Robert Gibbs says he’s comfortable being a one-term president if it means he’ll pass health care and his agenda. Some random — and perhaps contradictory — thoughts:

1) Doesn’t this seem like a tacit concession that health care would in fact be “Obama’s Waterloo” after all?

2) How popular can his agenda be, if it will cost him reelection to get it passed?

3) How can he have a mandate for change if enacting it is so unpopular? Why is it so unpopular if he ran on this agenda? Is it all the fault of those racist, fascist, Brooks Brothers-suit-wearing huns?

4) I’m sure we will hear a great deal about how this proves what a great leader Obama is (and if I were a liberal, I might even agree!). But when Bush defied the polls, it was proof he was “out of touch” and in denial.

5) Does Obama think his agenda might cost him reelection because the American people are too stupid to understand it, or because he’s not up to the job of explaining it?