In Trust I Do Not Trust

As another American president might have put it, "distrust, but verify."

thanks Al for this. I find so many of the criticisms of Obama to fall into the same caricature that the right makes of him. Bowers seems to think Obama has no core and is easily dissuaded by the bullies of the right so the left has to bully him more, so that he does not give in to them. Anyone who thinks *that* about Obama has clearly not been paying attention. Am I wrong in thinking that some on the left wish Obama was *just like Bush* acting rashly pushing stuff without thought to the consequences of it? Obama plays the long game. So as people yell and scream about Obama being a traitor on the bank issue, FISa , torture,  he makes slow slow moves towards most of his promises. (and note that as he has made moves to make the govt more transparent, and to clean up the guatanamo, secret prison mess, peopel still scream as if he had done nothing).

I decided a long time ago to give Obama a year to clean up the mess that took 8 years to accomplish the fact that a lot on the left want this done in mere weeks just shows us how little they really udnerstand what is going on. and how deeply Obama has already changed so many things.

Extremely well put, Mr. Giordano. What a bunch of pretentious crap.

to the American people that he should be held accountable to deliver on his campaign pledges and promises. He is highly conscious of the fact that this is how he will be judged. So, Bowers' paradigm of trust vs. no trust is not even in the equation for the trustees nor the trusted/non-trusted one.

 

Guess I'm saying to Al, "carry on!"

Speaking of verifying, Greg Craig just released a letter to NARA directing the release of a quarter million Reagan-era pages classified by Cheney.  The assault on our national archives appears to have ended on January 20.

I wonder what it really is that Chris Bowers, Open Left & others don't "trust" about Obama and I suspect it's that being a black man faced with choosing which "progressive, liberal, blog friendly economists" to bow to - ie: the pro or anti Geithner progressive economists, that Obama will pick the wrong set of white or Jewish masters. These people of both the right and left simply don't see Obama as being a strong, active agent moving through history.  I think that's what's behind much of the anti Geithner hysteria and all the other cabinet picks some don't like.  It's the idea that the wrong white folks are in position to push around the black piece of putty.  I also think that's behind much of the rage and petty pouting from the media and blogs of all stripes - that Obama doesn't readiliy jump to the suggestions of his "betters".

I have noticed a tendency on some parts of the left to act as though Obama is naive, doesn't know how to run his own business or what is best, or as you said is otherwise not an active agent. It is not that they think he is making the wrong decisions of his own will, but these bloggers do not seem to credit them as his decisions. It boggles my mind how they can think this after watching the man for two years and I think it does smack of racism. Obama also seems to be held to much higher standards and if he appears to fall short in even a small way, these people then consider him a failure. An African-American president will have to be twice as good to be considered half as much (which is probably also true of a woman president and indeed any kind of president but a straight, white male).

I have been thinking this for quite a while. This really seem to inure to the benefit of Obama as he moved toward his election. It just seemed that Hillary and then the Republicans could not credit him for being smarter than they were. How could he be? That just broke their brains.

So they kept making lame attacks based on their mistaken assumption that they were dealing with a chump. I now see the same thing with the left and the constant criticism over "advisers" who somehow bend Obama to their will, instead of them being bent to his.

Do we all forget how Hillary Clinton "couldn't possibly work with Obama" since she opposed him in the primary and would therefore clash with everything he told her to do? It's the same with Geithner. Somehow, Obama can't find Krugman's blog on his blackberry and is therefor being led down the primrose path by the dreaded Geithner/Summers cabal.

And he's doing this in direct defiance of all the bloggers like Krugman who had no clue how to win an election and bitched and moaned at GOP ad.

You bring up a very interesting question that I'd love to think more about and hear others discuss.

I know that in blog conversations recently, as people talk about the Geithner Plan, I make a point of calling it the Obama Administration Plan and say that I have no illusions of anyone fooling him or twisting his arm.

I've had the same thought as you and Laura...did they not SEE him during the campaign???

But perhaps my own privilege blinded me to the idea that it might be at least in part about racism.

Oh, and GREAT post Al. I really needed it this week!!!

 

I don't think it's so much holding Obama (or women) to "higher standards" as it is the unstated and probably even unrecognized resentment that when Obama acts on his own without clear strings pulling him he is being "uppity".

It's a reworking of the comforting expresions, "Give them an inch and they'll take a mile" or men "gave" women the vote because both expressions establish the power group owned the "inch" and the vote in the first place.  I think many on the right and some on the left resent that Obama seems to have clearly taken the whole mile or more without needing an inch from them.

I think what Al is saying was said ages ago, in Plato's Republic, at least the spirit of it, and with far more convincing logic than the simpleton bipolar proposition of to trust or not to trust:

… Can I by justice or by crooked ways of deceit ascend a loftier tower which may be a fortress to me all my days? For what men say is that, if I am really just and am not also thought just profit there is none, but the pain and loss on the other hand are unmistakable. But if, though unjust, I acquire the reputation of justice, a heavenly life is promised to me. Since then, as philosophers prove, appearance tyrannizes over truth and is lord of happiness, to appearance I must devote myself. I will describe around me a picture and shadow of virtue to be the vestibule and exterior of my house; behind I will trail the subtle and crafty fox…

… Look at things as they really are, and you will see that the clever unjust are in the case of runners, who run well from the starting-place to the goal but not back again from the goal: they go off at a great pace, but in the end only look foolish, slinking away with their ears draggling on their shoulders, and without a crown; but the true runner comes to the finish and receives the prize and is crowned. And this is the way with the just; he who endures to the end of every action and occasion of his entire life has a good report and carries off the prize which men have to bestow.

… And is not injustice equally fatal when existing in a single person; in the first place rendering him incapable of action because he is not at unity with himself, and in the second place making him an enemy to himself and the just? Is not that true…?

 

have to trust on this one.

(hey, even low hanging fruit can be tasty sometimes...)

Nancy, I've thought that for quite some time...well before Obama won. I think much of so-called PUMA movement (the Hillary forever brigade) was largely about subtle rascism, which was often not so subtle:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KACQuZVAE3s

I've tried to engage some people in debate, both in person and online, about the good Obama has done, yet many refuse to admit that Obama has any positives whatsoever. This is so ludicrous on their parts, and I do think it stems from rascism.

Great post as always, Al.  I similarly tend to think of things in terms different kinds of confidence: in a person's intent, their ability to work effectively towards goals, and their honesty and forthrightness (that is, can I believe what they say about their intent and plan).  "Trust" combines all of those things together and loses granularity.

It was interesting to see FISA show up on Chris Bowers' list and in a bunch of the replies as well.  I certainly see Obama's FISA vote (and unwillingness to do any arm-twisting) as clashing with his principles ... he often talks about the distinction between "the world as we want it to be" and "the world as it is today", so this is pretty consistent with how he approaches things, but it's certainly an extreme case.  Still at least for me it doesn't escalate to betrayal.  This is one of several issues where I disagree with him.  As an activist, it's my job to find ways to persuade him and others in DC.  Feeling betrayed won't help on that front.

jon

I read on MyDD that Open Left has a new post up about how it is not Obama who is blocking most of the progressive agenda, but actually the Democratic senators. The site finally acknowledged that if it were up to the House and Obama alone, many good things would have already passed, including EFCA and a larger stimulus. I am glad some of these bloggers are starting to get a sense for how legislating actually works. They had a fleeting moment of clarity. Wonder how long it will last.

I also believe Obama knows it is in his self-interest to make sure that significant reforms of our financial system are enacted in due course.

But the poutrage club are panicked by the Wells fargo earnings report and indications that Geithner-Summers might just pull off a recovery without nationalizing big institutions.  They whine that it will be business as usual soo.

Obama seems to have clearly taken the whole mile or more without needing an inch from them.

This seems to be an especially sore point for many in the netroots.

I remember when Obama went to dkos and tried to start a conversation. He got shouted down and moved on. At least that's how I see it.

There was actually an interesting discussion about this in the thread at BooMan that Al linked to in this diary.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/4/9/17589/96973#26 

I kinda hate to say it, but I think a lot of people in the blogosphere kind of overstate their own importance. In addition to using the "distruster" meme that you pointed out, Al, Bowers also frames this as some kind of great debate (indeed, the "fundamental" political question of the progressive movement). Except Obama gets 88% approval from Dems, 94% from liberals. So there's really not a lot of this debate out there.

Sentiment IMO that I see throughout the blogosphere but most especially at Firedoglake and OpenLeft.

Chris Bowers is as far from a racist as you can get and I think that should simply be plainly stated; so is the whole open left crew. I think a lot of people want Obama to make political choices and have a political purity that is unsustainable on a governing level and expect him to still fulfill his campaign pledges. The left is starting to become a real issue for him online.

Take the Wall Street fight: these people want Wall Street humbled. Forget the lobbyist and cash that these oligarchs have; you can not win a fight directly with them because the USA is not a third world country where the IMF can dicatate secure in international support. Rather, Obama has set the table for a redesign of our economic system ( a huge fight about to be pending) and the rational to take over the banks as these stress tests soon make obvious. He's been helped by the myopic looting of the Wall Street crowd.

This is why Dr. Doom/Dr. Roubini has come out in favor of the Geithner plan recognizing it's step one in the game. Krugman, meanwhile, is angry we're wasting time and money and not demanding the two trillion or more we'll need from Congress to nationalize. Stop and think about that; and then think about how Geithner's reforms and request following the AIG debacle was to have power to unwind this international institutions and have access to as much capital as that will take.

Something he'll likely get. Team Obama: Making Lemondade.

So really: I look at the Obama budget (most progressive governing statment in history) I look at the fact we may have universal health care by the years end, I look at the fact that the groundwork is there for a complete restructuring of the economy and common sense regulation.

And I see something I like.

If the OpenLeft crowd would focus on the senate, which Bowers straight up says in a seperate post is the main problem, we'd be better off than them taking potshots at the President. I assume they do this to raise their own profiles; instead of the hard work of getting cramdown legislation, which the President supports and the Bayh caucus is trying to stop.

Great post Al. To reiterate: this isn't racism. It's the petulant response of folks who think they deserve to be in the inner circle, in the room, making the decision. And so, demand things be done their way from the sidelines instead of dealing with issues they can control.

Case in point: AIG. The Firedoglake and OpenLeft crew went gleefully to town demanding the treasury secretary's head. It was absurd. And they didn't at any point and stop, as they listed all the lawmakers that knew of this and how they read reports of this, about why THEY didn't shine a light a long time before this came to a head and do something constructive? Instead, they took a Republican oppo drop designed to hurt the president, ran with the meme, and proved themseleves for fools by attacking the adminstration instead of the oligarchs.

And we shouldn't forget what this fight is about. The President said it himself: these folks have strapped on a bomb and they're threatening to take down the world economy. So he's got to move slow and talk them down as he said; that's not pretty and it's a huge tactical fight.

 

So far, I'm confident if he gets the right pressure on the outside he can win.

But he's not getting it from the online crowd IMO. Have they fought for this budget? The Republicans meanwhile are taking every momment to tear it down.

Team Obama: dealing with Cheney dead-enders on the inside, Republicans, petulant Liberals with websites, and a freefalling economy and two wars, and an MSM itching to write the he's failing story. That's a pressure cooker right there.

... to borrow Donald Rumsfeld's sage words! But that seems to me the issue with the Bowers set. The fact is they don't know jack--by their own admission. But their pontificating and posturing is a remarkable gamble (a la Jerome Armstrong whose value and credibility is to this day worse than an AIG credit default swap) because the only way they come out looking smart is if Obama's administration fails. The only thing that really matters is that they look smart amongst a coterie of keyboardists who have never met a real voter and wouldn't know what a 21st century revolution looks like if it kicked them in the butt. And no, like Armstrong, Bowers over these last two years never got race (or history for that matter) and so simply has no credibility whatsoever in my view. Josh Marshall knows history and asks real questions; Markos has defined his electoral/media niche clearly; Bowers wants to be on Rachel Maddow's show--hence the gamble that if Obama's policies somehow fail, he looks... again... smart to the people who seem to matter.

On a sidelight, did anybody hear Krugman on NPR Friday? He was remarkably docile while speaking to a national audience about the variously mixed signals in the economy recently. He seemed very careful to not remount his hobbyhorse about the supposed inefficacy of the Obama financial strategies. Curious.

is that initial strategies don't automatically equate to fixed ideas on the part of those who advance them.

Whether we're talking about the bank recovery plan or the Justice Dept's response to the wiretapping lawsuit, we are seeing opening gambits.

Obama understands that his opening gambits must appear responsible to the moderate middle and entrenched interests.

In today's Daily Pundit roundup at DKos, a quote from Bill Schneider is flagged for consideration.  In the context of an article talking about the early stirrings of Republicans jockeying for the 2012 nomination, he offers this musing on Jindal's comments about wanting Obama's policies to fail:

Ideologues believe that if a policy is wrong, it can't possibly work -- even if it does work. Pragmatists believe that whatever works is right. Most Americans are pragmatists.

Obama must try banking solutions that are favored by Wall Street and the corporate classes first and give them a chance to succeed. Perhaps they will. If so, great. If not, he has built his case for trying more extreme measures in a way that would have been relentlessly opposed by those classes if he had begun there.

Likewise, with the DOJ initial filings in the wiretapping case. First, the DOJ must vigorously defend the government against a lawsuit. It's their job. And it builds their credibility, just as dropping charges against the corrupt Republican Stevens builds their credibility when they move on to tackle politically motivated cases against Democrats mounted by the Bush DOJ.

A very cynical person like me might even argue that by intentionally over-reaching in their defense against the wiretapping suit, they are setting up the conditions for the judiciary to smartly smack them back and reject their state-secrets arguments outright. And meanwhile, this opening gambit emboldens the Cheneys of the world to make more public pronouncements about how proud he is of everything they did. Then, the DOJ can say, look, we gave our best defense and the courts shot us down. Reluctantly, we must agree that state secrets are not a valid defense against civil or criminal charges that someone might choose to bring against those who authorized spying or other bad stuff, hint hint.  Oh, and thanks for providing more evidence that you knew of and approved these actions, Dick.

In any event, the Open Lefters show themselves to be highly reactive to today's tactic, and unable to perceive the possibility that today's tactic may not represent a fixed position on the part of the Obama administration.  It's a news-cycle level of knee-jerk reaction to a team that has consistently displayed a long-range vision with eyes fixed firmly on the prize.

Well said - I wish that you would post a diary over at dkos.  I'd love for your well thought out post to get wide readership.

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/4/10/9466/15346

 

I second Kit's suggestion. You have clearly stated my line of thought.

Change takes time. I have confidence that Obama's core vaules are working toward change in the direction that provides opportunity for everyone. Years ago I read "Captains and Kings" which basically gave me the impression that the oligarchs of the world do have a huge amount of behind the scene control. Change is fought every step of the way.

A muse once said: "You cannot put faith in man whose breath is in his nostrils." I've found that to be true. I've also found I can have confidence in individuals whose values I share. Each of us doing our part to influence public opinion toward a common welfare.

from this discussion by all of you highly intelligent commenters. Wow!

The Field is the "Mastercard" of political blogs: priceless

I was just thinking the same thing as I read all the superb comments here. Rhoda's comment is particularly excellent and Allan is a cynic after my own heart.

I don't really have anything to add except that I agree with a number of posters with regard to taking a longer view than wishing for instant gratification, and that what Obama may want isn't necessarily what Obama (and we) are going to get easily.

 

It's only been 80 days.  Anyone who watched the campaign saw how they planned for both the short-term and the long-term.  They knew exactly how many delegates were available down to the precinct level, contest by contest.  I see no reason to think that they aren't being as strategic now as they were then (perhaps learning a lesson from the stimulus fight with regard to bi-partisanship).  Timing is everything as well.  And, he's got a crap load of stuff he's trying to do in a relatively short period of time.

There are levels of confidence people have in Obama and other politicians.  For those with little or no confidence, one "betrayal" was all it took to verify their opinion.  For those with more confidence, we are willing to be very concerned but not yet willing to declare the guy a failure.

The states secrets/sovereign immunity claim was the first disheartening thing this administration has done IMO.  Largely because it flies in the face of what I think I know about his stance with regard to transparency and the rule of law.  That's why I have to believe there is a larger issue at stake that isn't yet apparent.  I'm not naive enough, however, to wait forever.

Finally, we don't know what's going on behind the scenes.  Who foresaw DOJ dropping the charges against Ted Stevens?  There is a lot of work to be done to get Bush holdovers out of the way and to get some members of Congress (I'm looking at you, Evan Bayh) in line.  He's doing this all in the face of being called a commie/fascist/socialist/Muslim/pastor-hates-America/beholden to Wall St/over taxing/illegitimate president.

Personally, there's no one I'd rather have in the job.

Sure glad you explained that, Al, I was beginning to worry you were a toady!

Kidding. I will say this. Knowing lotsa hard-core Obama folks, it is sorta one-dimensional how little criticism they will allow re: Obama's policies. Based on my experience, there is a lot of that yer either fer 'im or agin 'im. Some of the prog blogs might be reacting against that.  Not that it makes them right -- reaction like that is incredibly immature. 

Obama plays a long game. The FISA vote was disappointing for some of us. Very. I did not consider it betrayal ... but I did consider it unnecessary & political as all get out. Now that I see Obama's state secrets stance, I am revising my opinion on how politically motivated he was on FISA. I think he likes a strong executive branch if he's in it.  It may be Allan B. is correct up-thread. It may be more of a long game play.  I think it is more likely that Obama is going to use all the power he can. We have an inept and lame congress and have for some time. That lameness has led to cementing, practically speaking, the executive branch as the superior branch of government. Shame really. Very un-American. I wish it were otherwise.  But, I would still vote for him again today cause he was and still is the best option (which gets to the rubric Al creates for confidence).  Anywaze .. got OT so sorry.  

My belief is that is is both. People just can't believe Obama is so brilliant, period; and/or that a Black man will move on his own without getting "permission" from the old powers-that-be.

For those of us who have been in "The Field" for a long time, we have learned that Obama is the ultimate chess player and as someone upthread said, he also is months/years ahead of everyone else in his thinking.

That's why all of that "weak-kneed, apologist, Socialist/Muslim, not really an American" crap keeps coming up; a Black man isn't supposed to be the leader of the Free World, and is especially not supposed to undo what white men did, even if what they did was wrong on so many fronts.

But also, Obama thinks so differently from most people, folks just can't get used to it. Just the fact that so much has been done/attempted in such a short time blows people's minds.

Bush II was incompetent (though not as "stupid" as people think he was), the Clintons were all about power for the Clintons, Bush I was about entitlement for the Bushes from generations past all the way back to the Prescotts. People also cannot believe that Obama really wanted to be President just to bring about the changes he believed in--not because of wanted/needed power for himself and his friends ala Hillary Clinton.

All that needs to be done to understand how Obama is viewed by the "mainstream" left or right (if there really is such a thing) is to listen to the tone of voice when the "talking heads" refer to him. Some people can actually deal with him being President, and some people really think it's the end of the world just because he's President.

Even the fact that ASU originally said that they wouldn't give O an honorary degree because they wanted to wait until he actually "accomplished something in his life" speaks volumes...

Did Michael Steele really believe he was chosen because of his natural leadership abilities? Then Steele just bought into the stereotype with his "yo, homey, I'm takin' the Republican party into the 'hood" crapola. Funny thing is, Obama wasn't raised anywhere near the 'hood; never even saw "the 'hood" until he was in his 20s.

Just as the Repubs thought that any woman (ala Sarah Palin) could bring over the Hillary PUMAs, they thought that any Black man would make them as "relevant" as the Dems with Obama. They just don't get it.

So, it's both: that a Black Man could be so brilliant; and that ANYONE can be that brilliant; self-assured yet humble; flawed, yet almost perfect. He's stood for the same things/values his whole life...go back and read the speech he gave to that college class over 20 years ago; yet today he also has to deal with the realities of actually governing as President.

People just don't understand...so they attack...

 

 

 

 

waterprise2 AKA Pam

Liberal with a Capital L!

 

It is always such a pleasure to come here and find well thought out and reasoned discourse, not only from Al, but by most, if not all, of the commenters.  

Who'd have ever thunk that spending years researching the personal and professional record of our president and the values he exhibited while the cameras were running and more importantly when they were not, made me a blindly trusting Obamabot.  Funny, there was a time when self-proclaimed liberals considered themselves a part of the reality-based community.  I wonder if a lot of the blog poutrage isn't simply the fact that many on the left came to support Obama late in the game and never really did the research. 

 

Not sure if anyone else trolls through the snark at Daily Beast on occasion, but Eric Alterman has been on a roll with some pretty satisfying pieces on Obama's strategy vs. that of the chattering classes. There seem to be many in the big outlets asking out loud in their columns, "What the eff is Obama up to?", like Canadian big mouth gas bag Rex Murphy, who wants Obama's strategy served up to him on a silver platter so he doesn't have to think or talk to anyone else about it.  While Eric's articles actually mirror a lot of what Al has already said, they still make gratifying reading.

There seem to be many in the big outlets asking out loud in their columns, "What the eff is Obama up to?",

 

Obama is up to this

http://www.alternet.org/workplace/136008/obama's_top_economic_adviser_is_greedy_and_highly_compromised/

 

and also this

 

http://www.counterpunch.org/floyd04102009.html

You said with eloquence what I've been thinking on a more simplified level: no sudden moves.  That's a strategy that helped Obama to the White House.  If he did everything the radical left wanted, he'd lose all credibility with the rational crowd. 

I find it amusing that the left wing bloggers think Obama needs them to help him govern.  Trust me, if he finds that there is something the left blogosphere can do to assist in some plan of his, he will not hesitate to use them.  Only they probably won't even realize their being used.  He's that smart.  And they're that predictable.

Jason - You're being extremely silly, as if an article republished by the corrupt anti-worker Alternet and another one on Counterpunch (which also published some of my first stories in 2007 pointing out that Obama's campaign was also a political movement) as if it sums up "what Obama is up to."

The President certainly is not "up to" that one of his employees received a $45,000 payment (for work he did) prior to being his employee. Nor does the matter of some memos not yet public sum up the whole of an administration that just declassified 250,000 pages of memos that were made secret by VP Cheney!

Are there things the administration ought to do better or differently? You bet. But to use those to stories for a blanket statement about what it is "up to" is childish on your part, and reflects a common immaturity in the academic (non-organizer) left.

"I think he likes a strong executive branch if he's in it." I think that's exactly right, and exactly what we'd get out of ANY President. That's not to say it's a correct position- I'm certainly against it- but it's exactly what I expected from Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, et al. The Presidency is just a lousy tool to use if your goal is to limit the power of the Presidency. It goes back to one of the most annoying things about the left- our need for a "white knight", one politician who can fix it all if only we make him President. Sorry, but there's some things that we'll need to use other channels to correct.

Trusting or not-trusting seems to be defining a leader as either "good Daddy" or "bad Daddy."  It is not an adult response.

The American people, contrary to the evidence of the past eight years, are not children.

Excellent essay and comments.

but I've got a definition of trust (that I found on the tubes):

Firm reliance on the integrity, ability, or character of a person or thing.

Now one thing you hit on the head of the nail, Al, is that Obama is a politician. A damn good one (as in very intelligent and talented one). And when you vote for a politician for president, it's pretty much a gamble, isn't it? You vote for the candidate that you think will best follow your wishes for your self-interests, and (hopefully) that of your country as well. You get an idea of how they'll react by watching their campaign, and by some of their past history, but let's face it, it's still a crapshoot whether they'll react that way in office. 

Me, I've got firm reliance on the integrity, ability, and character of President Obama. We have a good idea of how he has conducted himself over the course of his life. He was candid (if not completely honest) about his youth and indiscretions. He states wisely that he will make mistakes. We won't agree all the time. But President Obama has indicated thus far he will, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. He's indicated in his choices for cabinet postitions (and a myriad of other decisions a president gets called on to make) that he is doing what he said he would do if elected. If that is out of self-interest, as you state Al, that's all well and good. I agree that the vague idea of trust spouted by the 'poutrage' class is useless and a diversion.

Did anybody see anything in the definition of trust above that says Obama will do what I want, much less when I want? That he'll fix everything? Nope. But I trust him.

 

Hi Al:

 

Great post.  I am also reminded of an earlier post you made maybe a month and a half ago that addressed the reality that many progressives don't actually know anything about organizing or governance driven by organized, engaged community.

I totally see that.  It seems to me that many of the progressive critics seem to want the old top down, autocratic formula that really is the same as Bush but with a progressive in the office of President.  In other words, they want Obama to "just do it' -- make people do x, y or z -- but what THEY want done and what THEY think is right.  Amazingly, many have a very narrow and black and white view of what is right and also take no responsibility for the process or feasibility or prioritization or interconnectedness of any issue.  Each issue is a one at a time decision up or down, clean with no complications to get in the way of their directives.  They also seem to make no acknowledgement of an existing system that the administration is trying to use and to fix.  Some of these folks even imply that its Obama's task to completely REPLACE the system with another -- all on his own!

I can truly say that I have never been more disappointed -- and in some ways I am even more disgusted with these folks than I am with the far right -- from whom I expect crazy, emotional rants.  They are extraordinarily arrogant and in some ways I see as more damaging than the far right.  They do not see how important it is to provide positive energy to the administration -- not blind cheerleading, but acknowledgement of successes and support for those to build from. You get no acknowledgement of success, only language aluding to failure and negativity -- as though that changes anything!

It is a very disappointing and surprising time related to this for me...Obama should not receive blind cheerleading but neither should he be microcritisized out of hand for individual decisions that are judged with incomplete information in an absolutist mindset.

I can't remember the source of it but I read a critique of the New Yorker some time ago that pointed out that its purpose wasn't to present information or convince readers of anything, but to model the proper attitude one must take towards a subject.  It rang true, and it's been really easy since for me to dismiss people in the press who's subject is attitude rather than something actually happening in the world.  Bowers seems to have gone down this road for some time.