Thu, 11/20/2008 - 10:48pm — vastleft
Lambert and the gang at Corrente were largely behind Hillary Clinton in the primaries; unlike some sites (and individuals) that lapsed into self-parody afterward, they remembered the issues that made them support her in the first place. But while they supported Sen. Obama in the general election they didn’t forget the bruising fight for the Democratic nomination or why they preferred someone else for it. That wariness and skepticism was on full display last week, and it strikes me as an extremely healthy outlook to take into the coming Obama administration (also see digby). However excited you may be about what his election represents and its potential for change, in the end we will know him by what he does.
Thank you, Dan, for appreciating the value that skepticism offers in encouraging politicians to do their best, as a healthy alternative to uncritically swallowing everything they serve.
Oh, and for the record, some Corrente Senior Fellows voted for Obama, while others voted for a third-party or write-in candidate.
»
- vastleft's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
Why is that such an evil idea?
Why is it so beyond horrible to judge someone, especially a politician seeking the most powerful office in the world, by their actions rather than their words? Americans seem almost obsessed with believing that their country is the exception to the rule but power does indeed corrupt and those seeking it will lie, steal, and even kill to get it--unless you hold them accountable. You would think after Bush, Americans, especially those of my generation (the supposed "young"), would be more vigilant than ever, but it seems as if the opposite has happened. We've become even more gripped by this fantasy that a white knight will come save us and magically fix everything, that we won't have to confront the real evil that has been done in our name and start down the horribly long path towards reclaiming this country.
"Healthy skepticism"
Were there no reasons for people to be critical of Obama? It almost seems as if people are saying that the criticisms weren't valid. Most of the posts here were documented with specific examples of what Obama did or did not do. In that case, it's not "skepticism", its holding him accountable to principles his biggest supporters claimed he represents.
I'm sorry, but the desire to find reinforcement by what the progressive blogosphere says about Corrente seems silly. Most of the progressive blogosphere has lost credibility. Being happy that the progblogs say nice things about you is almost as useful as being happy when William Kristol says nice things about you. Neither deserve the credibility that are given to them by the Villiage and the virtual village.
Sure thing, vastleft
They're all reasons why I'm proud to cross-post here. :)
This is just common sense.
I'm remaining neutral about Obama, the personality. I either didn't believe or get outraged by all the electioneering, the silly accusations and barbs by any of the candidates (oh, I didn't like the misogony, but that's another story which willremain an issue). I listened to what they said they were going to do. So now I'm watching and listening to all the stuff flying around once again. Objectively speaking, there's not much to get too excited about. Hero worship won't solve our problems.
That's what everyone's concern should be - solving the mountain of problems we now face - and getting Obama to focus on and attempt to fix the most pressing domestic ones. Yes, there are world issues, too. Although they make interesting teevee discussion by the blathering pundits, they shift the focus from the real work that needs to be done, which is the idea, I suppose.