Response to Stephen Walt

I recently read a blog post by Stephen A. Walt analyzing the quality of Obama's record. I must admit that I very strongly agree with much of his talk about giving credit where due. In an earlier post of mine, I discussed a similar idea, that often times the most prominent news stories only cover the bad and the ugly, perhaps because the good is less exciting, or less obvious. Under Obama, our country's economy stayed out of the toilet. Yeah, we don't know for sure that the same wouldn't have happened under McCain, but we also don't know if he possibly could have done better or worse (judging by the state our economy before, I'd say that stopping the freefall we were in is something worth commending). Our image to other countries has also improved. When things go bad, it's clear. There are terrorism attacks, wars, and serious relations problems. But when things are going just fine, it's difficult to make an exciting news story out of it. Who would read "BUILDINGS DON'T GET BURNED" if it was on the cover of the Trib? The opposite of terrorism isn't getting confetti and candy shot over to us. When you count up all the countries that hate us less, all the terrorism that didn't happen, and all the potties that didn't flush our economy, Obama's record really isn't all that bad. He might not have gotten to changing things as dramatically as America expected, but he hasn't screwed up, either, and he deserves a pat on the back for that. I seriously respect Walt for acknowledging the possibility that Obama's record isn't all that bad, and I very much enjoyed his post.