In other words: Obama can be a decent individual holding his hope for change skyward while Biden cuts people's tendons while they aren't looking. It isn't nice, really, but I think it's a little necessary in our political machine.
I think this exact statement also explains Rahm Emanuel. And I agree - I think that while Obama holds the uniting part of his job description, he's surrounding himself with people who can get shit done. That is actually one of the things people seem to want to ignore, too, which surprises me - not the fact that someone was named, but that they were named to meet very specific qualities: experience, ruthlessness, and a sense of how politics works leap to mind. I also think it's a benefit that he's drawing from experienced politicians; he's aware that he lacks experience so he's surrounding himself with people who do, and I applaud that, since I think he has the strength of thought and personality to lead them, but they have the experience and skill to give him real opinions and options.
I see your point about the crazies, though what's actually interesting is that I'm fighting my reflexive urge to argue that they're not crazy because they agree with my political ideology (so far as America ever will, at any rate) but you're right: there are going to be things that Obama does that no one likes, and assuming that he makes no mistakes is not smart, nor a good way to go into the term. Nor is it a good idea to assume that just because he's done something you don't like he's completely fucked up and the next four years will just be fail.
The sourcing - I need to do more of it; I was trained in the journalistic tradition, even though I mostly just open my mouth and let words fall out of it. *g*
no subject
I think this exact statement also explains Rahm Emanuel. And I agree - I think that while Obama holds the uniting part of his job description, he's surrounding himself with people who can get shit done. That is actually one of the things people seem to want to ignore, too, which surprises me - not the fact that someone was named, but that they were named to meet very specific qualities: experience, ruthlessness, and a sense of how politics works leap to mind. I also think it's a benefit that he's drawing from experienced politicians; he's aware that he lacks experience so he's surrounding himself with people who do, and I applaud that, since I think he has the strength of thought and personality to lead them, but they have the experience and skill to give him real opinions and options.
I see your point about the crazies, though what's actually interesting is that I'm fighting my reflexive urge to argue that they're not crazy because they agree with my political ideology (so far as America ever will, at any rate) but you're right: there are going to be things that Obama does that no one likes, and assuming that he makes no mistakes is not smart, nor a good way to go into the term. Nor is it a good idea to assume that just because he's done something you don't like he's completely fucked up and the next four years will just be fail.
The sourcing - I need to do more of it; I was trained in the journalistic tradition, even though I mostly just open my mouth and let words fall out of it. *g*