even before he was inaugurated, i began having concerns about obama's presidency. among the troubling questions i tried to avoid asking myself were these:
1. would any halfway intelligent, mentally competent person willingly agree to take office of any sort--much less the oval one--in the midst of what's generally considered (so far) one of the worst 8 financial crises in america's history?
2. is it really that much wiser to:
- spend a lotta time carefully analyzing policy practiced by a previous administration despite how foolish and onerous one's predecessor may have been?
- vet and, whenever possible, retain experienced staffers employed by said foolish and onerous predecessor.
- immediately shitcan everything and everyone put in place by guy who bragged bout having done so after 'listening to his gut" while simultaneously putting into place everything proposed during his campaign whether or not changing times and circumstances had clearly diminished their efficacy or relevance?
3. why hasn't it occurred to him to recruit former senator bill bradley to join his administration?
those may seem minor quibbles to those of yall who remain convinced obama's a conglomeration of the absolute worst aspects of leon trotsky, the anti-christ, shaft and pancho lopez (protagonist and namesake of a "ballad of davy crockett" parody--a mainstay of dr demento's playlist--about illegal aliens) but there ya go
then there was the issue of his non-presidentiality based--until July 24,2009 for me--on a multitude of perceived disqualifying flaws ranging from his middle name, inaugural gala, choice of dog breed, unprecedented appearances as a guest of television personalities, his intellect and the related issue of putting technology to work for him, his duo of royal faux pas (too informal with british monarch and vice-versa with her saudi counterpart), amazingly agile reaction to annoying fly buzzing around his head, marrying a woman who dresses au courant, his own apparel (lack of tie compounded by donning jeans he prefers to those others prefer for him to wear) and, most recent of all, proffering an opinion on a municipal justice system matter in response to a journalist's question about said event.
as regards the latter, i was far more surprised that he chose to respond at all than by his assessment of the situation.
my guess is he was primarily motivated by his personal relationship with gates than how things played out. nothing in Obama's reply was other than a reasonable assessment of the incident and as factually accurate a recounting as any third party version can ever be. his conclusion as to the police response was problematic only for being too harsh when rendered from the presidential dais.
all of that, as well as the escalating controversy that followed, isn't really of concern to me though.
my inspiration for dragging you into this is my utter and absolute amazement upon learning the president had reinvolved himself on july 24, 2009 by showing up at a press briefing to inform the country he now felt should have "calibrated' his words more carefully, that he hoped the episode would wind up helping americans to understand each other more fully and that he'd invited both the arresting officer and professor gates to the whitehouse for a beer.
i cannot recall--nor can i even imagine—such an open admission, especially in connection with such a potentially incendiary incident, from any of the presidents who've served during my lifetime or those who preceded them (with the possible exception of lincoln).
so maybe yall birthers are only about .9999999999% out in space in your assertion that obama shouldn't be president. i agree with yall there but it's got nothin to do with any of your wacked out conspiracy tweaks. it's just that after truman, eisenhower, kennedy, johnson, nixon, ford, carter, reagan, bush, clinton and lil bush (this applies to some of the preceding wayyyy more than others) i'm not sure we're equipped to deal with a president who personally and promptly takes responsibility for his lapses in judgment.