It isn't necessarily true that a legislative supermajority precludes presidential leadership.  It may be a matter of political ideology or personality instead.  

Michael Barone's piece found in the Washington Examiner on February 10 suggests that the present supermajority status of the Democrat Party has resulted in a lack of presidential leadership, and that when government is more evenly divided the president has the responsibility of leading by setting the direction for government and avoiding partisanship in the name of getting things accomplished. While this may be true in many instances, regardless of the circumstances, the "stupidity" that Barone questions thusly

How could such smart people do so many stupid things? … The same people who directed the campaign that defeated Hillary Clinton and routed John McCain, a campaign that raised far more money and attracted far more volunteers than any before it, have within a year come up with a legislative program that is crashing in ruins and that, to judge from recent polls, has left the Democratic party weaker than I have seen it in almost 50 years of closely following politics.

has very little to do with the the number of legislative votes controlled by the Democrat Party.  The answer lies in two essential facts that have nothing to do with partisanship, intelligence or leadership. The lack of leadership is a direct reflection of the personality of Barack Obama. The first of these facts is that he is not a leader and does not understand leadership. The second is that he is an ideologue.

To be completely clear on the first of these we have to look at what he has said and done that reflects on his leadership ability since the election. To begin with he campaigned as a "uniter," but as soon as he took office he began to place extreme emphasis on partisanship, and broke all of his promises about transparency. When he is challenged about this he consistently attacks the challenger by dismissing their position as of no value. He has continually refused to acknowledge Republican Party health care proposals, and has as much as said "my way or no way." Top this off with the "I won so I get my way" position that he has taken on several occasions and you see a person with a dictatorial perspective rather than a leadership perspective.

The lack of leadership also is shown in his "personality driven" approach to international relations. He expects that foreign nations are going to fall in line with his agenda because of who he is. It doesn't work, and it never will, but the fact that this defect in leadership exists also shows the lack of leadership ability. True leaders give others a reason to follow. Obama provides no reason but expects them to follow anyway.

What some people fail to recognize is that this is not so much a matter of stupidity as it is a personality trait. The person who thinks that he is perfect will never accept the possibility of imperfection. Mr. Obama believes that he is, as Sean Hannity would say, "the anointed one" and as such, he is not subject to the normal limitations.

The second fact, that Obama is an ideologue, reflects on the lack of leadership as well. Leftist ideologues have an historic tendency to take dictatorial approaches, if not worse, to governing.   Their position, that they have all the answers makes it impossible for them to "lead" in the true sense.  Because they know better than everyone else, they cannot negotiate. They must always have their own way.  The result is that whether it is Obama, one of his cronies, or the Democratic power brokers in the legislature, they all have similar positions of self-righteousness and will not compromise. This is the reason why certain legislators could hold out for favors. They knew that Reid and Pelosi would not back down, and that the Louisiana Purchase and Cornhusker Kickback etc., would be a shoe-in.

The bottom line is that Ideologues cannot lead. They can demand, they can issue orders and they can throw temper tantrums when they lose, but none of these involve leadership. The difference between the average leftist and the average conservative is that conservatives rarely move in lockstep. Leftists generally do, and frequently they all move toward the goal of personal power which sets them at odds with each other.  True Conservatives generally eschew the power orientation in favor of real accomplishment.

We may be reminded of the "Best and the Brightest" who made a mess of the Vietnam War because they approached it from a political and intellectual standpoint, rather than a military standpoint. Obama and his cadre of people with Ivy League degrees have virtually no practical experience with the real world. However, they expect to be treated as "experts" who can solve any and every problem, usually by talking it to death. Mr. Obama is unable to understand that the American people don't want his proposals and so he opines that he hasn't explained it well enough. He cannot understand that he has explained it so well that about 2/3 of the people who hear him are convinced to oppose it.

A true leader would understand that the people need a reason to get behind a political leader. Generally this is achieved through respect, trust and accomplishment. Ronald Reagan respected the people and they trusted him in return. He accomplished a turnaround from the Carter recession and increased the respect with actual results. So far, the Obama ideological approach has accomplished essentially nothing. He would do well to look to President Reagan as someone to emulate, but he won't. President Reagan wasn't a leftist ideologue and therefore his success cannot have anything of value to contribute.