Sometimes it's hard not to. Take Pauline McAreavy of Williamsburg, Iowa, featured in this story in today's New York Times. She's now disappointed in Pres. Obama because, she says, “I really thought there would be immediate change."
I never thought there would be immediate change because I regard Pres. Obama as a politician, with the additional corollary that he is not a Messiah, not the Pied Piper, not the Man on the White Horse come to the rescue.
He's a pol, quite a good one, and he's doing about what a person might expect, given the political situation. That's not a criticism. Since my bubble was not inflated to be with, it has not burst.
As if the opposition doesn't play a role in why there hasn't been any 'immediate change.' I wonder about these independents sometimes.
Posted by: Hypatia | November 03, 2009 at 08:54 PM
About 90% of political advertising is devoted to winning over that 5% of true undecideds, who are, let's just say, not real informed about current events.
Posted by: John Petty | November 04, 2009 at 09:55 AM
I didn't think there would be immediate change because of the byzantine nature of the American political system. Canada is a model of simplicity compared to Washington with its 3 equal and hostile branches of government, the committees, amendments, riders, lobbyists and the rest.
Still, one can make a good case that the biggest change he delivered was avoiding the Great Depression Part Deux.
Posted by: toujoursdan | November 04, 2009 at 09:04 PM
Absolutely. Keynes lives!
I do agree with Paul Krugman, and others, that the stimulus should have been bigger. Still, mitigating the effects of the Great Recession is a significant accomplishment.
Posted by: John Petty | November 05, 2009 at 09:54 AM