I've been lurching around ever since the Democrats let us on the Left down after the 2006 mid-terms. This is the last marker I forward the Democrats before registering Green Party. For their sakes they'd better get it right this time.

The situation in Iraq is complicated.

The neocons have established upwards of 60 or so "bases" throughout the desert.

The USA is an occupying force of considerable size, and we have spent close to a trillion dollars since the misadventure began 5 + years ago.

To withdraw, to vacate, to vamoose just ain't in the cards, despite what doves may desire.

Obama will sift the data. He will discuss, with select individuals, behind closed doors into the wee hours of many a night.

I trust that he will use his best judgement to craft a way forward. But he probably can't withdraw all troops within 16 months.

The best we can hope for is a handle on the costs of the war and reduce them as much as possible without major shifts on the ground.

Trust=disappointment
Distrust=pleasant surprise

pick your poison;>

Trust but magnify.

I see our role as the same, whether Obama is completely trustworthy or not. We need to stake out some positions as far left as possible, to magnify the possible. We need to stop worrying about pragmatism, stop pre-haggling our positions to match what might be acceptable given the reality of the political situation.

Instead, we need to act like the far-left boogeyfolk of the right's imagination ... kinda. We need to -insist- on singlepayer healthcare. -Demand- confiscatory taxes of the top .1%. Allow no negotiation about prosecuting any criminal activity during the Bush years to fullest--fullest, fullest, fullest--extent of the law. We should push for mandatory union membership and the nationalization of the ... well, whatever's -not- nationalized by the time Obama takes office.

Not only only because these are the right positions, but because they give Obama wiggle-room. I don't trust him much, as a matter of fact. But I do trust that if he -does- wanna go left, he'll have much more success if he can state, and prove, that's he not going as far left as -us-.

He's gonna negotiate between left and right. We need to decide if that means between Bill Clinton and Dick Cheney, or between Dennis Kucinich and Dick Cheney. (Frankly, I'm closer to Clinton personally than Kucinich--but if you wanna -implement- Clinton, you need to -propose- Kucinich. And if you want to implement Kucinich, you've gotta propose ... I don't even know. Che?

you do neither your party nor your ideals any favors by becoming uncritical cheerleaders...So I take it for granted that when I think that Barack Obama has done something wrong, I should say so. Period.

Very wise words, but you will find a lot of pressure to cave. Fellow libs will accuse you of being a traitor, conservatives will cite you as proof that their arguments are correct (and sometimes they may be).

>>>"The question is not whether you should hold your tongue in the face of something you think is wrong because you trust Obama; whether or not you trust him determines whether or not you should think that what he's doing is wrong."

this strikes me as an odd statement...i feel that i can trust him KNOWING that he's going to do things i disgree with.....for example, i trust him when he says he wants to increase troop numbers in afghanistan...i don't agree with it...but that's beside the point

i'd stop trusting him if he said he'd do one thing and then do something else......

Having read about, and watched and listened to, Senator Obama for a few years, here is my two cents. When he tells us what his goals are, we can absolutely believe him. We can also trust that he, unlike Bush, will have reflected on himself and have reached all decisions thoughtfully and in consultation with both trusted advisors and experts. We can trust that he will look for the most practical possible way to reach any goal, and that for him, part of being practical is not making enemies, and trying to bring people to a level of acceptance of a change, rather than forcing it on them. He will always be looking to help people make good choices rather than enforcing mandates.
Because I do trust his mind, heart, and thinking process, I will always be open to giving him a hearing, even where I disagree (like on the 2nd amendment), and will try to be flexible enough myself to be open to being convinced, while expecting that he will offer actual evidence and thoughtful arguments. Our President-elect is the opposite of a knee-jerk guy, and I think we should all try to emulate him.

For me personally I trust my gut feeling. It didn't steer me wrong on Bush etal, and I don't think it will steer me wrong now.

Yes. we need to pay attention but it is different now.

First, Obama does not have the kind of ego Bush has, or even the kind most politicians, past and present, have.
I really believe he is unique on the political scene. First of all, he listens, second, he asks for advice and help, third, I believe he cares about the country more than himself.

I trust him!! .... that doesn't mean he won't make some mistakes, and I will be watching the rest of them for sure.

Holy crap people. Election day was less than a week ago. Chill out a little.

No human being is perfect and Obama is no exception. But for crying out loud, how about cutting him some slack and waiting until he actually TAKES OFFICE and start doing something before deciding whether or not you can "trust him"?

Trust is earned. So far all we have from Mr. Obama is what he's said he will do, and as you note, Hilzoy, he has been wise enough to couch them in terms that give him the flexibility to revise his plans.

The larger question you raise, though, is the right one: when do we know that he has earned our trust?

i am going with trusting obama. but as hilzoy points out, because one trust does not mean that one should blindly follow.

i have a feeling people are going to be speaking out on BEHALF of the president more than they're going to be speaking out against him.

what a difference an election makes.

I think one of the main problems is that we dont have that solid record in office to judge him on. He is not president yet and many people dont want to get burned. we trust Obama not to be Bush but we dont know yet if he is going to be Clinton. So right now everyone is trying to read whether Obama is worthy of trust or not.

The appointments are being taken as an indicator of this. What happens when the rubber meets the road? At this point its better to play it safe and maintain a stronger rigidity than to back off and get nailed right at the beginning when a lot of the action happens. This is fueled by the Obama pragmatic streak where Libs worry that to get something Obama personally likes will involve selling them down the river over and over.

This parallels something I said to the loons over at Secret Agent Flowbee's place last night: by adopting as a forgone conclusion that Barack Obama is an evil, depraved man, then by definition, every thought, word or deed of his is also evil. With such a preconception, you won't be able to recognize or concede it if you turn out to be wrong - if and when he does something good. I also noted the irony that, in "defense" of Hillary, they have become, themselves, the Tom DeLays, Newt Gingriches, George W. Bushes, Rush Limbaughs, etc, who because they adopted this type of thinking (the Clintons are bad; therefore they can do no good) tortured their heroine Hillary and her husband Bill unceasingly for 10 years.

The crazy over there is really deep. Never thought I'd see the day when erstwhile "democrats" couldn't be distinguished from the average denizen of LGF or Freeperville. It's as if they've all had brain transplants - and the brains that were transplanted came from Pam Atlas' commenters.

Bush has given us strong reason not to trust the presidency...and Reid and Pelosi have given us strong reason not to trust them either. Just recently Pelosi has come out and said we will govern center right..absolutely oblivious to the voice of the people. How can she make such a claim? Who the hell does she think she is to continue to ignore the will of the people. She should have begun her sentence with ,"Irregardless of what the voters want...we will govern center right".

Seems most of see how corporate lobbyists and those with the most money to pour into congress have been writing our laws and it remains to be seen just how the "Money Party" will influence policy with Obama at the helm. It is just a matter of how much Obama is willing to listen to the people who elected him and I have no reason to distrust him...but I do have reason to disagree with him.

One thing is for sure...none of us want a continuation of "secret government", when they refuse to tell us what they are doing. That breeds distrust. We have to be an informed citizenry for democracy to work. In the past just disagreeing with the right meant you were a far left communist traitor who was not to be trusted...and there was no such thing as too far right.

Oh what a chore it will be to de-nazify our government. The more open Obama's administration is the more I will come to trust him...but like everyone else that voted for him I already trust that he is what he says he is.

Frederick, come join me. I've been there since 2004.

And, Hilz, no I don't think Obama is serious. He's on record as wanting to keep "non-combat" troops in Iraq, without defining what that means or how many troops it involves. He saber-rattled against Pakistan.

Note to Tom -- Iraq's POV on the SOFA is "all troops." You want to tell Maliki, as well as Obama, how "hard" that will be?

Yesican, Obama doesn't have an ego? ROFL!!! He's just better at hiding it than Bush, because he's not petulant.

Your brain has turned to sap.

Good timing.

Oh, in my day job, I will have an "open letter to Obama" for my next newspaper column.

Tops on MY priority list. A $1-gal increase in the gas tax, installed over five years.

Why?

Keeps the 15-second attention-spanned American mind of thinking about buying SUVs again.

Pays for a massive roads-and-bridges work plan while putting money back in the highway trust fund.

And, those jobs stimulate the economy.

Trust is an interesting question. A lot of things that he does will be misconstrued by the left as a violation of trust because many actually believe he is a liberal.

Obam is NOT a liberal. Period. He is a seemingly pragmatic moderate with left of center social leanings. That's it.

His economics are decidedly not liberal and while not wholly embracing the corporatists, he will certainly give them a lot of what they want.

The right is going to have a hayday with him. The painted this false picture of him as some extreme socialist/liberal and when he doesn't push through liberal policies, the right will claim victory wherever they can.

Its all about perception. He is going to dissappoint liberals in many ways and the wingnuts are going to pounce on it.

I'm a "believe it when I see" it kind of a guy. That goes for supreme beings too. I've got my hopes, again for both. We'll all just to wait and see, won't we. As for the cynics, you're all really jumping the gun!

I like what karen said a lot. By creating an outpost on the left to provide Obama a place to move away from and placate the center and right, we just get ourselves caught up in playing a game rather than seeking to generate a true working coalition to achieve mutually beneficial goals. To become too ideology driven we forget what we should have learned during not the last eight years but the last thirty. That is, we don't create a working, effective government by adhering to a position. Remember "the art of the possible." In order to achieve the possible, we need to achieve consensus. I trust Mr. Obama to seek to do this.
I might also reflect for a moment on our well-earned but often misplaced distrust of all authority. Is it possible that as soon as Obama turns from being an insurgent to being an incumbent, he immediately becomes suspect? I fear so. - Ted

I agree with bjobotts. I'm hopeful but my confidence in any politician, including Obama, is tempered with skepticism. Just looking at his appointment of Rahm Emanuel and the fact he is taking advice from Robert Rubin of Citibank and Goldman Sachs fame gives me plenty of reason to withhold my complete trust.

I can't forget Emanuel's love of NAFTA and his put downs of Howard Dean for pursuing what turned out to be a highly successful 50-state strategy. He'd done good things elsewhere, but he's not a big plus, if you're looking for transparent, left-liberal governance.

Rubin is worse. He largely supported deregulation of the financial industry which started under Clinton when he signed Phil Gramm's legislation, including repeal of the Glass-Steagal Act.

So far the transition team is too heavy in DLC and ex-Clinton people for my taste.

I am willing to trust Obama's judgement about many things, since situations can change that can slow down what he's said he wanted to do. But trust is something that has to be earned, and I always tend to distrust anyone in a position of great power. I supported and voted for Obama in both the primary and general elections. But if I see him going off the rails by completely shifting his positions, I won't hesitate to criticize him. The first clue for me is whether he adopts or rejects the Imperial Presidency he's been left by the Bush administration.

I'm already resigned to the idea that Obama will probably be a lot more of a centrist than I'd like. But he has to right the ship; this country is in tough shape, and just getting back to square one is going to be a chore. I'm hoping his first term brings solid improvements in our government, and that he is more aggressive in pushing a progressive agenda in the second term.

Or, in short: if you're willing to believe that Obama is serious about withdrawal, you should give him the space he needs to do it right; if not, you should insist that he nail everything down.

This really doesn't make any sense First, I think people indicated their trust or distrust on Nov. 4. Maybe some people voted against McPalin more than they voted for Obama but I don't think the average person is that silly.

Secondly, I don't understand who you're addressing here. Who is giving him space; who is nailing him down? How is this giving space or nailing down accomplished?

I think I'm going to take a cue from the man himself and process each situation as it comes and respond to it as appropriate -- both intellectually and intuitively. I think that's the key to how his campaign was so rock-solid. How many times were we all "Damn, why didn't he cut McCain off at the KNEES that was a MISSED OPPORTUNITY why doesn't he talk about THIS he's PANDERING," to find that, especially toward the end, he knew what the hell he was doing, how to most effectly time and apply his ammo? (And sure, sometimes he was pandering.)

More than ever, this country has developed a habit of mistrust. We've had to. We've also developed a reeeeeeally bleak perspective about the office of President. Obama has the unenviable task of remaking the office, which I think is not substantively different from how he remade the Political Campaign. I mean, of course it IS different, but he seems to come at all of this as a learner, a synthesizer; I don't see that changing, and that's what makes me inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I also think this nation has been in a total funk for the last eight years. Anyone who's been looking at the folks around him should be able to see that the sun has come out, maybe just a few rays breaking through, but -- a friend of mine, one of the most negative people I know, feels hope in this nation for the first time in almost three decades. THAT's something.

For me, I'm going to try to let my mistrust turn into a combination of open-mindedness and vigilant attention.

Thanks for the post, Hilzoy.

It's interesting that Hillary claimed loud and often that Obama was a cult figure. I would argue that Hillary, Bush and McCain were, but not Obama. The first three asked us to trust them and them alone to solve problems. Obama made very clear what his goals and priorities were, but only asked us to trust that, as well as his ability to organize the process. I think we now have the obligation to put his progress in context of the economy and unforeseen foreign events.

I'm reminded of two things.

First is an old "Dennis the Menace" cartoon where Dennis says to his younger friend Joey, "No, I don't want to grow up to be president, either, but it's a chance I have to take."

Second is a great line from Douglas Adams' "Hitchhiker" series. "Anyone who can get themselves elected president should, under no circumstances, be allowed to do the job."

To correct someone's quote from above, it's not "trust but magnify", but "trust but verify".

I'm hopeful for Obama. He represents hope and the restoration of the American ideal. But I will also scrutinize, and do my part to hold him accountable when conditions warrant it.

I'm going with the "innocent until proven guilty" philosophy on this one. Obama might wind up taking longer than we'd like to meet some of his professed goals, and he's going to try passing his policies by consensus first, which may not thrill us, but his judgment during the campaign was amazingly sound. I was among those who doubted when he held back rather than immediately going on the attack--but this strategy turned out to be exactly right. Will Obama have 100% instant success with everything he tries? Of course not. But I think he's going to work HARD on our behalf, and it behooves us to show him a little trust in return unless and until it is *proven* that he let us down.

No one should ever blindly trust any elected leader, and no one should be afraid to criticize that person for whatever reasons.
I hated it when it was rightwingers insisting on such trust, as well as blind loyalty, and I've noticed it starting to crop up amongst the left side of the internet.
I have a great deal of trust and confidence in Obama's abilities and the direction he wants to take the country, but that doesn't mean blind trust and loyalty.

While I think I understand the (excellent) point you're making here, I want to make a couple points of my own.

We already "trusted" Obama on FISA, and that didn't work out well. We are trusting them to do the simple, inexpensive thing and punish Lieberman for years of disloyal and destructive behavior (and campaigning against Obama is only part of what Lieberman has done). That's looking unlikely as well. The thing to keep in mind is that however trustworthy Obama the individual might or might not be, Obama the President is part of a system that has, and is loyal to, its own interests -- holding on to power -- first, and ours second, if at all. To me, it would be foolish to trust that system, however much we like Obama, or want to give change a chance.

Instead of trusting Obama, we should be a pressure group for our own interests, much like the Republicans were over Harriet Miers, for example. As a pressure group, "trust" becomes almost meaningless: we agitate for our interests, and keep at it until we see results. That's what the conservatives do, and until recently it worked well for them -- in fact, the mistake they made was to ignore their putative principles and trust in the Goodness and Wisdom of George Bush, regardless of what he did, and they didn't revoke that trust until he'd driven them (and us) off a cliff.

We don't have to be as petulant and greedy and whiny as the conservatives have been -- that's destructive in its own way, and we need to get away from that. But we do need to realize that, as FISA and Lieberman demonstrate, if we don't look out for our interests Obama and the Democrats sure won't, regardless of how much trust we invest in them. Make them realize we are out here, and though we are reasonable, reliable allies and supporters who understand the need for pragmatism, there are things we want to see done, battles we elected them to fight for us, and if they refuse to fight those battles, asking instead for more trust (this after FISA, and Lieberman, and the Iraq War, and Roberts, and Alito, etc), there's going to be a Harriet Miers style insurrection that ends up harming their interests.

Let me second mg. The amazing success of the far right was their noise machine. By screaming so loud for so long they forced moderates to the right.

We need to complain when the next FISA occurs. Loudly complain. Force the dialog to the left. Those who are quiet are forgotten.

My fingers are crossed that good things will happen and I intend to scream bloody murder if they don't.

I think Karen @3:52 said it very well. I expect that Obama's policies will be decided by the interplay of two things, his sense of what values are important, and the process he sets up to gather and analyze data. For the first time in my lifetime, I have the impression, that we have a government headed by someone who will meticulously attempt to make analysis of data and policy as good as possible. If he in fact does that, then I can be confident, that if I have a sound argument, that a decent case for whatever policy change I am seeking can be made, and will be considered. Of course if he and I differ on one or more basic values, I will not some decisions I don't like. I also have to recognize that even when he/I may be in full agreement about what the best policy is, he may decide, that it is not worth the political cost.

I also expect, that I/we can increase the odds, that his administration actually works in this manner, by being completely honest when making recommendations, i.e. if they (meaning administration staff etc.) see we the people expecting the best possible decision making apparatus, they are more likely to approach that ideal.

And, yes there will be instances when our discussions will become public. But I will do my best to separate out facts, values, and theories from ego. That way no only do I insulate myself from personal disappointment, but my input may still have value, even if some of my assumptions are proved invalid.

> Holy crap people. Election day was less
> than a week ago. Chill out a little.

About 5 months from the FISA vote (capitulation) though.

Cranky Observer

True. It does no good to anyone to countenance Obama the way the Bushites blindly worshiped their un-eminence. However, don't bend over backwards either ...

I think Bush has put second-guessing a President in our DNA forever, and probably rightfully so. But with Obama we have a President who I believe is not only well-intentioned but also smarter both about issues and how to get things done than virtually all of the rest of us. During the campaign, everyone knew what Obama should be doing differently and in practically every case (one example: debate strategy) he was proven right. The thing I keep thinking about is refereeing basketball. People who have never done it think it's easy and probably believe they could call a better game from the stands. It doesn't work that way.

Trust this intelligent, composed, thoughtful, deliberate and impressive man.
You cannot predict the future--no one can. So why predict a dismal situation?
That's nothing more than dysfunctional, anticipatory grieving at its worst.
Trust.

I trust Obama in the sense that Karen describes (very well). But there is another perspective to consider, and that is as a citizen with only as much power as I have as an individual. I have spent about half of my career working for government and I know how it works on the inside. It certainly isn't pretty, and I would like much of it to work better, but it isn't evil, either. (That was a Bush-Rove innovation.)

As a citizen I don't think I SHOULD trust my government. They work for me. When I go to a community meeting I often say that they should not trust me as a government official. That breeds complacency. They have to hold me to my promises and to high standards of service. If they don't, who will? That's how democracy is supposed to work. Too much trust in government can give you the mindless Joe the Plumbers of the world, much to the detriment of the entire country. Citizens' duty is to vigilance and keeping their elected leaders honest. It's great that we think they start out that way, but it's our job to see that they stay honest.

Obama has my trust in the way he has Karen's: I believe him when he articulates his values, political philosophy, and methods, and I agree with them. We start on the same page. We aren't always going to stay there, and that's OK as long as the fundamentals of the trust have not been violated. Trust is earned, is a two-way street, and is only one part of a dynamic relationship.

Because of the he handled the campaign I trust Obama's judgment. In Obama we have something we haven't had in a long time: a president who is scary smart. Call me a crazy optimist but I'm willing to cut the man some slack until he show's he's unworthy of it.

Look, people---this is a simple concept here. Stop trying to see Obama as a Bushylvanian "mini-me" already. Did the man not say to America, on more than one occasion---including within the final 24 hours before the election---that he was not a "perfect" man?

If Jesus himself had been forced to deal with the Bushylvanians, his little walk on the water might have looked a lot like what we now call the Backstroke, his sermon on the Mount might have taken place in a ditch, and those blind folks would---at the very least---have needed bifocals.

So don't expect President Obama to do better. There's a lot of damage that's been done the past eight years, and a lot more can be done in the next 71 days. we've got two wars that the GOPers seem pretty desperate to expand (bombing Pakistan is just outright stupid at this point, and hitting Syria wasn't approved by the UN mandate). They're still rattling sabers at Iran, and there's more than a few who still want that final, epic battle with Russia. There's the mortgage crisis, and the number of unemployed (at least according to Bush's BLS reports) stands at nearly 10.1 million. We've got a trillion-dollar debt, an almost-10-trillion-dollar deficit and cheap oil only because the value of it is tied to our death-throes dollar---imagine what happens if oil suddenly shifts to another benchmark currency, like the Euro or the Ruble.

Maybe we ought to revisit JFK's words and paraphrase them just a bit, thus:

Ask not what Obama can do for You, but what You can do for Your Country.

Now, stop acting like a Rush Limbaugh wanna-be---and let's see just what kind of Americans we can really be. It's Our Turn to Ante Up....

Many of us have been critical of military brass who fight the last war, not the current one, and of politicians (McCain and Hillary, for example) who run the last campaign, not the current one. Now we need to be wary of our own tendencies to mistrust and fight the Bush administration during the early days of the Obama administration. It's like a bad relationship with an addict, a liar, or a cheater; even when it's over and you are safe, it takes a long, long time to regain the ability to trust. Some never regain it, and that poisons all future relationships.

This is not to say we shouldn't be engaged, critical, wary, and even skeptical when the situation calls for it. Trusting in someone doesn't require constant agreement with all their decisions. That is not healthy, whether in a relationship or in governing a nation. But maybe we could start by assuming the man we elected this time is NOT a congenital liar and an incompetent screw-up, but rather assume that he wants to do right by us and be honest with us. Wow, what a concept! What a revelation!

First, I believe in trust and verify. So I agree, everybody should be ready to complain about stuff that's objectionable. But we should not be paranoid in anticipating betrayal everytime things tick right or left.

Personally, I predict that Obama will partially succeed in redrawing the lines of ideology, away from "Right" and "Left." I look for pragmatism to dominate ideology. I look for Obama to use the bully pulpit to sell his programs, which will be characterized by consensus politics and finding win win solutions. In other words, he will be what we haven't seen for a long time: a leader.

"I've been mulling over the election, and it occurred to me that liberal blogs are about to be faced with an interesting question, namely: how much should we trust Barack Obama?"

Just kill me.

Better yet, let's just translate this into Sean Hannity-ese:

"What do we REALLY know about Barack Obama?"

On second thought, just kill me.

Five fucking days.

Five days until you just had to remind the new black Democratic President of the United States that you're not going to take any shit from him and you're going to hold his feet to the fire and he better not forget where he came from or who got him there or what he owes you.

Everybody put on an orange cap!

Just kill me.

For crying out loud. No wonder most marriages don't work. By all means, don't accept what Barack says he will do. Instead, suspect him of cheating before he does anything. You people are the pits.

I hope we can trust Obama to jetison the creepy Lieberman pod-creature. Again, from Josh Marshal at TPM, let's mention very much what he says has gone little mentioned regarding the part of A-Holey Joe's committee that has to do with oversight:

Another Reason to Can Joe

As we and many others have chronicled, there's a surfeit of reasons to strip Sen. Lieberman of his committee chairmanship. But one, perhaps the most obvious and substantive, has gone little mentioned. Simply put, he was terrible at it. Lieberman's committee is the senate investigations and oversight committee, the senate's counterpart to Rep. Henry Waxman's committee in the House. And if you remember a lot about Waxman's investigations and hearings and nothing about Lieberman's, that's because Lieberman didn't hold any. Even in the face of endless scandals of the late Bush administration, Lieberman couldn't find anything worth poking into.

--Josh Marshall

The astroturf is lovely, dark and deep, I believe I will swoon and perchance I may sleep.

Astroturfers of Axlerod serfdom unite. Unionize now!

Trust is a big word which involves what we believe in and what we could be assure of. If you are inquiring if we should trust a human being, my answer would have to be NO. But this not for negitive reasons, this is being realistic of the times we live in. Because Mr Obama is simply a human being, he is not superman or the ulimate savior.
The real question is whatever or not we should trust a non-perfect system or arrangement Mr. President-Elect is endorsing. That is a matter of which I made a few, recent postings on. You may wish to read these along with viewing the contributed videos on my blog site, Curtis On The News; http://curtisonthenews.blogspot.com

Regards,
Curtis

Five days until you just had to remind the new black Democratic President of the United States that you're not going to take any shit from him ...

Instead, suspect him of cheating before he does anything. You people are the pits.

In contrast to the past eight years' nightmare, we can now look forward to having someone with an adult personality in the White House. Obama is not going to let his administration be derailed by a little skepticism and factional difference, so do the man a favour and treat him like the President-elect, instead of as a racial or ideological talisman.

Trust? What's not to trust? Obama is a moral man who knows how to negotiate in an immoral arena. (Read Ryan Lizza's New Yorker article & you'll see how Obama made his way in Chicago politics -- when he says he knows how to play with the big boys, TRUST him -- he does.) Moral politicians have to be pragmatic, and getting half the pie is almost always better than getting nothing.

When it comes to gay marriage, for instance, I'd be shocked if Obama really gave a damn about the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage. But if he'd been running around campaigning against Prop 8 (he once said he would vote against it), we'd all be looking at President-Elect McCain (aargh!).

The left has a duty to nudge Obama toward taking progressive stances -- in fact, our whining provides him with a negotiating chip -- but to get all bent out when Obama doesn't do our bidding is self-defeating & I would assume psychologically stressful.

Of course Obama is trustworthy. The real question is, are we? Hilzoy suggests not.

Constant Weader at RealityChex.com

My guess is that those who believe that Obama is as liberal as the Republicans say will be very disappointed. I think and hope that he is an intelligent centrist who will fix the economy and healthcare and restore American credibility.

We have no choice but to trust him. People questioned him at every turn, and often stomped off to their rooms to sulk. Yet here he is President of the US, beating back two formidable political machines.

Heck, yes, I trust him, and so should the rest of the US. He will disappoint the Liberal Purists like he did with the FISA thing, but he will get done what is possible.

A couple things to keep in mind:

- There will be, at a minimum, 2/3 of today's troop count in Iraq in 2012. As long as the oil is there the troops are there.
- Of energy, economy, and health care, one will not be handled by 2012. Gotta have something for the second term.
- Intraparty wrangling will be here sooner than we know it.

Before posting this comment, I did a quick search. No one has mentioned, by name, the Pentagon's Message Force Multiplier Program.

How do the news readers at Fox keep their jobs? Simple: they're paid propagandists. Same goes for Limbaugh and his ilk. Are there Liberal MFMs? Seriously, I would dearly love to know: who are the NSA moles in the Democratic Party? Lieberman? Lee Hamilton? Who are the Perkinsian Economic Hit Men? Summers? Rubin? Who, on the Left, has been betraying us to BushRoveCheneyCo? Who is still at it?

Propagandists of every political variety use words in only a mechanical fashion, shooting little message pellets at us with the violent intention of forcing us to change our behavior in the direction they dictate.

How is the MFM program any different from deploying snipers? They hide their true intentions; they shoot their mouths off; and they kill just as directly as one who pulls a trigger.

Whoever is giving these people their pulpits and taling points is equally guilty of crimes against our body politic as if they were pulling triggers or setting off bombs themselves.

It's called "command responsibility," a precedent firmly established in international law from the Nuremberg trials.

How do these words right here work, anyway? As self-emptying vessels.

Into the inchoate ocean of my intentions, I am dipping these words like tea cups (or coffee, if you like). Over to you, I am passing them. As you pass your eyes over them, they self-empty into *your* ocean of inchoate meaning, as rain falling into the sea.

Without their ever being spoken, o reader my Reader, you now hear them within you.

This is how we change the world; the same way the sun shines, the earth orbits, and all beings grow: from within!

The Right seems to me to be all about machining us, hacking our psyches like mere voting-machines on two legs. Does the Left have a similar program? Who are our propagandists?

Jeeesus

How many times can you say the same thing?

u paid by the word?

.

Everyone is invited to check out this blog to see the key 5 things Obama needs to do to set the tone of leadership: www.capitalideapr.com

Obama need to go through a political cycle. And that will not be an easy scale to judge Obama for trust. The money forces are embedded, with a long time cronies, and are hugely loyal making plans for the next Assault on Reason. Plus leaving plenty of traps specifically built to discourage and engage the political criticism of the Democratic Party.

If you ever get the chance to read “The Secrets of the Kingdom” by Gerald Posner, his chapter on “The Scorched Earth” examples the Arab Wahabbi approaches to politics. Here, Posner illustrate how the Arabs wired their oil fields, with explosives just in case the Americans tried to invade and take over their country. They will rather blow their resources than to let America have them. Likely the same way the Iraqi and Iranians feel. Moreover these explosives had been purchased earlier with expiration dates about 2013, so as professionals in theory goes America can expect Bin laden to use this stuff before expiration date.

Sixty bases in Iraq built within the last years and not reported too significantly. Of course for national security reasons not talked about. Likely the world over knows about all them, but not the Americans. Ladies and gentleman of America any commander and chief that utilizes hundreds of thousands of mercenaries or subcontracting to a mystery like Black-Water secretly does not have the welfare of the nation in mind. This whole war is nothing short of a money mill subcontracted cash cow for perpetual profiteering.

Be sure the Jekyll Island money group which is the Federal Reserve, World Bank, and the International Monetary fund all using American tax dollars embed all ran by picked directors all needed to be replaced as soon as possible. That includes the trillion dollar play ground of the Pentagon, IRS, and a host of hundreds of Quasi- government agencies that have directors hand picked by Bush and Company. Needless to say a CIA, FBI, FISA, and other Intelligence agencies that Cheney started long ago but not talked about.

All in all, a small group of twenty people around the world are going to meet with Bush and Company who has enjoyed free money from America’s tax system, now may be cut off. Just as Rothschild suggested almost a hundred years ago who controls the money rules the world. Rothschild along with Rockefeller built the plan for the Federal Reserve on Jekyll Island with little control by the public, here having made plenty of money. Its time for them to bow out or face an eternal chase along with Osama Bin Laden to the gates of hell.

It is very laughable to even suggest Obama or the Clintons have dynasties, even though they are derived from a very modest generation of families to even compete with the politically entrenched Bush family that have ties for decades to European banking and business concerns. Always under the radar of public opinion courtesy of the well greased Media. If the media even talked a little about Bush’s dealings in weapons and oil truthfully, the American electorate would likely start building a gallows in front of the Crawford ranch.

Hilzoy: How did you (personally) balance your own political sensibilities, when, earlier this past summer, Obama supported the administration's FISA legislation? Do you trust that he acted in the best interests of the nation, as he understood those best interests? Or, did he vote against his better judgement, in order to gain the democratic nomination?

I barely understand your agument here, I'd say watch out for paralysis through analysis.

"Or, did he vote against his better judgement, in order to gain the democratic nomination?".

Of course, I meant to ask, "in order to gain the presidency"? His nomination was wrapped up at that point.

If you want to have fun, remind of freeper that Reagan raised taxes 6 in 8 years. Or that he cut and ran in Beirut. And that Bush was a truer to the conservative ideology than Reagan ever was.

You folks might be even more grateful Obama won, if you listen to this purported dramatized transcript of an actual Wasilla town council meeting overseen by Sarah Palin in 1996. Lots of talk about donating for the coffee or whatever. She sure does sound ditzy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMocEINn-E8

My impression is that, if Bush was "the Decider", we ain't seen nothin' yet.

Obama strikes me as a shrewd politician, with a more than healthy ego, but one who is in politics for the right reason- a desire to advance the common good. I think he ran for president because he actually thinks he will be better at it than anybody else, not because it will provide him with personal fame and glory. He is a thinker and a listener, but my sense is that once he has decided what he wants to do he will be quite ruthless in attempting to ensure that what he decides to do gets implemented.

Ironically, he may well take advantage of the increasing consolidation of power in the executive branch, rather than attempting to roll it back.

I think his wife will be an important part of the administration in terms of providing a check on his powers and reminding him where he came from, and why he wanted to get where he now is.

MG, indeed.

That's part of why I vote Green. You can't pressure the Democratic Party of today from inside the tent.

It's a little off topic, but here's a quote from a Religious Right website:

...an Obama Administration not only brings in new cabinet members, advisors and aides, and their staffs, but also empties government agencies of Liberty University-schooled ideologues and fills those positions with Obama supporters. Ironically, this may strengthen the conservative movement as many of those currently employed by the Bush administration will seek and find positions at Christian conservative policy centers and Christian universities.

They're always looking at the bright side of things; can't blame them for that. I can see where they have a point, where those ideologues will fill out applications at Religious Zealot organizations.

Here's the Link for those interested.

I think trust but verify works best here. Listen to what Emanuel and Podesta are saying: progressive, pragmatic

Will there be points where Obama distresses the left? If he's doing his job, yes. The right will, of course, be on this as white on rice - and expect us to join them.
I break the math down this way: If you get what you want 75% of the time, you're winning big. If you get it 35% of the time, you're getting your ass kicked. If you get it 100% of the time, you're probably looking at prison time.

http://www.college.columbia.edu/cct_archive/jan05/cover.php

Until I read this, I wasn't sure how much to trust Obama. I'm VERY willing to trust him now.

Crack and Obama? How um, appropriate I guess.

Classy!

I assume this was an unintentional slip.

The fact of the matter is there is no good way to leave Iraq. I don't think there are even okay ways to leave. But leave we must and the sooner the better. Iraq was never a nation, only a state. We could stay 50 years and all we would be doing is keeping a lid on the violence, never would we really change the way the Shia , Sunni and the Kurds feel about each other.

I want us out entirely in 16 months. I don't even care if we have an embassy there. However, I also want Israel to begin dismantling illegal settlements over this same period of time and working non-stop to creating two states in Palestine.

One without the other really nets us nothing in terms of our security vis-a-vis Islamists throughout the world.

I would not put it so much in terms of trust as giving the benefit of the doubt. I know he's going to do things I disagree with (he's done one major one already, well before the election.) But the thing I hope most of us will avoid is jumping on every small sign or decision that doesn't go the way we would like. Just as with the campaign, every move doesn't have to be loudly put in the category of victory or sellout. Give the man the benefit of the doubt as long as he's going mostly in the right direction, and don't sweat the small stuff. That's what I'm planning to do.

HELP OBAMA OUT, IMPEACH GEORGE BUSH AND DICK CHENEY, call Pelosi @1-202-225-0100 DEMAND IMPEACHMENT.

Ah.
Can't wait for the taxes to go up.
Barak will most likely fail. If it doesn't all the better. His socialistic ideas and reversed psychological use is amazing. He weeded into everyone's brain. Feed the poison and the notion that "you" are the one making change by voting for him. Well, given that he has never changed anything in senate, and in fact missed 44% of the time and didn't vote the way he said he would, i'm interested in seeing how this president in diapers does.
America does not have the monies to do nth% of the things barak said he would do. Then, he has to get it past congress and senate. Not an easy task.

Hilzoy,

On the question of Obama's 'trustworthiness', I'd like to hear you and Steve's thoughts on the Chief of Staff choice earlier this week. Reviewing what little I could find about him on the web, it seems like a mysterious choice, coming off all of the campaign's 'change' rhetoric.. a former Freddie Mac exec? supports the Iraq War?

First, I can't think of anything more likely to guarantee failure than if the left starts out with an adversarial relationship with President Obama because they don't 'trust' him.

Second, the left should still gear up to aggressively promote their agenda. Not to hold Obama's feet to the fire, but to change the political landscape he is working in. The farther left public opinion and the balance of power in Congress shifts, the more Obama will be able to accomplish.

Im surprised at you guys. I was 100% for Obama, and 100% against Bush since day one...but

We NEVER "trust" people in power. The framers of the constitution didn't want or expect us to. Power corrupts even the most moral of us, sometimes just in their desire to "do good".

NO...no trust. I give him the benefit of the doubt, and will watch what he DOES. This will either lead me to believe he does well, and consistent with what he tried to tell us he would do, or will lead me to find out it was talk, and it is business as usual. He (or really any democrat) is going to be tons better than Bush and his gang, but democrats that make it into the office, have been pretty dissapointing also. They seem as quick to use force, kill people, etc. as anyone else.

Very few people in power see the actual limitations of force. They too often see it as a "tool" when it ought to be a last resort ONLY.

I put this in the same category as the open letters from concern trolls warning Obama not to get too uppity and thinks he's got a mandate to enact change. Now we get open letters warning Obama not to get too comfortable and think we trust him. I'm thinking the Onion parody ( worst job in America) wasn't parody after all.

On January 21st the US military will resume its killing of civilians in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, and continue planning to kill civilians in Iran and elsewhere. Israel will continue its oppression and killing of Palestinians with US gifted weapons. The blood on President Obama's hands will be no different than the blood on President W. Bush's. Obama will have a small amount of time to demonstrate he is not W. Bush, but he will have to battle the institutional violence and its approval that defines our national attitude to end it.

I voted for Obama not because I see him as perfect, but because I do trust so far what I see of his thinking process, his judgment, his temperament, his intellect, his decision making style, his humility (this latter quality utterly absent from Bush), his relationship with Michelle and the girls--he is a principled and disciplined and hard-working honest man. And he's a decent guy. A really decent guy with a good heart.

I have no doubt there will be concessions he'll have to make along the way--some small, some large-- as any politician in his position will need to. But that's par for the course.

I also have good reason to believe he'll do everything he damn well can to make good on his campaign promises.

He needs to make his promises come true. And one of them is bringing our troops in 16 months - no excuses. I will be truly dissilusioned if he breaks his promises. I believe in him, but I'm watching. I will not trust blindly.

Actions speak louder than words. To date, with the exception of FISA, Obama has been true to his word. On the FISA decision Obama did say he would fix it if elected. McCain would not have lifted a finger to change it. We'll see what Obama does. To date there are encouraging signs that gives us reason to we can trust him.

As a community organizer Obama made a remark, quite telling actually, that in order to get anything done required power. Therein presumably that catapulted him into politics. Considering Obama has worked for social justice and the common good his entire adult life leads me to believe we can trust him.

Perhaps it is more of a question on whether he will be bold or too cautious. Even if he is in office for two terms the damage done by Bush and Cheney cannot be undone in 8 years. We do not even know the extent or the depth of damage they've done, but I surmise based on what we do know it will take decades to repair.

Equally important to note is Obama's heart is in the right place. That makes him best to chart a new direction for the country. Will he make mistakes? Of course he will. Will we always agree with him? No. In order to get things done requires "compromise." As long as he is forthcoming -- even if we disagree -- will shore up our confidence and trust in him.

Last do note Obama's team has been quietly reviewing Bush's signing statements and executive orders which Obama plans on reversing what he can by executive order. That coupled with mulling over how to shut down Guantanamo Bay are strong indicators Obama will stay true to his word. And if they come to pass we have good reason to believe he is trustworthy.

It is said a man is only as good as his word. Yet words are nothing without deeds to match. On that note we will know whether to trust him or not. Be patient and supportive, but also criticize when criticism is due.

Until he does otherwise there is no reason not to trust Obama.