Obama: The Best Case Scenario
Such a situation might be described by one of its proponents like this:
Obama is being hyper-pragmatic. The reason Obama is avoiding reforms on transparency, gay rights, etc. is to avoid divisive political battles until health care reform is accomplished. He realizes that many presidents have tried to unseat the entrenched private insurance system and failed in spectacular fashion. Obama recognizes the paramount importance of health care reform, to individuals and to the country's overall economic health, and has decided to fix his sights on health care, picking his battles with the strategy of a chess player until he accomplishes that near-impossible goal.
The reason is that Obama and Axelrod have a basic map of where Obama's presidency should go. He's going to ride in on the endearing gloss of his remarkable character and his racial barrier-shattering, undeniably historic election. Of course, some people will never like Barack Obama, but we do know his favorability ratings thus far in are uncommonly high. He will use this to his advantage, passing health care and economic reform in his first year. Like Roosevelt and the New Deal Coalition, the popularity of Obama's reforms will win him the long-term loyalty of large voting blocs. The economy will begin to recover some time before his reelection, whether it's true or not he'll get credit for it, and his influence will be safe for the rest of his presidency. The later part of his administration will be remembered for the stream of progressive reforms he had promised during the campaign. He was only waiting to make those reforms until he had political space to maneuver. If he had acted too quickly on other reforms, his presidency would have been much less effective.
This is priceless, thanks! I laughed so hard I nearly fell off my chair. What's the worst case scenario?
July 10, 2009 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The way things are currently playing out.
July 10, 2009 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who the hell is ladling out the Kool-Aid lately, and why do I always get skipped?
July 10, 2009 5:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not Kool-Aid, it's something else and with escalating wars, more muzzling of "state secrets" boy, more borrow and spend, trillions of new debt gone into Wall St coffers and shriveled "greenshoots", unemployment probably over 10%, whatever it is, boy, do I need some.
July 11, 2009 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
The worst case scenario is that Obama actually beleives the things he says.
July 10, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a joke right?
I get so weary of all these complicated scenarios about how Obama is secretly planning on the doing the right thing in an unlimited number of areas... but first he has to concentrate on... in this case healthcare. Once he magically gets real healthcare reform passed (something he hasn't even proposed) then he'll come through on everything else. This kind of thing is wishful thinking on a scale I've rarely seen. He is what he appears to be. A typical two-faced politician who most people, including me, happen to like and who is taking full advantage of his popularity not to advance policy goals but to buttress himself for reelection. And that is no joke.
July 10, 2009 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ah! But you might be wrong, oleeb! Aren't you going to feel bad when you awaken one morning and find out that Obama has closed Gitmo AND ALL OTHER CIA BLACK SITES; arrested Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Gonzalez/etc.; reinstated the Constitution as the law of the land; successfully accomplished health care reform when everyone THOUGHT he was simply working on the health of the health insurance industry; passed an effective energy plan; ... or even done any ONE of the above things? How would you feel then. huh? Pretty foolish, right?
Yeah, you better hold your criticism and just go on throwing pennies into the wishing well. You will then be able to celebrate - and share claim to brilliant political analysis - when Obama finally reveals himself to be the secret liberal statesman we elected instead of the uber-pragmatic whore servicing the special interests on Wall Street and K Street that he presently "pretends" to be.
July 11, 2009 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
You could be right Sleepin!
Perhaps we should give him even more time and more chances to disprove his now well established record of flip flopping and supporting the Bush agenda in the mythical "War on Terra", etc... Undoubtedly the super wiley Obama will surprise us all by being, in the end, the opposite of what he appears to be in most of his policies, statements, actions and intitiatives. And then we'll wake up and we'll see that all the DLC's dreams have come true, we live in an imperial police state and the consitutional republic we were born in will be lost and gone forever. Seems like a sound strategy to me!
July 11, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
And the wars are over too? Oops. Sorry, I forgot. How can he play Commander in Chief and visit our glorious war making machine abroad if we're not at war? He might have to come home and take a look at the urban implosion here. Not fun!
July 11, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The cynicism here is absolutely excruciating. It's on the level of an embittered old man proclaiming that all politicians are crooks and liars.
From studying this president, from speeches to interviews, there is strong evidence of Obama's political philosophy. You might even say it's obvious. Did I mention that he wrote a book, called the Audacity of Hope, that thoroughly explains his political philosophy? He wants to achieve true bipartisan support, ratchet-down the politicized debates in Washington, and turn questions of ideology into questions of actual effects. The way he has to do this is by avoiding unnecessary fights winning voter loyalty through health care reform and fixing the economy. It did get FDR elected to four terms.
Obviously it would be insane of me to assume I know exactly what Obama's motivations are. That's why I'm not arguing that. This is me saying, "I think there's a decent chance Obama's overall strategy is something like this." And I think it's perfectly fair to make such a statement if I'm clear that it's just a 'maybe'. If you don't think our president is extremely intelligent and talented, and you don't think he has a broader plan beneath the surface, then it's perfectly within your rights to shut down any thoughts to that effect.
July 12, 2009 12:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's smart alright. Not as smart as people make him out to be, but smart.
He is a cynical, two-faced politician and there's abundant evidence of it. His "philosophy" is a marketing tool not a philosophy and even if it were a philosophy it would be one of exceeding naivete. Almost as much naivete as it takes to continue thinking he has some grand strategy for doing the right thing which he clearly does not.
That bipartisan crap is just that: crap and is holding back the few things Obama hasn't dumped overboard while becoming the number one imperialist and boot licker of Wall Street. He, like all the rest of them, says whatever he thinks advances him in the moment with little care for the long term. That's how he can so cavalierly lie about open government, rule of law and obeying the Constitution as he has. This isn't cynicism, it's just paying attention and focusing on what he is doing instead of the BS he's putting out to make people think he is doing what he ought to be doing.
July 12, 2009 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Basically, it boils down to this: you think Obama is a 'two faced politician' whose philosophy is a 'marketing tool', whereas I think he is a genuinely benevolent leader. Your reflex is to be unrelentingly skeptical and accusatory, and mine is to be cautiously trusting. Neither of us knows anything that the other doesn't. It's a matter of individual personality more than anything. I'm pretty sure I happen to be right about this one though. Obama is the real deal.
If I had to pick which one of us was being more reasonable, I would have to pick myself. I'm saying that I think Obama is probably a benevolent leader, trying to be as dispassionate as possible, whereas you are already locked into your opinion: "He, like all the rest of them, says whatever he thinks advances him in the moment with little care for the long term." I think that's pretty strong evidence of a biased, overly emotional opinion.
July 13, 2009 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I do like this post. It has a wishing well quality. If this is how things bear out, then godspeed. As of right now, I am not watching Chess... Chess was the campaign. I am now watching a boxing match where Obama is fighting with his guard up against an opponent with a glass jaw. He needs to swing, but appears too afraid to miss and far too willing to win on points.
July 10, 2009 6:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't mind a bit more of the Right Thing.
July 10, 2009 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
pro·jec·tion (pr-jkshn)
n.
Psychology
The attribution of one's own attitudes, feelings, or suppositions to others.
Politics
The process through which Democratic Party voters convince themselves that the person they voted for actually wants to "do the right thing."
See also: Lucy and Charlie Brown and the football that never gets to get kicked.
July 10, 2009 6:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sooooo do not want you to be right...
July 10, 2009 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Foreign policy is the one area that Obama hasn't made any big mistakes as far as I can tell and FP is one of the main reasons I preferred him over the other Dem candidates. It will take time to make a dent in the damage bush did.
July 10, 2009 6:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
How about unstabilizing the regime in Pakistan and getting us disliked by the majority of the people there and working on the same game plan in Afghanistan?
War in Pakistan may have been unavoidable but Obama
caused unnecessary damage to our standing with the people of Pakistan by showing disrespect for the sovereignity of their government before his election.
July 11, 2009 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I realize there are people who are blaming Obama for Pakistan's ills. Benazir Bhutto's niece, for one. But Pakistan was a tinder box long before Obama took office and blaming him diverts attention from Pakistani leaders, where the onus belongs. If they had done half the job of policing the Taliban and Al Qaeda early on, everyone would be in better shape today.
You're talking as if Obama were the one who invaded Afghanistan to begin with. He wasn't even the one who first started bombing Pakistan. Part of the blame in both Afghanistan and Pakistan falls on the Bush administration, which had irrelevant fish to fry in Iraq and left Afghanistan to molder instead of rebuilding and strengthening its native governments.
July 11, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Foreign policy is the one area that Obama hasn't made any big mistakes as far as I can tell as far as I can tell and FP is one of the main reasons I preferred him over the other Dem candidates.
This depends on how closely one looks at specific areas of our FP as the judgements from those on the ground is not compacetic with the pronouncements of change from the Obama administration. In many areas, particularily in the ME, Obama policy differs little from that of the bushies. It matters not to those on the receiving end if the Obama message being delivered is no different in essence. It doesn't help when those chosen to deliver the message are considered enemies by those so targeted.
We are being left in the dust behind the Brits, the French and the EU when it comes to dealing with the Levant.
Of course, the above don't have to deal with Congress, ideological advisors, thinktank CW and domestic interest groups that have too much to say about what goes on when it comes to our actual, not rhetorical, policies in the region.
BTW, my primary reasons for supporting Obama were identical to your own. Unfortunately, I don't see much change and in some cases, the blather about respect while continuing to pursue failed policies on the ground is making the situation tougher.
Fortunately, the cynicism of the ME toward American words vs actions prevails among the majorities of those who deal with the realities. If they had, en masse, decided to jump on the change train, a sense of betrayal would worsen the situation.
July 11, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
As far as the Levant, we are playing clean up and catch up after our last regime. If you don't see a difference in the way Obama's handling Israel you haven't been listening. Elsewhere, Obama is doing pretty much what he said he would do during the campaign. Surely you aren't one of those who thinks he should have it all mopped up by now.
I am very disappointed in his lack of action in the torture issue, but I understand why he hasn't moved. Maybe he will when things settle down; maybe he won't. I haven't given up on that yet.
July 11, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have not changed our demands of expectations in regards to Syria, Lebanon or the PA. The other actors I cited, have.
Israel is another matter. Although, it could be argued that the French and the EU and to some extent, the Brits, have shown more of a spine in dealing with Israeli waffling on the settlements.
I repeat. None of the others have anything approaching the pressures to maintain the status quo that the Obama administration is subject to. That reality always has to be taken into account when assessing the multiplicity of situations confronting US in the ME.
July 11, 2009 4:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
We have not changed our demands of expectations in regards to Syria, Lebanon or the PA. The other actors I cited, have.
Can you elaborate on this comment? I don't know what you are expecting, especially concerning Lebanon. I believe we have re-established diplomatic relations with Syria, which seems like a change to me.
July 11, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
FDRdog. You may be sorry you asked...;~{)
We have established diplomatic relations with Syria in the persons of Jeffrey Feltman (bushie amb to Lebanon) and Daniel Shapiro, both of whom are very antagonistic towards Syria. Their message is that Syria should give up relations with Hezbollah, Iran and Hamas (SOS), stop "interfering" in Lebanon and in addition, help us out in Iraq and then we'll be nice.
Obama, the day after the return of both Shapiro and Feltman from Damascus, gave a very nasty speech on the occasion of renewing the sanctions on Syria (Shapiro was key to constructing that Act) that caused them to immediately halt cooperation with US on the Iraq security front. Hillary and Mitchell had to do some quick damage control. The Syrians expected the sanctions to be renewed but were shocked by Obama's "tone". It was boilerplate bushit.
If the promised ambassador to Syria is a nuetral person (who hopefully, is fluent in Arabic), I will be encouraged.
As for Lebanon, I expected or hoped that this administration would finally stop interfering in Lebanon and threatening the Lebanese with dire consequences if they didn't elect our M14 allies. Hillary and Joe Biden both made campaign stops for M14 before their elections and Joe delivered the message about our preferences and the "or elses".
Mind you, this crap was stated along with declarations of our belief in the independence and democratic free choice for the people of Lebanon and warnings against "foreign (ie Syria)n interference". Evidently, the Saudi investment of 3 billion $ to fund the return of M14 disapora voters doesn't count. Saad Hariri was born and raised in the KSA. We are still pretending that Hezbollah has no legitimacy within Lebanon. A position dropped by the Euroweenies mentioned earlier.
BTW, Syria kept it's promise not to "interfere" in the elections and the results had bupkes to do with Obama's speech in Cairo.
What I find really odd are the murmers coming from the adminstration about pushing both Syria and fer chrissakes, Lebanon into signing peace treaties with Israel. Bashar Assad has insisted he would consider a deal if talks could start where the negotiations w/Olmert thru the Turks left off.
The Lebanese, including Saad Hariri, are horrifed and enraged by such a notion as Israel continues to violate UN res 1701 daily and at will and continually threatens to destroy the country. Even the round-up of 100 or so suspected spies for Israel is ignored by the Obama administration. No change.
As far as the PA goes, there is no change in regards to our insistance on who is allowed to "lead" it (Abbas & Fayyad), we continue to block unity efforts and train & equip what is essentially a PA militia designed to take on Hamas.
July 11, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have followed the events more carefully than I have apparently, lally. Your points are interesting and I'll keep them in mind in the future. I wish you had provided some links to your sources.
July 12, 2009 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I wouldn't consider any of the things you mention *big mistakes* at this point in the administration. Surely we know by now that the president operates in a very controlled fashion and doesn't act without having the end in sight - in sight as in well defined not as nearby.
July 12, 2009 9:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
FDRdog.
I don't have specific links to articles discussing my points as they are the results of info gathered from disparate places and digested over a period of time. It's an ongoing learning process.
Johua Landis' "Syria Comment" blog has been a primary resource for information about Syria and Lebanon; he posts relevent news stories/analysis and the commenters on his threads tend to be informed on the issues...I learn much from their discussions. Other blogs more or less focused on our FP and the issues involved are useful as well.
I have also been a steady consumer of news from "local" sources in Israel for years and Lebanon since 7/12/06.
As for "big" mistakes by Obama....the "biggest" one was his ill-tempered speech about renewing sanctions on Syria as it completely contradicted his overarching message and caused setbacks. For the most part, I follow the ongoing trends and personnel involved in our FP.
What's troubling to me are the indicators that some of the basic assumptions made about countries/entities A,B, and C are and have been flawed and that policy proscriptions based on those faulty assumptions are still in place. Ideological povs still dominate.
From my perspective, chugging forward on the wrong tack won't get US to our desired destination(s).
We aren't reallylistening, yet.
July 12, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will look at Landis. Thanks for the tip. I hope you're wrong about the direction Obama is taking us. I'm still in a wait and see mode. Actually, I'm more hopeful than that on the FP front.
July 12, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
FDRdog.
Here's a hot tip. If you venture into the threads on SC, the poster with the nic "Friend in America" is Bob Woodward. Yes, THAT Bob Woodward.
July 12, 2009 11:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe I saw that and assumed it was someone else. Wow! Even though I'm terribly disappointed in him and the Post.
July 13, 2009 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
He outted himself several months ago by announcing that he would have an article published in the WP. I confirmed it but have to admit my search for that critical IDing post has been unsucessful. At the time, the SC community was embroiled in some controversy or another and FiA's post went unremarked.
I speculate Joshua is on to him given the recent salutation of "Dear Friend in America"....
FiA's tone can be really condescending at times and it irritates the other commenters. His contributions indicate that he is on a steep learning curve when it comes to acknowledging that there is legitimacy to the Arab/Syrian/Lebanese/Israeli peacenik/etc (?) povs. But, there is improvement...;~[)
OTH, because FiA is such a DC insider, his pov reflects the CW and chatter within those circles. For that alone, his contributions are valuable. For instance, this post takes on more importance when one considers the source:
Friend in America said:
My opinion is you guys are too hopeful about Emanuel. He has been one of AIPAC’s point persons in Congress. Better to assume his father knows his son better than we do until we learn otherwise. It is time to write letters to the editors of the major U.S. newspapers expressing concern of a mid-east citizen who had thought “time for change” extended to the Arab countries in the mid east. Those letters will be read. A journalist will write you a story. Obama may keep his selection but you can force him and Rahm to disclose their position on the mid east conflict. Good luck.
November 8th, 2008, 2:03 am
http://joshualandis.com/blog/?p=1466&print=true#comment-220553
SC can be a pretty interesting (and confusing) place but, IMO, it's well worth the effort to stick with it. Hope you do, too!
July 13, 2009 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is checking the historical facts and he is checking them twice.
I often ask myself, do I want it done or do I want it done right?
July 10, 2009 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carl - I believe you're on target. Your assessment of Obama is both fair and accurate. Despite a few early missteps, such as nominating too many tax-evaders for Administration positions, his accomplishments to date are fairly substantial, although still very incomplete. He managed to inject almost $800 billion into the economy despite universal Republican opposition, has already used his office to help shepherd climate change legislation through the House (and probably will succeed with a Senate version although that's not guaranteed), healthcare reform of one sort or another will probably pass, even if not to the extent Obama wants, and he has been sure-footed in foreign policy decisions to date as well. It's a commendable record for someone in office less than half a year.
He has done this in the face of unyielding attacks from Republican critics. However, he does have one important element going for him. As long as left-wing extremists continue to denounce him, his standing with most of the American public is likely to remain high, and his ability to achieve objectives likely to endure. If they ever start to praise him, he should quickly consider a course correction.
July 10, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm, the post was about scenarios. And Obama's motivations. These are future things, and hidden things. Tough for anyone to say that anyone's readings of these things is "Accurate" or "On target."
As for the "left-wing extremist" label, it's best left out - it's an old Republican weapon, and it's pretty much wasted on any supporter of the Democrats circa 2009. I mean, what's a left-wing "extremist" want, Fred? Single-payer health care? An end to illegal wars? No torture? Trials for Cheney? To not give taxpayer money given to the uber-rich?
If you think that's "extreme," all I can say is not only is world opinion against you, but so too are the majority of citizens in your own country. In short, it's a worthless cheap shot.
July 10, 2009 10:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quinn - Thanks for your generous comments that will help maintain Obama's high level of support among the American public. He will need it for tough struggles ahead.
July 10, 2009 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Incidentally, I wasn't focused on what liberals want, but on whom some extremists attack - basically, it seems born of a desire to devour the champions of many of the causes they support. Some of the comments so far in this thread are illustrative of this destructive pattern.
July 10, 2009 11:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know Quinn, those left wing extremists sure are unreasonable and wacky what with their support for peace, healthcare for all, jobs for everyone who is willing to work, a clean environment, adherence to US and international law and strict opposition to torture and other war crimes.
Obama on the other hand seems reasonable in comparison. Since becoming President he has protected war criminals, made even more sweeping tyrannical claims of executive power than Bush ever did, continued the spying on American citizens begun illegally under Bush, championed unconstitutional indefinite detention, escalated the war in Afghanistan for no apparent good reason, all but abandonded EFCA,walked away from his promise to abolish DADT, offered up as "reform" a healthcare scheme that subsidizes health insurance companies and makes our healthcare system even more expensive, winked at an illegal coup in Honduras, provided trillions of free dollars with no strings attached to the criminal bankers of Wall Street, and pushed through a climate change law that is virtually worthless. I sure am glad those crazies on the left are making Obama look mainstream.
July 11, 2009 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those accusations will shore up Obama's support among the mainstream, in my view. Some are biased, I believe, but in most cases, what are being touted as Obama failures are simply disagreements about priorities. His have been first to restore the economy, and second to pass meaningful climate change and health care legislation, all the while recognizing that the president is not an emperor, and must work via a sometimes rebellious Congress to get the job done.
I believe most objective observers will conclude that Obama has performed admirably to date, and that the attacks from the extreme left demonstrate that he is not an extremist, but rather someone who knows that critical issues must be addressed in ways that find solutions consistent with his philosophy but nevertheless acceptable to most Americans.
July 11, 2009 11:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, he has performed admitably as long as you don't care about his flip flops on the central issues of his campaign and the issues that won him the nomination in the first place. I guess if you don't care about things like tyranny and the accumulation of authoritarian power in the executive branch that makes you objective. If you just ignore all those issues he really is doing a cracker jack job!
July 11, 2009 11:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, it should read "admirably" in the first line.
July 11, 2009 11:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hope for the President's sake that you keep it up, oleeb. This is not meant personally; it's simply an observation that this type of continued accusatory stance will help Obama with most Americans, who believe he is doing an excellent job in the face of vexing challenges, and will naturally sympathize more with him than with those whose pattern is one of unrelenting denunciations.
July 11, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fred, your "keep on being extremist" schtick is one of those semi-clever lines people like to trot out when they haven't done any deeper thinking. (The reason I'm being a bit harsh here is that you don't seem to at all register that calling people "extremists" is actually quite a nasty thing to say.)
So, let's think for 10 seconds shall we? Your line is actually not so clever because... it can be used by anyone... to defend any position. For instance, let's say we attack Palin. Her supporters can simply respond a la Fred! "Keep it up you extremists! It just shows how sensible she is!"
But it sounds clever, so I guess that's good enough for you, eh? It permits you to abandon any principle (should you choose), to justify any action, to do things that generate no public good and create no goodwill.
In short, my response to being called an extremist by you is to say - and this is not meant at all personally Fred, but is rather simply an observation - that your much beloved response is unintelligent, unprincipled, and smug.
You may now return to our comfortable intellectual slumber. Sorry to disturb.
July 11, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I really don't understand this analysis. First of all, you keep harping on the 'left wing extremist' comment, rather than thoughtfully examining his position and offering a response that makes sense. It's like you seized on the easiest thing to attack rather than taking a few breaths before you began to write.
I think the observation that some people here on TPM, a subset of liberal America, are in a stance of "unrelenting denunciations" is quite accurate. It's definitely true in conservative circles, too. Wherever it's from, its an incredibly destructive reflex and clearly a sign of ignorance.
Finally, this comment illustrates that you really have no interest, or maybe ability to talk about an issue fairly: "But it sounds clever, so I guess that's good enough for you, eh? It permits you to abandon any principle (should you choose), to justify any action, to do things that generate no public good and create no goodwill."
Yes, I'm sure that's what he meant. Anything that violates principles and harms society is great. You really captured the essence of the argument there. Actually, that's completely wrong. Fred and I have argued that Obama has sidestepped certain progressive reforms to achieve MORE public good and goodwill. That's not you missing a nuance of the argument- you've missed the point completely. But I guess that shouldn't stop you from denouncing it.
July 12, 2009 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the support Fred- you may be the only person in this thread who doesn't think I've gone batshit insane. I think most people have forgotten what a brilliant piece of strategy the Obama campaign was. I also think most people can't see the forest through the trees, and have become so caught up in 24-hour news that they've forgotten Obama is an intelligent, crafty man with a broad plan for where he wants his presidency to go.
I'm not trying to say that we should just sit back and put our trust in him. If he passes health care reform and he still doesn't move on DADT or reforming the detainee system, then we've got problems. I do think, though, that people should re-read The Audacity of Hope and reconsider what they think Obama is up to.
July 12, 2009 12:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting post, Carl. I hope you're right.
Obama doesn't brandish partisanship. Some see this as a kind of betrayal. Others were skeptical all along.
I think the process by which Obama is making good on his campaign promises is ultimately good for politics in this country. Nevertheless, his approach will arouse a lot of angst and ire in the short term. Looking at the issues from every possible angle to come up with long-lasting solutions obviously tests many people's patience. They aren't accustomed to a leader who's not flying by the seat of his pants.
It's fitting that Obama's supporters and (non- supporters for that matter) are holding his feet to the fire, keeping him honest. Hopefully, he will level with the American people soon about where we are and where we're headed. That would be appropriate and perhaps even dispel some of the rampant anxiety.
July 10, 2009 10:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ohno - Thanks for your comment, which seems similar in many respects to those I made, but more courteously phrased, and therefore more likely to be effective.
July 10, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post, the first thing a pragmatist does is to set priorities.
July 11, 2009 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's an important point. It has engendered some fairly rash denunciations from extremists on the left, but as I suggested above, those denunciations will probably help the President with most of the American public, who applaud his ability to prioritize so as to ensure the best chances of achieving the most important objectives.
I think he has done an excellent job so far, but it's obviously too early for conclusive judgments.
July 11, 2009 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink