“Imposter” “monster” “call for his firing”... thanks guys for ascribing words to me that I didn’t say. I post many positive things about Obama, but I also call him on the missteps when he deserves it. Many of what I call the institutionalized democrats and republicans are the ones who never criticize their own party leader because their only goal is to defeat the other party. They’re not really operating on any standard or principle, they’ve just spent so many years waging a range war against the other party, that when they finally win the office, they just cheer and cheer and cheer for their guy. We just watched eight years of that kind of blind following of the Bush administration.
In my opinion, Obama has made at least two noteworthy mistakes: one was failing to get rid of Joe Lieberman, and the other was appointing Tom Daschle, whose sleaze has now been well documented. Neither mistake is going to bring down an administration, but then again, neither will my quite mild rebukes or expressions of discontent with it.
The post above specifically deals with the disingenuousness of Gibbs when questioned by a group or reporters (they must be seeing monsters, too, since their frustration is also palpable) who can’t understand how the administration touted such an incredibly tough vetting process (as part of the promise of change), pages upon pages upon pages of questions, yet one nominee after another nominee can’t even pass the public smell test.
Yes, I’m experiencing cognitive dissonance. Maybe you would be too if you were paying closer attention.
So back to the post above, here’s the moment of truth: the reporters rightfully and simply ask questions about the vetting process and whether it’s stringent (as it was promised), or even adequate, because it sure has failed us. And remember, Obama promised new standards in transparency, straightforwardness, access, and so on. So how does the White House spokesperson respond to the press questions? He basically says, “Look, I’m not going to answer questions about that stuff,” and “we’re not going to change everything overnight. We’ve got four years.”
Blah blah fucking blah.
That’s disingenuous. Proper vetting, and nominating someone who represents change as promised, instead of ‘business as usual’ insiders would have been quite easy, had the motivation been there. But it wasn’t. Obama now admits it, as you point out, so he must be finally perceiving some of what the others were seeing.
As far as AltHippo’s comment. I am exactly where you are on what satisfies me about Obama:
What change meant for me, personally, was that DC would get rid of Alberto Gonzales, David Addington, John Yoo, and the whole Cheney family. Hacks and authoritarians the whole lot. It also means a movement from focusing on the wealthiest Americans to the middle class.
I think people who have followed my writing and venting over time would know I don’t at all see Obama as a monster, but neither am I naive to see him as a saint. That said, I am highly dissatisfied with the American political system and it needs more than a tweak from center right to center left. It needs a much more serious adjustment, which is what I expect and still think will happen with Obama. But the public pressure has to be there or it isn’t going to happen. Any post I write where I’m critical of him is only for the purpose of contributing my little iota of that public pressure.
