« Caroline Kennedy and Chris Matthews: No! | Main | Will Blagojevich wreck Obama's honeymoon? »

December 10, 2008

Comments

Brendan tells us it's dumb to open a website on which people can ask not only fawning questions but also questions that are confrontational. For the last eight years that sort of confrontation has been known as speaking truth to power. Now it may "require suppression." Am I the only one who feels a chill?

Rob's being disingenuous. I'm obviously not calling for suppression of anti-Obama speech. I'm saying that from a practical political perspective the Obama transition team will have to decide whether to allow embarassing anti-Obama content on their site or to suppress it (either directly or through their supporters flagging all negative questions as inappropriate).

There are two ways to look at this issue: political advantage or good government. From a good government POV, when there is a scandal could be the best time to open such a website, if the President uses the site to disclose his role, if any, in the scandal. OTOH, the alternative of not having such a site or eliminating embarassing questions may be wise politically.

I find it sad that we citizens find it acceptable for the President to hide embarassing facts, rather than reveal them. In fact, we actually encourage such behavior when we view the decision through the lens of political advantage rather than good government.

P.S. hitting the Edit button works, but the response is very slow.

The comments to this entry are closed.