Obama aims to be the president of all Americans, a position that appears to be sincere. But I wonder whether in the process he might also want to consider appointing himself chief executive of his own head. All night long, with equally sonorous vigor, he served up confident assertions, only to state moments later, with equal conviction, their near opposite. Full Story »
Posted by Derek Hawkins
I think the piece is essentially unrealistic. It criticizes Obama for being "self-referential", when I'm sure it would be no happier if Obama instead told people what they had to believe (i.e. referencing an absolute) or told people to follow some messiah of his choice (referencing selected authorities). It also claims to achieve "gotchas" that are not - it is in fact no contradiction to say that we have great opportunities at the same time as saying that we'd better seize them, and it is no contradiction to say we must end outrageous abuses while saying that we must be objectively responsible. In short, I think the premise of the piece is untenable and the writer has achieved little more than slickness.
I believe the article is essentially unfair both in setting an impossible standard and in falsely suggesting that Obama fell far short of it. I actually like a President who sees both opportunity and dangers, both good news and bad. I'd respect the author a lot more if he at least mentioned the grounds upon which Obama chooses to do both at the same time.
I see the beginnings of "W" journalism here; the previous president (W) was given a free pass for his entire first 6 years and now there is a "start tearing down O now or else" journalistic mentality. Just report the man's work for 2-3 years, THEN start criticizing what he says. Yeesh!
Retrieving Comments
