David Broder listened to President Barack Obama’s speech and blanched. Thus, the tone of his editorial republished from the Washington Post in the 26 February 2009 edition of the Spokesman-Review. He gave a general over view of Obama’s speech to Congress then went on to make the argument that we did not know that we had elected quite the gambler.
Does that mean we the American people? Or just the news media that seems to continually miss the boat on underestimating what a visionary community organizer might just try to achieve as President of the United States. He is setting priorities and giving his marching orders. In short, while the news media were nitpicking what they saw as Obama’s shortcomings on the road to the White House, they apparently didn’t pay much attention to his successes. How would a fellow go from a law school professor to community organizer, on to the State legislature, from there to the Senate and finally the presidency? How would a fellow dismissed as a community organizer by the GOP manage to use such skills to run a successful nation-wide campaign? That is because the GOP engaged in the minuscule—in their attempts at ridicule; in their political attacks—but as with the news media, they didn’t study the larger picture, called know your enemy. Or get a take on the real mood of the nation. The nation was prepared to take a gamble with this community organizer, as opposed to that dude who wouldn’t take a gamble and stand up to GW more often. Or with a GOP party that was more than happy to rubberstamp the GW agenda rather than stand on principle. Especially in the face of what GW did would only ultimately hurt them. Did, and also failed to do. So Obama already feels that he has some safe bets he can lay on the table. Safe bets that rather unfortunately, Broder barely acknowledges.
The gamble that Obama himself must now make is having the good will of the American people, that is crucial. But even more than this, Obama gambles that he can push people forward to do more for themselves by providing certain investments through seed money. Invest in humans through health care, invest in humans who are unemployed, invest in humans to re-employ, and discovering ways through foreign policy and etc. to invest in their continued security. Any president gambles. Any president who is governing a nation is going to face periods of risk in which whether foreign or domestic policies the cards he lays on the table may not always produce a win. Indeed, he may end up with a busted flush more often than not. Right now, because of the instability of the global market because the global market has been running amok, the foreign policy risk for Obama is also greater than before. There is plenty of room for a busted flush. Unfortunately, in bad economic times, a bust flush could lead to a catastrophic global war. Where Broder again thinks in terms of the miniscule not the larger picture. It is actually far easier for Obama to community organize a nation; the world would take longer and on the list of impossible.
On CNN this morning, [update] China already engaging in political posturing over interference by the U.S. That’s new!?! Wasn’t mentioned to the best of my knowledge on CBS News last night. So, what happened between yesterday and today for China to suddenly get up in arms? That’s just it, it’s an update while CNN anchors and reporters blithely go on discussing the minuscule of Obama’s health care proposals. Maybe they’ll get to it? No big deal right, if China starts rattling sabers at the new President? It should be. China might be a business partner, but they are not friends. And it is indeed a very big deal, more important than Tiger Woods golf game. We are entering dangerous times. I quite frankly do not intend to impugn a President who does indeed have a lot on his plate both domestic and foreign to have to deal with. Pakistan and Afghanistan, how to end the war in Iraq. International terrorism, global economic instability and what can he/therefore we do about it. Now China. Had it been any other presidential candidate than Obama, perhaps Clinton v McCain, the same issues would have been faced by the winner of the office. And the American people would still be taking a gamble with the person they wanted for that office. No, I am not impugning Obama; but I do question the priorities of the news media. What do you call news?