I have been reading Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope" for the last two weeks and find myself growing increasingly fond of our new president. I am naturally very skeptical, but it's hard not to get caught up in all of the praise and positivity being stirred up. I have to remind myself continually: the proof is in the pudding.

Already he has made some great moves (capping wages in the White House, repealing the gag order on funding for family planning organizations, announcing plans to shut down Guantanamo, giving the green light to stem cell research, ending the US policy of torture, etc). Some of my friends have expressed concern that this might be his sprint out of the gate and this pace is not sustainable. We'll see.

Skepticism is healthy and to foster it one must be paying attention. Cynicism implies an assumption to the negative. I respect those who are skeptical of Obama, but choosing to be cynical is the choice of a lazy and pessimistic character.

Not a bad editorial! Give him his try. Give him the benefit of the doubt.

The only time I hear Obama referred to as "worshiped" or "perfect" or "the Messiah" is when Republicans accuse Liberals of thinking this way about him.

Most of the Liberals I know (myself included) are more than aware we all have a lot of work to do. I might be appreciative of his policies so far, and skeptical on other moves, but have we been so conditioned to believe everything will fall apart that to hope it turns out well is ludicrous? Jeez, I hope not.

Either way, I think that says something.

Kristin, I'm glad you're one of the liberals who's skeptical, because there are many others who are blind followers.

And obviously liberals don't come out and directly say he's Messiah or "The One," but it IS kind of creepy how he's become almost a cult figure to his followers, how he's adored in the media, how a lot of people are all of a sudden excited to live in America again, how everyone thinks our problems are now over, how they believe that America is somehow "back," etc, etc, etc.

When you add it all up, it almost is like Obama's being worshipped by the Left.

I don't mean to come across as overly critical here but this is a paper aimed at the students and academic community of the University of Washington is it not? That being said it is clearly understood that the audience of this paper is well educated, or at least on their way to becoming so. This article has me screaming for answers as to why exactly it would even be under consideration at the University. As an educated community we are aware of a few things of our own political past, one of them being that human beings are just that, they are human and they make mistakes. It is because of this fact that when it comes to those individuals who are elected, and put themselves in a position to govern the people of the United States, that they will be watched with a close eye. We saw this very clearly with the last administration as every move was picked with a fine-toothed comb and thus judged. And so it should have been, and so should any other administration that may come along in the future. That is exactly why I am taken aback by this article. It is the job of the American people to demand answers from their government in easy and in difficult times, but the article strays from that stating "on the other side, some seem to be doing everything they can to nitpick every decision he's made, and to cast him as inexperienced and green.". That was an interesting statement about halfway through the piece, specially being that just a few short paragraphs earlier it was stated that "And, because he has little government - and no executive - experience, we have no precedent by which to judge him." Isnt that a bit contradictory?

Another aspect of government that we as an educated body understand is that asking questions of your elected officials actions is an important aspect of being an American citizen and of learning. Knowing exactly what your government is doing for you, and how, is an important facet of learning as you so clearly support and advocate in the article. Again the article plays more on emotion than rationale stating "Why not wait, watch and learn? Why not give him the chance to prove himself worthy of the office before you criticize his every move?" Would any other individual be treated any less unfair? Need I remind everyone that this is the office of the President of the United States, not hall monitor at an elementary school? President Obama is a grown man who as you correctly stated certainly does not have an easy job and has an incredibly heavy burden. His character most assuredly WILL be under constant attack for the duration of his time in office whatever that may be, and that is exactly how it should be.

continued...

I, like most of the students here at the University of Washington, read the daily every time I am on campus. I often agree with what is written, find articles interesting, or find myself shaking my head and wondering how much more the author could have missed the point. The article on January 28th, 2009 entitled "Withhold judgment on the president" struck me as particularly shocking. I must ask the writer and the editor; did you throw your little objectivity out the window or did you know what you were writing and decided to do so anyway? I have never been shy to say that I did not support President Barack Obama. I do not care if it casts me as “uncool”, “hopeless”, or not wanting “change”. That being said, I also did not support President Bush. My views of government are not based in red and blue or black and white, I vote for the person I think will best lead this country and neither the color of their skin nor the side of the line they stand on effects how I vote. However, he is president now and I do show that position respect. That being said, I find it very biased and highly unprofessional to write such an article as this. With only a few paragraphs into this article it states, "And, because he has little government - and no executive - experience, we have no precedent by which to judge him.” the article then goes on to attempt to give another side of the argument by saying, "on the other side, some seem to be doing everything they can to nitpick every decision he's made, and to cast him as inexperienced and green." I do not believe I am alone when I say that I find this so incredibly contradictory. It is no secret that the president elect has very little experience and he and his campaign has even said so. I feel as if this author was making an attempt to defend the President from those who are entitled to ask him questions. Those who have made it their job to critique the man in the highest office in the United States. I’ve got a newsflash for you, he is the President, and for the next four, and possibly eight years, the press should not be his friend. They need to ask him the tough and important questions that his “transparent” administration has promised they would. I find the media coverage, and at times the Daily, so biased and unfair that it makes me ill. President Barack Obama is a grown man and I am sure he can take the just and warranted criticism that comes with holding this powerful position. What is done is done and he is our president now; so let us treat him as such. With respect, yes, but also looked at with a fine-toothed comb. Let us scrutinize his every move like we have done with those before him. Let us be fair and objective like the media not only should be but promises to be. If President Barack Obama cannot handle the fire then he needs to get out of the kitchen.

"for the very reason that he doesn't have much of a record."

He didn't before he became president either, and yet somehow, he got elected.

I think it had something to due with hope and change and good speeches or something. Not quite sure...

A lot of expectations on Obama were misplaced (and hyped) simply because many did not like what Bush did (war president is never popular)and expect Obama to fix them. Obama will soon realize that a lot of what Bush did were not wrong and in fact, many were necessary. I believe Obama is smart enough to tell the difference. So he will "disappoint" those many with unrealistic and unwise exceptions. He should focus on the true issues, rather than the partisan and ideology issues where the liberal left is unwilling to relent. He will be judged by what he did for this country, and not by what he did for his party. It is good for him to reach out to Republican party. He should not be discouraged by the recent 0 vote by the House Republicans on the stimulus package. The blame should be placed on Pelosi and her Democratic members. To get his policies going, a bi-partisan effort is important. But the majority needs to reach out to the minority. Not the other way around. In addition to his reaching out to the Republicans, he needs to try equally hard to convince the Democratic party to do the same. Otherwise, it is his own party that will eventually doom his great presidency.