Judging Obama

Salon blogger Glen Greenwald, whose posts I admire excessively, chastises those Obamaphiles who are gushing that "the adults are back in charge." Well, guilty. I have so gushed a couple of times here. I'm not sure that the expression is entirely unwarranted. Throughout the fall's campaign, Obama has abundantly demonstrated non-reactiveness to crises and stressors, ability to think things through, vigorous intellectual capacity, and resolve to abstain from political vindictiveness. Cf. George Bush.

Greenwald is right insofar as both critics and supporters must wait to judge Obama on his actions and decisions as time unfolds. Too many have pounced on these appointments as evidence of either his brilliance or his defection from declared principles. And when talking heads must yak 24 hours a day, they will continue to pounce and pontificate.

Obama's "success" can only begin to be judged as the cumulative effect of his decisions takes shape over several months. There's nothing to celebrate yet. Criticism is not premature, but often there is too much speculation in the mix.

Not that I'll accept anything on good faith alone. Greenwald's post today deals with Attorney General appointee Eric Holder and how his role in the Marc Rich pardon was a yielding to Washington power-brokers. Troubling, definitely. But check this out:

Having said all of that, why doesn't Holder's involvement in the Rich pardon make him unqualified to be Attorney General? [...] it's because none of these sins are unique to Holder.

This is vintage Washington. This is the filthy, venal sleaze on which both political parties feed. It's what fuels how the Beltway operates. It's the leading cause of why it functions as a corrupt, dysfunctional, bloated, incestuous royal court. That's what Washington is. For that reason, it would be next to impossible to find people who have been a part of this system who haven't been infected -- or more accurately: who haven't infected themselves -- at one point or another with this disease.

More than anything else, Obama's endless invocation of the "change" mantra was not about promises of sharp ideological or even policy shifts -- as needed as those may be -- but instead, was about changing this core Beltway dynamic, delousing the Washington culture. A consensus has emerged, which I more or less share, that condemning the not-yet-inaugurated Obama presidency based merely on his appointments of establishment re-treads and war supporters is premature, irrational and unfair. [emphasis added]

So will Obama really change that dynamic? And how? From the sheer force of his vision?