Lowered expectations

[illusionofjoy]

Ted Rall's column this week is a blistering piece on how Obama, not even receiving a fraction of the criticism of George W. Bush, may end up ultimately being worse for the country than the former president. A sample:

The soaring optimistic rhetoric of the campaign ("yes we can") is no more, replaced by the sober, string-synced cello strains of Yo-Yo Ma. So is Obama's million-dollar smile. The Dour One is demanding patience. And he's getting it, for now: "Most respondents [to the New York Times/CBS News poll taken January 19th] said they thought it would take Mr. Obama two years or more to deliver on campaign promises to improve the economy, expand health care coverage and end the war in Iraq."

Setting the bar low seems to be working. Seventy-nine percent of Americans say they're optimistic about the next four years under Obama.

Sad, pathetic Americans! Like a dog that's been beaten eight long years, they're so psyched about the fact that their new master doesn't drool and speaks coherent English that they'll follow him anywhere. The media is in love with The One and so, therefore, is the public. No one questions him.

The whole column is well worth reading, of course. Also it is certain to bunch of the shorts of many a Kool-Aide drinker out there. It was these first three sentences of the final paragraph however which struck me as the only blemish on an otherwise perfect piece:

Give the man a chance? Not me. I've sized up him, his advisors and their plans, and already found them sorely wanting.

The actuality of course that Ted Rall did give Obama a chance in the same manner as millions of other Americans: Rall voted for Obama. I, however, read the tea leaves during the campaign and opted not to give Obama a chance as I leveraged my vote against him.