|
consider the context of your question.
We live in a two party system that assumes everyone will either fit into it in some way or that they will just then voluntarily concede any political power at all.
We are humans and as such we have a pluralistic range of issues and political expression.
However, the unnatural structure of our system forces a bunch of people who have very differing views and experiences to only have the same political vehicle.
So there is always going to be warfare within either of the two parties.
There is far less inter party warfare in system where people can have political expression that is closer to there own.
We know that Obama is certainly capable of making empty statements, misleading statements, and contradictory statements. The choice of Hillary Clinton as his SOS kind of illustrates that as did his flip flop on FISA during the campaign.
How would anyone of us who doesn't personally know Obama be able to ascertain to what degree Obama himself believes his message of change? We can't. So we make guesses based on known past behavior and on our own personal feelings to form an opinion. My opinion is that anyone who expects Obama to change things is naive. Change implies a pluralistic endeavor. An individual can start the process but we change things.
Which brings me back to something you touched on, the so called divide between those who think now that Obama is in we need to sit back and watch and wait and see, and those who are willing to engage Obama on his appointments, policy statements, and his decisions. I am one such person and have been accused of dis-loyaly or the equivalent a few times by those who apparently believe inaction is a virtue when it concerns Obama. To them I can only ask:
When during this long campaign when I canvassed, phone called, donated, went to meetings, went to trainings, did I swear everlasting loyalty and obidience to Obama? I didn't.
So I have no constraints calling 'em as I see them. Most of Obama's appointments aren't on my radar, a few are. My biggest and strongest criticism has been that so far PE Obama's top appointments haven't included anyone from my wing of the party. That doesn't seem balanced and broad based, but lopsided.
The hysteria hasn't been over Obama but between people who don't want to engage Obama and people who do.
Why would whether Obama has been sworn in as president yet stop the car companies from trying to get his ear? It wouldn't. Yet you expect citizens not to try to get his ear? Why?
|