|
Edited on Fri Sep-02-11 08:34 PM by jpgray
Among undecideds, conservatives or the general public, not a word of Obama criticism leaves me. But in a forum for Democrats, progressives, and liberals that is read by almost none but the above, I'm not going to defend the most powerful person in the entire world by claiming he's the hapless victim of political circumstance. Among those who would never be comfortable aiding the GOP, pointing out where shit is going wrong is all I can think to do.
Defenders of the president here (as opposed to defenders in mixed company) tend to either belittle the executive far out of proportion to its powers, or detail the very real constraints placed on a president for any unilateral agenda. The latter course often leads to error, however, because if the standard for excusing behavior is that there are some obstacles to better behavior, than there is no behavior that is inexcusable--there are always obstacles. But when were obstacles least apparent? When was Obama most free to be and act for himself?
My one question for defenders is, given all the rhetoric of change, why the elevation of Rubinites and Clinton hangers-on to guide our economic policy? Why these, when he was directly in opposition to Hillary Clinton in the primary, and faced with an economic mess the Rubin/Clinton people in large part helped create? In the most crucial field of policy for the time of his election, he goes to -them-?
Why? For me, this early selection of economic advisers and appointees is inexplicable and inexcusable. I find it hard to believe anyone was happy with his economic team from the very beginning, before any of the heavy obstacles slid into place. Were you happy? If so, why?
There's no Congressional math, no ugly hostage negotiations, just people serving at the pleasure of their President. Why should this have been his pleasure?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
