I had this ambitious blog post in mind where I would tackle a whole list of specific topics within specific categories and analyze/grade them all. Well, THAT'S not gonna happen. I did, though want to note that the more political reading I do, the less cognitive clarity I get. Particularly with criticism of Barack Obama, I hear apparent faux pas by the Obamas towards the Queen of England lumped together with legitimate concerns over whether the economic stimulus will work fast enough to avoid staflation down the road. It all becomes noise.
Listening to the Sunday morning talk shows, it seems that the greatest concern about President Obama is "where he draw the line in the sand?" Whether it be economic issues - will he pour MORE money in the banks if they fail the 'stress test'? or foreign policy - he can talk to our adversaries, but what if that doesn't work? I've come to believe that it is Obama's seeming malleability, after years of George W. Bush's apparent certainty, hat seems to make the pundits nervous.
I specifically recall the Sunday morning of April 12. What's he going to do about the Somali pirates holding Captain Philips? Doesn't he appear weak when the White House says he's "monitoring the situation"? By the end of the day (in the US), the story had totally changed.
I fully support talking with our enemies. That's what Obama said he'd do in his campaign, despite some criticism, and I believe it's the right course. He's already made substantive and long overdue changes with regard to Cuba. So, Hugh Chavez showboats by giving Obama a book (which subsequently jumps up the Amazon book sales list); doesn't matter in the long run. Talking with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be better than not talking. It seems that the concern is that our adversaries are all willier than the US is and that the talks are stalling tactics that ultimately won't work. Maybe so, but that doesn't mean we don't try.
Black made a great comparison with plane crashes. When there's an accident or even a "near miss", there's an investigation. If after a crash, the authorities said, "Let's move on," what kind of confidence would be derived from that?
The other area I'd like more information involves torture. Congressional hearings may begin to address this. It appears clear to me that Obama wanted to denounce torture, put out some documents, then move on. But "move on" just won't cut it. As Salon put it, "President Obama released memos that describe, in horrific detail, the torture techniques authorized by the Bush administration. The memos make clear that top Bush officials didn't just condone torture—they encouraged it."
Finally, there's the economy. Robert Reich gives his grades, which I think are about right. I believe that some sort of massive health care initiative needs to come out of the budget, that putting money in prevention and well care will save money down the road. But I'm STILL unconvinced that the bailout, operated by insiders such as Tim Geithner and Larry Summers, will do anything. The TARP money, going back to 2008, has been spent with ever-changing goals, without any noticeable oversight. To quote Marvin Gaye, "Makes me wanna holler, throw up both my hands." That's because, at this juncture, I don't know WHAT should happen. Those first quarter bank "profits" are largely a result of changes in the reporting mechanism.
Most people are reasonably happy with Barack Obama as President. I am, too. He's smart, he's articulate, and he's more energetic than he has a right to be, given the scope of the issues facing him. It feels like much more than 100 days, since he started dealing with them before the inauguration. I watched the press conference last night, and he proved to be - and this is by no means belittling - competent., which is a refreshing change.
Unlike certain unnamed people, I want him to succeed. His attempts to create more transparency, while incomplete, is better than I expected. Good luck, Mr. President , on the next 1360 days or so. *** Oh, Arlen Specter (D-PA). Just wanted to write that. The Republican chair, Michael Steele, said Specter's switch is an "outrage" because he switched for "political expediency". It's true that he almost certainly would have lost his party's nomination; it's also true that his former party has moved so far to the inflexible that he was no longer comfortable there.