David Broder explains why the Daschle debacle is especially problematic for the President:

Even when the White House belatedly learned of Daschle’s tax troubles, it misjudged the political fallout. Despite the glaring contradiction between Obama’s proclaimed ethical standards and Daschle’s lucrative expense-account life that led to his tax underpayment, Obama said he “absolutely” stood by his choice. One day later, he accepted Daschle’s withdrawal. This is a blow to Obama’s credibility that will not be easily forgotten.

Now Daschle and Robert Gibbs would have us believe that the President didn’t change his mind, his nominee did. But this odd sort of spin (“He really was ethically obtuse and politically tone deaf, honest!”) is belied by his later confession that he “screwed up.” Presumably he realized this sometime between the appearance of the New York Times op-ed and his TV interviews.

In any event, it is hard to tell when the President means something. He means to close Guantanamo, but not anytime soon. He means to end enhanced interrogation techniques, but he’s going to get advice for a gaping exception (the “this-guy-is-really-bad-and-he-knows-information-that-will-spare-lives” exception which was the very one the Bush administration employed without the hypocritical fanfare). He means to end earmarks, but he’s pleased (until he wasn’t) with the House pork-a-thon bill. He means to be bipartisan, yet can’t resist the urge to do the end-zone dance in front of Republicans (“I won.”) He means to reform lobbyist rules, but has at least a dozen ethics waivers (the latest at the Justice Department).

So it’s not just Daschle. There is a credibility gap, a chasm really, between much of what the President says and what he does. Daschle is just the most obvious illustration. Perhaps now that the media is snapping out of its cheerleading mode, it might look at some of these other items to see whether there is a more endemic problem within the Obama administration.