Would it be irresponsible to speculate?

[Welcome, OpenLeft readers!]

Glenn:

[W]e ought to wait to see what Obama does before forming conclusions about him and, certainly, before launching all sorts of criticisms at him. He was just elected four day ago and he's not actually the President yet.

There have been many different renditions of Obama and nobody knows -- including him, I believe -- how he'll govern. It's true that he has espoused some liberal principles and supported some liberal policies, but over the last several years, his political approach has clearly been one of centrism and placating the establishment. But none of that is a guaranteed indicator for what he will do with power. That all remains to be seen, though it seems extremely clear that liberals who are convinced that he will be some sort of icon of progressivism are going to be quite disappointed.

I don't view the campaign, or much of what Obama said during it, as being particularly instructive on this question at all. During the campaign, Obama maintained a single-minded fixation on one goal: to win, and most if not all of what he said in the last six months was designed to achieve that goal, not to signal what he actually thinks or will do....

It makes perfect sense -- for the reasons Digby so aptly described this week -- for people to start pressuring Obama now to pay attention to their political principles and agendas. And it's certainly likely that Obama will end up doing many, many things that warrant and provoke intense criticism. I have no doubt about that. But he's entitled to actually start doing things -- on Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, civil liberties, the economy, and otherwise -- before judgments are formed.

I mostly agree with this, though "before launching all sorts of criticisms" can surely be used as a cudgel against those who criticize his President-elect phase appointments, statements (words matter!), and policy signals. Taking criticism off the table should be off the table, though the criticism should be of the founded variety, eh?

Form conclusions? Waaay too early.

Foily theories? Knock yourself out. On your site, please.

Still, "What Does Obama Really Want?" (WDORW) will rightly become a national obsession.

In these tumultuous times, perhaps we should fixate less on his melanin count and more on his poker face.

Obama's described himself thusly:

I am new enough on the national political scene that I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views. As such, I am bound to disappoint some, if not all, of them.

A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an Oval Office.

Does recall of the late unpleasantness tell us what to expect? If you haven't been flashy-thinged by Tommy Lee Jones or memory-cleansed by Jimmy Jean-Louis, might you have a little more insight than the next generation of "no one could have anticipated" folks?

Or is William Goldman right, that "nobody knows anything"?

What, beyond the certitude that he'll fall short of Progressive Panacea, does anyone really know about what to expect from President Obama? WDORW?

My best speculation is that he wants to be a Zen-like ethereal leader for the ages, on a plane higher than the dusty heads on Rushmore. What that translates to in deeds, I simply do not know.

It's not, IMHO, irresponsible to speculate. But I agree with Glenn, it's irresponsible to conclude.

Comments

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

no reason to do either --

speculate or conclude.

obama has repeatedly said for us to hold his feet to the fire, so i intend to demand, demand, demand, starting now. i don't care what obama wants, i only care about what *i* want.

So when did Americans

begin to accept this:

"I don’t view the campaign, or much of what Obama said during it, as being particularly instructive on this question at all. During the campaign, Obama maintained a single-minded fixation on one goal: to win, and most if not all of what he said in the last six months was designed to achieve that goal, not to signal what he actually thinks or will do…."

That it is just fine to lie to win; that truth is obsolete, particularly if you are running for President of the United States? That it is all right if you voted for the guy because you deeply believe that you might get health care; or a chance for better education for your children or your son or daughter may not have to go to war or will be able to come back from one?

You know what? We just had a CEO corporate president for 8 years; a liar and a manipulator.

Speaking for me, Greenwald's statement is BS in that we should have such low expectations of a president's honesty and his passion for change.

yup-we've never had a Democrat who

didn't make clear what they would fight for--for us. Winner or loser.

now we do--and even his supporters don't know what he'll do.

disgusting.

They're covering their asses; it's not about Obama

His supporters know they went absolutely apeshit during the primaries over nothing but empty platitudes, voting for a "black guy" (think back to OpenLeft's post), and fueling their Obama "support" with nothing more than overwhelmingly bigoted anti-Clinton hate. So, now that reality has finally hit and their unqualified candidate is president-elect in the midst of an epic clusterfuck, they're covering their ass. Besides, it's not as if they truly cared about what he'd do since they (as a whole) aren't as dependent as other voting blocs (e.g., Bubbas) on a president to get things done.

As far as what Obama will do: I don't trust him to do anything he promised. I don't trust his words (It's amazing how easily he flat-out lies) nor his competence (What the hell has he actually done?).

i don't either, Davidson--

at all. There's absolutely no reason to trust him on anything--and plenty of reasons not to.

I don't know if Obama's feet

are getting warm, but his ears should be burning nicely.

It’s only the Washington

It's only the Washington Post and I guess it's only speculation but,

Obama Positioned to Quickly Reverse Bush Actions

Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues, according to congressional Democrats, campaign aides and experts working with the transition team.

A team of four dozen advisers, working for months in virtual solitude, set out to identify regulatory and policy changes Obama could implement soon after his inauguration. The team is now consulting with liberal advocacy groups, Capitol Hill staffers and potential agency chiefs to prioritize those they regard as the most onerous or ideologically offensive, said a top transition official who was not permitted to speak on the record about the inner workings of the transition.
...snip

Obama himself has signaled, for example, that he intends to reverse Bush's controversial limit on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, a decision that scientists say has restrained research into some of the most promising avenues for defeating a wide array of diseases, such as Parkinson's.
...snip

The new president is also expected to lift a so-called global gag rule barring international family planning groups that receive U.S. aid from counseling women about the availability of abortion, even in countries where the procedure is legal, said Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. When Bill Clinton took office in 1993, he rescinded the Reagan-era regulation, known as the Mexico City policy, but Bush reimposed it.
...snip

The president-elect has said, for example, that he intends to quickly reverse the Bush administration's decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles. "Effectively tackling global warming demands bold and innovative solutions, and given the failure of this administration to act, California should be allowed to pioneer," Obama said in January.

Baseline for a centrist Democrat

I'd like to know what's happening with the executive powers stuff.

i don't buy it--

the stemcell and family planning stuff is all "divisive" and "partisan" and will immediately raise an gigantic uproar that will harden opposition to other plans of his--i bet he doesn't reverse any of that stuff.

Wait and see is pretty inadequate

when a counter-narrative to the Great Transendence narrative is so badly needed now.

Judging by the way the most of the electorate swallowed the most bizarre and outrageous claims about what Obama will do, and that we are still in the midst of celebrating The Most Important Presidency For All Time, I think that most claims about what Obama will do have already transformed themselves into Obama has already done in the minds of millions.

I just spent a year talking to people who's eyes glazed over at the mention of even the mildest criticisms of Obama, coupled with a complete denial that he could ever do anything wrong, or actually mean anything he said that wasn't included in the progressive I Have a Dream catalog.

I really don't think it should be frowned on to point out: 1) Obama has done nothing yet, esp. in the face of profligate claims that he's already Transcended; or 2) he has little history of doing much at all.

As for reversing 8 years of reactionary Bush executive dicta, I will be very glad if it happens, but really, don't you think that's about the least he could do? Shouldn't that be the least we expect of any Democrat? Isn't it fairly standard for the incoming executive to reverse the policies of an opponent-party predecessor? Can we perhaps be glad without being pathetically grateful?

Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men. -- George Bernard Shaw

If the WaPo story is

true....and not more spin, then that is a good start. I agree that it is exactly what I would expect. It's his job to reverse those ideological barriers. It's his job period.

And what about those executive orders? They're going to be difficult to give up aren't they Obama Team? Maybe that was the Pelosi/Reid game plan all along; they didn't push too hard to stop their enactment as they have learned to like them. FISA anyone?

repaying his donors seems to be highest on the agenda--

giving trillions more to the financial industry first--like Bush.

billions for his energy donors too--that's a high priority, he said.

and his healthcare donors (incl private insurers and HMOs) gain billions in new business if his health "care" plans get thru, too -- http://www.thebigmoney.com/articles/moth... -- "Why the medical insurance industry is cheering Obama’s victory."

and including increasing those H1B visas for tech firms too, which hurt the job situation for the rest of us -- http://www.computerworld.com/action/arti...

plus--he's a "free trader", so more of those horrendous agreements like NAFTA.

Do they speak english in Iceland?

while its not my ideal climate, their economy is already hitting bottom, and moving there with American dollars at one's disposal means that one can live there comfortably...

still very expensive & no jobs--

they import most of their food and other materials, and tons of them are now laid off. (Most of them do speak English, but you have to know Icelandic to get good work, they say--they're a tiny, very very homogeneous population and don't have a good record of assimilating immigrants at all)

here -- Stunned Icelanders Struggle After Economy’s Fall -- http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/world/...

Canada is probably a better bet.

amberglow -- that's why all the 'will do' press

now. Capture all the people who conflate what Obama intends to do with it already having been done, plus (bonus) give progressive commentators an excuse to slap around anyone asking for action now with 'what do you want from him? He said he'll do X already!'

I'd love to put up a big countdown clock somewhere -- how many days until Obama reverses Bush's EOs after taking office?

I'd be happy if it turned out to be 0, btw.

Reasonable men adapt themselves to their environment; unreasonable men try to adapt their environment to themselves. Thus all progress is the result of the efforts of unreasonable men. -- George Bernard Shaw

except that he said he would do plenty of things

during the campaign--and then did the exact opposite--over and over and over.

he's not believable or trustworthy, nor is his staff--and the media hasn't been believable or trustworthy for ages now (if ever).

Saw the News Today, Oh Boy (WaPo)...

And, it gives me some hope if he reverses even just one of those decisions. Yeah, I know, low expectations, but I'll take anything I can get at the moment.

To be clear, until Obama does something to earn my trust, he's nothing more than a means to our ends, a tool, an instrument that may sometimes accomplish something, not someone to count on for much of anything besides being more receptive to my issues than Bush.

But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...

vast, this post is now evidence-- or something--

http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?dia... -- Vague, Nameless Left Quickly Condemns Obama

Thanks for the heads-up!

I'll front-page a link now.