Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW

O'bomber

by Paul Wells on Saturday, December 5, 2009 3:44pm - 128 Comments

Dana Milbank, making himself useful for a change, surveys left-liberal despair over Barack Obama’s Afghanistan strategy. The arguments will be familiar to students of Lawrence Martin, whose Globe column this week carried the unmistakable, and familiar, sound of a romantic falling out of love again. Oh, Barack — we thought you were good, but instead you’re bad.

We’re reminded once again that support for a candidate can be so fervent that supporters devote a lot of energy to blocking out what the candidate says, in plain English, over and over. Milbank is especially good on this point. Remember that one subspecies of the shortlived mania for Stéphane Dion was the ironclad conviction that Dion would represent Pierre Trudeau’s second coming as a federalist, even though Dion had spent his career sharply criticizing elements of Trudeau’s thinking. Similarly, apparently it was possible to think Obama would do nothing in Afghanistan except poke daisies into the barrels of all those rifles. One way to avoid this misperception would have been to listen to Obama.

Bookmark and Share
  • Neil from Calgary

    I think Obama is doing a pretty good job so far, considering what he has had to deal with just one year into his mandate. His long-term domestic problem is going to be restraining spending, particularly on military expenditues, in order to cut the budget deficit. Tax hikes are almost a certainty in the U.S., which could provide an opportunity/threat for Canada. I would like to see more American firms shifting their investments into Canada, thanks in part to lower corporate taxes and HSTs in BC and Ontario. More investment dollars means more higher-paying jobs, which can't be a bad thing.

From Macleans