers such as first-term chief of staff Emanuel.” But not even Rahm could keep track of all the moving parts. Obama “…. was drowning in data and chicken-pecked by aides asking for input. He privately groused that Emanuel was overwhelming him with requests to make decisions, so he issued a standing order to Emanuel and all future chiefs of staff… `Cut down on the number of decisions I have to make.’”
Undoubtedly, every president is vexed by the same problem--everyone wanting a piece of him, a flood of information and demands for decisions, decisions, decisions. I suspect that if Obama had even the slightest bit of administrative experience in his career of legislating, teaching and community organizing, he might have better handled this problem.
I guess that's why the American people have elected much fewer lawmakers president. They intuitively know that they need someone with management and administrative skills, such as a governor or a military leader.