Dissent is patriotic.

Perhaps BO wised up after given all the confidential intelligence on terrorists. He is already going to pay a political price for closing gitmo after Americans see who is now leading the taliban.

These concerns are valid, and important. I have also been dismayed – and more than that, disappointed and infuriated – by Obama’s seeming retreat on executive authority and due process.

But don’t let the wingers suck you into a game of “let’s you and him fight”. Nobody needs to earn their approval by criticizing the person we elected on their command. The ash heap of history has been good enough for the wingers so far, and I don’t need to hear anything from them about what I’m supposed to support or defend.

Obama should be held strictly accountable, but we can do that ourselves. Glen Greenwald has been on this fiercely, and liberal bloggers have not been remiss. Remember, too, that Obama has already done a lot of good in a short time, even in the area of due process; let’s not lose our sense of proportion. Note, too, that most of the problem policies are still preliminary; things can and will get worked out, and I have no doubt it will be done without 7 years of torture, kidnappings, murders, and lies. Let’s be critical but not panicky.

But don’t let the wingers suck you into a game of “let’s you and him fight”

Oh, I agree with you there, and it’s a favorite winger tactic. This post is actually less for those people, and more for LarryE, who correctly “told me so.”

Remember, too, that Obama has already done a lot of good in a short time, even in the area of due process; let’s not lose our sense of proportion.

Absolutely true. I was careful to say as much in my correspondence with the White House.

…and I have no doubt it will be done without 7 years of torture, kidnappings, murders, and lies.
Wow, only in liberal lalaland do terrorists come out looking like the good guys..

Gee, a post just for me. I’m flattered.

In my case, it’s assuredly not a matter of thinking I have to prove my bona fides by criticizing a Democrat or of falling for a “let’s you and him fight” spin, as I know T. knows. But for the sake of others, I’ll offer (again) my take on the Obama administration:

“[A]s I’m prone to say, skin cancer, bad as it is, is preferable to lung cancer, and so is having a president who disappoints by being less than he could be as compared to one who always seemed to be even worse than you thought. So I felt about his inauguration pretty much the same thing I felt about his election: A certain sense of relief. Not excitement, not enthusiasm, but yes, some relief.

“So I do wish Barack Obama well and I imagine that over the next four years there will even be times I’ll be able to say ‘I can agree with that.’ Which, I’m forced to admit if I’m to be honest, will be a real improvement over the last eight years, even if still on the skin cancer level.”

LarryE:

It wasn’t really about “proving bona fides” for me, either, as much as living up to a promise. I stated when Obama won the election that I wouldn’t hesitate to criticize him where he deserves criticism, and I intend to live up to that. This has nothing to do with what the ODS crowd thinks about me, other than the fact that their false accusations of blind Obama worship (coupled with your posts) reminded me that I really needed to post something on the subject here.

I still need to write something on the banking crisis, which is the other area where the Obama administration has so far disappointed me.

T. -

Just to be sure it’s clear, the bit about bona fides was not directed at you but at KTK’s warning about “let’s you and him fight.” I know you know, but I wanted to say for others who might not that the linked posts had nothing to do with any feeling on my part that I had to prove a willingness to criticize Obama.

coupled with your posts

Glad to be of service.

I’m the Rodney Dangerfield of this blog! Where’s my “you told us so?”

I love you guys here at LL, but frankly if you guys are so disappointed, that’s your fault.

You can’t make a ho a housewife.

Y’all got played like the doe-eyed gal next door who fell in love with the star QB because he said some nice things to her when they were all alone. Then, you gave up the snatch, only to find your supposed beau underneath the bleachers getting a BJ from the slutty cheerleader.

digg:

I say this with the utmost respect to you: Fuck you.

Seriously, I don’t see how being disappointed — and not necessarily in a way that surprises us much — on a couple of issues constitutes “being played.” People –even leaders — are human and they often fall short. Stop the presses!

LarryE at least stands for something, and argues vociferously for it. You, on the other hand, sit on the sidelines, complain that everyone and everythings suck, and when anyone fails to live up to the best possible standard, you say “I told you so?” You expressly avoid ever endorsing anyone more important than A-Rod, because that means you’d have to defend them, rather than just pooh-poohing everything all the time. You’re like the right wing bloggers that refuse to call themselves “Republicans” so that when the GOP does something stupid, they can say “hey, it’s not MY party.”

Pheh.

Have a great weekend.

[/having a really bad week.]

Wow, that was harsh, even for me. Sorry ’bout that. REALLY bad week…

It’s cool. My self-worth isn’t wrapped up in my LL comments. Though I disagree with your assertion.

How I see it is, I don’t have a dog in the race. I endorse lots of people (not necessarily absolutely, but as much as you endorse Obama). It just so happens none of them are power brokers within the mainstream, two-party political system of the United States.

You got smitten, in this case by Barry O, and you let your hopes get the best of you. It’s not a crime, and it happens to all of us. I was just being my snarky self.

My main point is that your disappointment came from you setting expectations that Larry (and I, more vaguely so) warned were likely to be inaccurate. Obama didn’t disappoint me because I didn’t expect him to massively repeal the further encroachments of Executive Power that were codified in to law under Bush. So, that’s what I meant.

BTW, that “codified into law” caveat is pretty important, IMO. I think Bush’s abuse of power wasn’t nearly as disproportionate to that of those before him as his audacity and lack of tact in doing so was. Many times in the past I warned that the Bush-bashing bandwagon counter-productively and irresponsibly equated abuse of Executive Power with Bush, and that such a view was A)not supported by history, and B)fuel for false hope that all will be different once Bush is gone. I get minimal, real joy out of being correct; transparently shilling for e-props is a different matter, ya know.

I also fully admit to not being as knowledgeable on most of these things as Larry E. Hell, he’s almost certainly a better citizen of this planet than I am too, all things considered.

But, I’m also different from a lot of the commentors here in an important way. I don’t think the political system has as much of an impact on our lives/wellbeing as I think many of you do. That the American public as a whole has been conditioned to conceptualize “terrorism” in a manner that does not clearly define ourselves as the greatest offender – this is the type of thing that I see has a massive problem. That shit is bigger than Executive Power; it’s bigger than the President – that’s our culture. I’m dismissive of the political system in general because I believe a political revolution would be impotent without a cultural revolution. So, I’m not “on the sidelines” so much as I just happen to playing a slightly different sport.

And, I feel ya, bro. I had a fucking awful week too. Hope everything is working itself out.

Oh, and there are people more important people than A-Rod?

Surely you jest.

[more civil]

You got smitten, in this case by Barry O, and you let your hopes get the best of you.

See, this is still where our disagreement lies. I don’t think it’s fair to say that I was “smitten.” I fully expected Obama to disappoint me on a number of issues. I never thought he walked on water, or anything like that.

Maybe you’re misinterpreting what I mean by disappointment here, however. It’s not that I expected better and was disappointed; it’s more that I hoped for better, and was disappointed. I think that’s an important distinction.

On other issues so far, he’s met and even exceeded my hopes, so it’s give and take. But that would be true no matter who took office, including any one of your non-mainstream types.

[/more civil]

And let me add that your prediction that Obama would disappoint us on some issues is about as prescient as my prediction that the Yankees would spend an exorbitant amount of money on free agents, some of whom won’t pan out.

Okay, perhaps things got muddled my something of a semantic misunderstanding. ..How realistic do even hopes of something have to be before one can feel disappointed if they don’t pan out? That’s where the window for misinterpretation/communication lies.

And, for the record, I think my prediction was a little more bold than that. I’m pretty sure I made the statement on here that Obama is more like George Bush than he is like KTK. And, I stand by that. That’s not just saying the Yankees will spend a lot of money – that’s more like saying the Yankees’ win total will be closer to that of Baltimore than Boston. That would qualify as a bold assertion.

I dunno. I never have any realistic expectation that the Brewers will win the World Series, but it never stops me from hoping they will, and being disappointed when they don’t.

I now remember the “closer to GWB than to KTK” prediction, and I still disagree with it, although I agree that my criticism of your prediction as vague was unfair. So far, your prediction isn’t holding up real well — from the abortion issue to the environment to stem cell research, Obama has been very good on most issues. And while he’s been disappointing on the issues I was kvetching about here, at least he has taken steps toward putting an end to the “enemy combatant” / indefinite detention nonsense.

On a couple of issues, sure. But the whole picture? I’m not buying it…

Between T. and Digg, I gotta stop reading this thread. My ego is big enough as it is.

I have to dissent on one point:

he has taken steps toward putting an end to the “enemy combatant” / indefinite detention nonsense

That, unfortunately, is a considerable overstatement. While the Obama administration has dropped the term “enemy combatant,” it continues to assert the authority to detain suspected terrorists and terrorist supporters, including those not take on the battlefield, indefinitely and without charge. It’s just that instead of asserting those imprisoned gave “support” to terrorism, they must be accused of having given “substantial” support. But since – by the argument – no charges need be brought and therefore no proof of the charge is required, the charge still relies on a simple assertion and this becomes a distinction without a difference.

So no, I’m not satisfied that this is change I can believe in.

Damn! Fix that! I missed a close-link (i.e., slash-a). And as the comment is “awaiting moderation,” I can’t edit it myself.

Nothing spoken, in my view, about the fact that the Sec’ys of Commerce and Health & Human Services have yet to be confirmed by the US Senate. What’s the hold up?

LarryE:

It’s admittedly a long way off from perfect, but in acknowledging that (A) international law exists; and (B) probably applies, it’s a lot cloer to skin cancer than to brain cancer, to use your morbid analogy.

it’s a lot closer to skin cancer

Maybe. The point is that while the basis is different (they are not relying on “inherent powers of the CinC”), they are still claiming the authority to indefinitely detain people without charge and without regarding them as either POWs or civilian detainees under the Geneva Conventions – that is, essentially outside the law. As long as that base assertion exists, I think the change is more apparent than real.