With the Massachusetts election results in the books and pundits everywhere trying to understand what it means, Ann Althouse says:

Poor Obama! It's the eve of the anniversary of his inauguration. The State of the Union was supposed to be very grand. And now what? He has been repudiated! He made this election a referendum on the Democrats agenda, and the people of Massachusetts, the most liberal state, gave him a resounding no.

Now, I think that could be good for Obama. He's a man of change. Let him change. I hope he becomes the President I thought he could be when I voted for him. With the midterm elections looming in the fall, he can readjust, set himself apart from Congress. Take the people seriously.

I'm keying in on that last sentence. Take the people seriously. She's saying that Obama was too set on advancing his own agenda - that he took his election as the end point of his engagement with the people rather than just the start of it. I think she's right. For better or worse, we elect a person, not a series of policy statements to be implemented upon election. The President's job isn't to bully his agenda through Congress. He's not a union negotiator or a used car salesman. The President's job is to listen and try to sell his agenda to the American people. He's a marketer. He's gotta soften us up to make it easy for our Senators and Congressmen to vote for what he wants.

So then, my question is if Obama should take us seriously what does that mean? Does it mean he should he listen to our problems and romance us (or scare us) a little, like a Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan would do. Or, does taking us seriously mean that he should come out armed with facts & figures? What works best, an emotional or a rational appeal?