Is it too much to ask that future wapo pundits look at both sides of a problem, that they actually argue with themselves about the positive, as well as negative sides of an issue. I'm so tired of Krauthammer and others, who you don't need to read to know the positions they will take on any issue. I cannot, I repleat, I cannot take seriously anyone who writes from a single perspective. The writing becomes boring and not at all worth reading. I don't want to be preached to; I want my mind engaged.

What difference would it make if the current administration stopped the alleged "blame game"? It seems to me that it is essential to be aware that there is a base of operations, the place from which one started. There is a parallel in the old saw that those who ignore (or forget) history are doomed to repeat it. I wish that you had expanded on your argument since it is obvious that you have the writing ability to do so.

Bravo Mr Jackson, written with the "pundit's" style & point of view. I look forward to your next offerings.While I suspect that your views will not be well received by many here, they represent an important view which needs to be offered rather than one more gleeful column from the amen corner.Diversity of views makes for a more honest debate.

It seems to me that Mr. Jacksons participation in the previous administration is clouding his judgment somewhat. No one wants to admit that there could have been mistakes made within an administration in which they were employed. To say that the current administration shouldn't say that they "inherited" this mess is to be so ignorant as to say that the mess never existed. Every administration blames the one before and that this rhetoric is nothing new. Looking at the evidence of who created what mess should be foundation enough and give some latitude to those who might use the "we inherited" argument. I can't think of a more appropriate response for this administration when it is asked why things are not changing as fast as we would like them to. I think perhaps the response, though not likely intended to be so, really is an inheritance, but not in the context it has been used. It has been the result of several decades that we find ourselves in such a mess and not simply the previous 8 years being responsible inasmuch as that is convenient to think so. I would say that I am happy with an administration that is at least willing to say there is mess, than I am with one that denies the mess exists.

Mr. Jackson raises an interesting predicate here. He states the problem but we will have to wait for his next column to get his proposed solution.

One of the things that is missing from the commentary is the role of Congress during the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations. Congress owns the majority of blame here !!!

Ho-hum. As someone else noted, what's so great about Krauthammer Lite?

Really WaPo, a Bush retread made the top ten. Funny how he would defend his guy and be upset at Obama for complaining about the mess that was left him, but its the truth. Bush and probably Mr. Jackson screwed this country up and now he complains that Obama points out the obvious that he inherited some of the biggest disasters our country has had to face. Come on. Don't you have enough neocons on the opinion page. I thought the idea of this contest was to get some interesting, fresh and new perspectives. You blew this one.

This post seems to be completely ignorant of the way policy works. It takes several years for policy to have an impact - so - Obama is only being fair by asking for a little time - and noting that he inherited these problems.

Wow. For a person experienced in politics, this guy knows zilch about politics and history. I mean, does he think Obama invented the inheritence card?

I bet he was surprised when he learned that the only thing bipartisan in Congress is the parking lot.

Although I, too, wish that members of the Obama administration would stop "playing the inheritance card", if I may quote Mr. Jackson, the selection of this editorial as one of the top ten submissions is puzzling. The editorial is poorly constructed, being a sequence of unconnected single thoughts rather than a coherent whole, and it is difficult to read.

There is, in addition, a condescending tone to this editorial that bothers me. I bristle a bit upon being told to "Listen closely." I require no such injunction, and I doubt that few other readers of the Post do either, regardless of his or her political affiliation or point of view. Nor do we require such instruction as "We expect results from our leaders. That is why we choose them." Good God, really! Well, I suppose that we can thank Mr. Jackson for exhibiting a firm grasp of the obvious.

I find myself in the awkward position of agreeing with the thesis of the editorial but objecting to its style and presentation. If selected as the next pundit, Mr. Jackson would harm the conservative movement more than he would help it. For every one person whom he might attract to the movement he would offend ten others, and for good reason. Condescension and ridicule are not effective techniques for influencing people.

I can only assume that the editors of the Post selected this entry after treating themselves to a liquid lunch.

To Mister Jackson’s point; many of the problems the Obama administration were indeed left over from the Bush administration. This is rightly pointed out whenever those on the right criticize the administration for not adequately addressing those same problems. Continuing the Republican disability of Selective Amnesia, Mr. Jackson forgets that well into the second term of the Bush administration they were claiming to have inherited the beginnings of a recession from the Clinton administration, and that Clintons failure to capture Bin Laden was why he remained at large.

To the prose itself, Mr. Jackson’s writing on this and the previous column was sophomoric, lacking a flow necessary for pleasant reading. His writing reflects his background as a lawyer. His research and depth is also very thin. The WAPO and other papers have many columnist with a one sided viewpoint, ready to flog any real or perceived weakness in the opposition while ignoring glairing problems in theirs. His will become another column read only by subscribers of the Washington TIMES, who pick up the Washington POST by mistake.

Uh oh, Mr. Jackson. The "progressive" idiots on this site will never vote for you. They prefer to keep the WaPo uniformly left-leaning. Anyone who expresses a view contrary to theirs is automatically out (and is also an evil Nazi hate-mongerer).

Daryl writes: "We expect results from our leaders. That is why we choose them. We do not elect them to make excuses, or to kick mud on those who have left office. "

Exactly right. Whether Republicans have done this vis-a-vis Clinton or Carter in the past isn't a justification for Democrats doing it now. "Change" includes changing away from bad habits that only create divisiveness in our nation.

As long as Dick Cheney and Karl Rove continue to shoot their mouths off, it behooves Obama to remind America that it was the Bush administration that got us into the messes that this administration inherited.

Fresh?!

This is O'recycled O'reilly.

Actually, I don't think America's next pundit should come from the ranks of the Bush administration, or the Obama or Clinton administrations either, for that matter. We are pretty well saturated in what Fox and MSNBC have to say -- how about a new voice that actually says something new?

Are you serious? WAPO is looking for another partisan hack to fill in.... Krauthammer's shoes? This guy is simply mouthing from the Republican talking points. Trying to have a conversation with him is probably like having a conversation with an office desk (as Barney Frank put it so eloquently). Lets go down the "non-accomplishments" of the Obama administration:
o averting a depression - check
o creating 650000 jobs to date and more in the making - check
o "US economy roars back" - check
o Rescuing American image abroad - check
o Foiled serious terrorist threats in the US (yes keeping us safe) - check
o On the cusp of serious health care reform - check
o Not starting frivolous wars and sending men and women in harms way just to show you have cojones - check

I hope if this guy is in then Krauthammer is out

Bravo Mr. Jackson, although in saying that I have to caution that I am not necessarily happy it is someone on the Right saying it, but it does have to be said. In many ways, the Obama Administration is squandering the positive aspects of its inheritance as much as claiming an unwieldy burden of negative aspects. That is, President Obama has, allowed all the momentum built up in prior administration to be carried forward. Not only are the military leaders the same, he picked a Wall Street Banker for Treasury Secretary. How does Geithner – fresh from holding forth as President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, who was elected to the post by First District members – largely Wall Street Bankers -- bring a fresh perspective to this crisis? He and Bernake were working on it in the prior administration – he’s still working on it with Bernake in the current administration. And, Summers? He a virtual legacy whose fingerprints show up in several prior administrations. And, then there’s the question no one seems to be asking, how come former Fed Governors such asWayne Angell at Bear Sterns and David Mullins at Long Term Capital Management, went on to have leadership positions in firms that helped design and promote the “special investment vehicles” that ultimately led not only to the collapse of the firm but the economy. And, Larry Summers? The same Larry Summers – a former Secretary of the Treasury who worked to promote and then praised repeal of Glass-Steagall with the passage of Graham-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999, stating:
This historic legislation will better enable American companies to compete in the new economy."[
Also, he opposed regulating the very same toxic derivatives spawned by lifting the regulatory mandates that had kept investment and commercial banking separate. In any contemporary analysis of factors that brought us our economy to its knees, these questions are left adrift -- begging to be asked and answered. My hope is that Darryl Jackson will win the Pundit crown and start asking the tough questions.

I totally disagree with the opinion, but the piece is quite good. I would totally read more by this guy, in spite of his Bush 43 background!

The Republicans have been trying so hard to disown the detritus of the Bush years that they seem offended whenever they are reminded of it. They so much want to make it Obama's mess that they need to be reminded who got us here and who not to trust to get us out.
I can't believe this article made the top ten. It's just a bunch of silly right wing drivel that we can can from Fox any time of the day. Are you sure you didn't get some bottom ten articles mixed in? Or was mediocrity one of the criteria?

What Jackson, like so many other Obama critics, fail to understand or acknowledge is that it is impossible to discuss the extent to which Obama reminds the public of the troubles he has inherited from George W. Bush without also recognizing the extent to which the Radical Right and its right wing media echo chamber are today trying to alienate Obama from the American public with their shrill accusations that Obama is some wild-eyed radical bent on taking the country down the road to socialism or worse.

In a perfect world Jackson is right. A president undermines his authority and credibility when he whines incessently about the poor hand that history has dealt him. But this is not a perfect world; in fact its a dangerously radicalized and polarized one in which this country is losing its ability to govern itself or even to talk with itself without shouting.

Reasonable and fair minded Republicans and conservatives admit that calling President Obama a socialist or a fascist -- or even a radical -- is rubbish. Much of the deficit spending he is carrying is an extension of policies begun under Bush, as Newt Gingrich has tried to cynically exploit for the dual purpose of bloodying Obama and shedding the Bush albatross from around conservative's necks.

President Obama is prudent, cautious and tempermentally conservative, despite his liberal political sympathies. Yet, to neutralize the charges of radicalism that the right wing throw at him again and again, President Obama has had to remind the public again and again that he is REACTING to a crisis he INHERITED, not heedlessly launching the country in some reckless new direction because of some personal whim.

What Jackson describes as a failure of character is in fact an effort at survival necessitated by the groundless attacks made by the very people whom Jackson once counted as allies.

Good point but you should have fleshed out the consequences of Obama's inheritance as he will leave nothing to his successor to inherit as he has done zero except more talk, more campaigning,more travels so that I am beginning to think Obama only wants to travel while the rest of government plays at governing. He has never proposed one bill but contracted out his job to Pelosi and Reid.

Any administration under the sun would be running with the same tactic if they inherited these circumstances. Heck, Bush inherited a much milder recession from Clinton and didn't shut up about it until at least the end of his first term. There is nothing remarkable about Obama's team using these tactics and there isn't anything remarkable about Jackson's piece. If I want to see a pundit who knows better pretend to be shocked by commonplace political occurrences there are plenty of longstanding ones I could read. Thanks but no thanks, next please.

this article is great. All the haters need to calm down, take a deep breathe, lower your hyper-defensive shield, and read the article again. It's okay to question Barack Obama tactics. It's okay. Remember - breathe. It's only an opinion piece. It's okay. It's America. Remember - breathe.

I like this guy!!!! It's the second time I read the article. He is definitely controversial. He made people react. But if you read the article, this is great work. He made an current political observation and wrote an opinion piece about it. Great work. He delivered. Unfortunately, some readers are too politically sensitive that they couldn't read the article objectively for what it really says.

I started with the first article and have to say this is the best writing I have seen so far. However. The piece is long on opinion and short on anything remotely usable. What do you want the president to do?

Further, Bill Clinton kept the country safe from terrorism on our soil for six years, but that fact is inconvenient.

This is a refreshing point of view.
Whether one supports Obama or not, his constant compaining about "inheriting..." or the "last eight years" as though nothing had ever happened before 1/20/01, and the Democrats had never made errors, make him sound like a whiner. There's plenty of blame to go around and he needs to get over it.
Every time Obama uses one of these excuses, it only highlights that there's another thing that he hasn't been able to do, another promise he hasn't kept, another failure, another miscalculation.

The voters hired Obama to do a job, not to tell us why he can't. What ever happened to "Yes, we can?"
Mr. Jackson's advice would be good for any employee. Stop complaining and start performing, or you're going to find yourself out of a job.

great article with a refreshing point of view from DC

"The NEXT GREAT Pundit"?

One might expect that the next great pudit would be distinguishable by his skill with language and his originality in his approach to his subject matters.

You MIGHT at least expect that a great Pundit would be eminently readable. So what did we get?

A superannuated, (for a scientist) Particle Physicist whose field is readable only when Partial Differentials is something you do for fun thirty tears past his accolades.

Yet another Bush 43 staffer defending his boss.

A Fox Network shill.

Not a readable writer in the lot, and not a single point of view we haven't seen for years. For the Particle Physicist that means living ten years in the Past and pining for work thirty years old. (Even if getting Congress some proper Technological advice does happen to be a good Idea.)

There are some eminently readable writers trudging through the blather in the Washington Post blogs and columns, but finding them in the abatis of Reposters and imposters and composters that stink up most blogs is becoming less and less worth the effort.

I will probably try to read this collection of Bone Head English slush pile writers three times each, but as of now I haven't found ANYTHING worth the effort.

Great article, Darryl!

What is the big difference between Barack Obama and Jimmy Carter?

It is yet to be seen. If Obama continues to be paralyzed, Pelosi will continue to run the ship - and all the hoopla about "Hope" will be nothing more than tax, spend and the "public option".

Right now, people are disheartened with the Rockstars lackluster performance. They don't believe things are getting better.

There is only so long a person can blame his performance on circumstances created by the prior administration. When it is flu season and available vaccines aren't delivered, when the economy struggles and you don't have a job, when you question whether the government is going to reduce your social security or medicare benefits and you just don't see how your going to make it, it is time for a real leader to lead. And if you are President, you don't just get to be President of "Left" America.

Really enjoyed your article and hope you write many more!

I could see how you fit in well with the Bush Administration. NOT IMPRESSED.

Rather than attacking President Obama’s attempts to turn this country around, shouldn’t you use this forum to apologize for the damage you and your colleagues at the Commerce Department inflicted on the world economy? You are the proverbial arsonist criticizing the fire department for not putting out your own blaze in a timely enough manner. Though there are plenty of reasons to criticize the president, you are one of the last people anyone should look to for insight.

Blah...blah...blah...said Rush Limbaugh...blah...said Bill O'Reilly...blah...said Newt Gringrich...blah...ad nauseum....

We don't need yet another right wing talking-points memo messenger....

Two thumbs down.

As an ardent Democrat, it pains me to say that I agree with the author. Enough blaming already. The campaign is over. We elected you to take action. Krauthammer makes essentially the same point vis a vis Afghanistan in a recent WaPo Op-Ed.

This is among the best written pieces here. Congratulations.

I must admit, I am not totally all that amused with what many of the ten finalist wrote. What we have here is the typical Republican versus Democrat verbiage and frankly, how many of us can truly say we have not heard just about all that has been said and written by several of these contestants before? I am tired of the same old rhetoric and would like to hear some sensible and reasonable ideas, opinions, and feedback submitted. Enough political party bashing already. Everyone is entitled to their opinion and ideas but how many of us are actually working to do our part to make a real difference in this country? We pound our chest and say we are the greatest nation in the world yet we have some of the worst policies and mentality challenges then many more countries have. Why are there hungry, homeless, and jobless people in this "greatest country in the world?" Why does the US rank in the top five of the most violent societies in the world? Why do we have sex offenders, rapists, robbers, and killers loose on the street because of jail overcrowding or they may have had a "good" lawyer to help set them free? Why do we have such barbaric and vile ideas and thoughts about people that do not look or behave quite like we believe they should? I could go on and on standing on this soap box but I won't. I believe the judgment for the final 10 contestants could have been taken to a higher standard.

If we were going by writing quality and accuracy, Tedfrier (@9:10 am) would be one of the ten finalists and Daryl Jackson would be another unsuccessful entrant.

Well, I don't agree with this guy so it is hard to get past that to his arguments. But I think this is just the latest Republican talking point.

Have we already forgotten how the Right blamed everyone from Clinton, Carter, and FDR for the Wall Street meltdown? Oh, I forgot Fannie Mae, Barney Franks, and Nancy Pelosi. If there is a group of losers who are experts at pointing the finger and projecting their own weaknesses on others, it is Conservatives.

This guy should published right next to George Will and Charles Krauthammer...but why would you want all three...unless you want the three stooges lost in fantasy land?

Well done...breezy, punchy, full of relevant sound bites working up to a concise analysis.

I can read 30 sec. and decide whether to read the rest; perfect for someone who reads a ton of stuff every day.

the kind of guy I'd love to have a few beers with---no billy beer please!

It's hard to decide what the funniest part of this column is. I'm going to go with "an economy that had been dredged from the ashes of Sept. 11.

The economic dip that happened after 9/11 paled next to the one of September '08, which this Bush administration refugee conveniently declines to bring up. Because, of course, THAT one was largely precipitated by the Holy Sacred Cow of Wall Street deregulation. Oops. And then they handed that off to Obama. Who now has the NERVE to be aware of that fact!

Is this an editorial or an opening argument in a defense trial?

I agree with a poster above though - he's a shoe-in if Fred Hiatt is making the decision. This paper has become such an embarrassment in this highly-educated town.

PS Just so you know, Post execs, the first paragraph in my previous comment was criticism, as in sarcasm.

I am sure the Post will not be to resist a column by a black man who worked for Bush and does not like Obama. Sounds like the winning trifecta. He could replace three current Post columnists if you downsize some more. Your editorial page is so right wing already.
Can we vote some of these columnists, including the current colunmists, "off the island?" That is, if you want a meaningful contest.
Best columns are the one about the G-town student hiring a personal assistant and the one about trying to get a life through the media. My postings on these did not go through.

Obama is nothing but an empty suit.

That's the best thing that can be said about the guy.

Why is that every Republican WAPO opt-ed commentator, or pundit that makes it to the top ten in a contestant tries to convince the majority that the problems and issues that President Obama administrations "inherited" from the Bush administration are a walk in the park. Who are you people?

Republicans have a natural skill and habit of royally screwing up everything that they touch, and then have the audacity to whine and complain about Democrats not cleaning up their crapola fast enough. In addition, they have skill, in which most of us can see through, by attacking the President for not bringing those change that he campaigned on.

First of all, the majority of Republicans did not vote for Obama, so of course, he would not be bringing any change that would be truly representative of conservative values, nor would those results be obvious to any staunch conservative.

For example,

Republicans don't want Health care reform. The majority of you believe the U.S., health care system is great and you would rather see those who run our health care system PROFIT from those who are suffering financially and physically.

Republicans don't want to trap the cancer causing greenhouse gas emissions that is destroying our atmosphere, and causing the biggest ice melt at the North Pole that my generation will ever see. They would rather that the industries that spew these poisons into the air continue to do so, because to do otherwise cuts into their PROFITS.

Republicans don't want to educate our citizens from the youngest to the oldest. Because to do so, will make them smarter, self-sufficient, self-reliant, smarter, and educated. They will finally be able to take their blinders off and see how the Republican Party and their leaders have been duping them for all of those years.

I could go on an on, but since you are new at this, I will just say a couple more things.

The Republican administration DID NOT keep the country safe for 8 years. How soon we forget that 911 happened on George Bush's watch. During his time in office. Do you know how many people died during 911? They were not kept safe. They all died. The only reason why you and others can continue to spit this non-sense, is because you were not one of the people that died. Therefore, who is the us that you people keep talking about. Let's try to be clear.

Finally, the only thing that Republicans are good at is WAR and CONFLICT. As long as there is WAR and CONFLICT, conservatives are happiest.

President Obama with the help of others prevented this country from going into a worst Depression, since the Great Depression and all you people can do is whine and criticize. It would be nice if "conservatives" could show just a "tiny tiny" bit of appreciation every now and then, instead of whining and criticizing this President every day of the damn week.

With that said, Congratulations for becoming one of the top 10 Pundits of Great American Pundit contest!

I am not persuaded that the Obama administration has been spending all its time bad-mouthing George Bush. However, it is inevitable that every administration be called to account for how well or how poorly it has done. For some reason, much of the Bush administration's calling-to-account is being laid upon Obama. Further, Obama seems to be asked to account for the success or failure of an entire Presidential administration, when he is less than 25% through with his first (and possibly only) term.

Obama's administration is asked why they haven't made everything in American wonderful -- it's only right to point out that the question is not whether everything is perfect, but whether it is better than it was. Where it was, was very bad. You can make things a whole lot better, and still have the results be not very good. That's where we are right now. Mr. Jackson is not alone in wanting to keep score on this game, but it's necessary to remind him of how the game is scored.

Mr. Jackson...top 10 out of 4800...impressive. Your premise however, is not. 2 wars mismanaged because of neocon utopian fantasies...Obama "inherited" them. A financial disaster largely caused by a more traditional Republican distaste for regulation...he "inherited" this as well. Your time frame is ludicrous. The 9.8% unemployment is said to be the largest since June of 1983. That puts us 29 months into the Reagan administration. Obama's efforts will be judged in November of 2010. So too will be the pitiful Republican response...town hall disruptions, death panel talk, the babbling of the Cheney family...Yes, all that will be judged as well. The administration in which you served is now being judged by history...ain't gonna be too good methinks!

Wow, so who had this column's idea first? Krauthammer or this hopeful contender.

It is a empty argument, but a consistent one from conservatives. We can blame Democratic predecessors years after (Clinton was the root of all the ills that faced GW Bush, remember), but do not dare impugn the dignity of former Republican office holders.

GW Bush gave Obama two wars, an economy in shambles, a federal budget overinflated with future liabilities, and an international reputation in tatters.

Are we to suppose that he should have solved all these problems in a matter of months?

On a sidebar, its so very comforting to see such a collection of right-wing opinions in the top 10 entries -- those liberal types can't write for beans! Good luck Darryl, you will fit in nicely with the op-ed crew at the Washington Street Journal.

This is a nice article and is right on point in terms of one of the administrations major problems. They need to take responsibility for their actions and stop acting like a spoiled 12 year old.

I am greatly amused that Mr. Jackson thinks playing the inheritance card is a topics worthy of a WaPo column.
These sorts of antics may be appropriate in Washington political circles, but the rest of us were encouraged to leave such childish fingerpointing in the schoolyard. Rather than complaining about which administration points fingers more, how about writing a column about how useless the practice is? If the winner of this contest is going to feel empowered to diss the political opposition, I'll take my eyeballs elsewhere. I'm looking for a fresh perspective, not more of the same old same old.

Perhaps Mr. Johnson would want us to paper over the inglorious achievements of the Bush administration he so famously served..the truth is, and will continue to be that, Obama was handed a cascade of monumental problems and dealing with them has certainly not being a walk in the park.

Since you're not asking me, I won't say that one of the slyest tricks of the last 100 years has been the clever escape from responsibility of the GOP. Yes, it's sometimes tiresome to hear the President refer to the leavings of the last 8 years of Republican administration (a particularly unpleasant, self-serving gang) and the legacy of conservative-dominated Congress of the last 20-odd years. But we mustn't forget that there has been a rightward shift of policy and judicialism that hampers any and all efforts to bring the country back to a reasonable center.

Just what it is that the GOP is trying to sell the country this year is not clear. But you can clearly get that they are not standing on some shining record of ethics or accomplishments. I don't blame the President for being frustrated; if it were I, I'd be using some pretty strong language about now. Maybe I'd be the first President to be "bleeped" on air. The point is, the country has let liars, thieves, and cheats off the hook for a blasted screwed up economy, lost opportunities to mend or patch international relations, and weakening of the American manufacturing economy and the real wages of American workers. Those are undeniable failings that lie on the shoulders of GOP administrations and Congressional leaderships. What I don't get is why aren't more Americans angry - at the departed SOBs and their echo-chamber leavings in Congress today. Maybe that's the political game: you get c**pped on for years and then turn around and kiss the b*tts of those responsible while shouting "hurry and fix things for me" to the successors of the mess.

The right will never succeed in casting Obama as a radical leftist so long as the public understands that Obama's "big government" budget-busting programs are a reaction to the mess he "inherited" from George Bush and not some secret plan Obama had been hatching all along back in Chicago in those clandestine meetings he had with Reverand Wright and Bill Ayers to steer America down the road of European-style Socialism.

The right isn't trying to get Obama to take responsibility for his actions with these calls to leave Bush alone, they are trying to escape responsibility for their own. That was why Charles Krauthammer wrote his column yesterday on this very subject, and why we have this column today urging us to believe that President Obama has a free hand to do craft his own agenda instead of having one hand tied behind his back thanks to the guy that this writer once worked for.

When writing a column chiding the "talking points" used by the Obama administration by all means do it with arguments that consist of nothing more than...talking points.

Bragging about keeping America safe for seven years without mentioning that one small blip called 9/11 is pretty standard fare on the right -- with Dick Cheney leading the way.

Bragging about restoring an economy from the "ashes" of 9/11 is also a familiar talking point for GOP talking heads -- which this writer managed to misquote since he forgot the part where Republicans INHERITED their recession from Bill Clinton. That was an all-purpose excuse for economic troubles that the Bushies used well into their second term.

Just two observations about this entry:

First, as anyone even remotely familiar with politics knows, George W. Bush and his minions blamed practically all of their troubles and failures on Bill Clinton -- from the economy to 9/11 to the failure to get tough on terrorists -- and did so regularly throughout the administration, not just the first year.

In fact, the blame Clinton first theme became so common it got to be a joke. And so, by scolding Obama to look forward not back, Secretary Jackson is simply embracing a standard theme of the "George W. Bush Legacy Project" which is to attack Obama for precisely those things that were worst about the George Bush and his administration. It's the old Karl Rove bait and switch -- use the other guys strengths against them, and then hide your own worst failures by project them onto your opponent.

You see this done practically every day in the Wall Street Journal editorial pages or on FOX. You see it when Karl Rove of all people attacks Obama for "politicizing" American public policy -- Karl Rove! The same guy who once wore two hats in the White House -- chief political advisor and chief policy advisor. You see it when FOX attacks Obama for czars who escape Senate confirmation -- the same FOX that cheered when Bush gave John Bolton a recess appointment as UN Ambassador after the Senate had REJECTED his nomination. An worst of all was Newt Gingrich's attempt to both throw the troubled George Bush under the bus and at the feet
of Obama at the same time by painting the new administration as the CONTINUATION of the Bush legacy instead of as its repudiation -- which Gingrich tried to do with his "Bush/Obama Big Government" meme.

So, that is the first point -- that the rescuing of George W. Bush's reputation from its current place as worst president in US History hinges on the right wing's success in projecting all of Bush's worst failures onto the new president.

The second point is that the "Obama is a radical" theme depends on the right wing doing what the old Soviet Union used to do with its failed leaders -- erasing them from the history books.

Does Mr. Jackson remember that the Reagan Administration not only played the same game against Jimmy Carter, but in fact savaged him far beyond anything the Obama Administration has done to Bush? Whenever GOP hacks once again remind us how awful he was. In fact, the Bush Administration left the country in far worse condition than Carter did. The economy was not good when Carter left office, but it not nearly as bad as it was at the end of the Bush Administration. Carter left the problem with Iran, but he did not leave two unfinished wars, one of which need never have occurred. This seems to be one of the latest GOP talking points, but it is fact hypocritical in the extreme.

When writing a column chiding the "talking points" used by the Obama administration by all means do it with arguments that consist of nothing more than...talking points.

Bragging about keeping America safe for seven years without mentioning that one small blip called 9/11 is pretty standard fare on the right -- with Dick Cheney leading the way.

Bragging about restoring an economy from the "ashes" of 9/11 is also a familiar talking point for GOP talking heads -- which this writer managed to misquote since he forgot the part where Republicans INHERITED their recession from Bill Clinton. That was an all-purpose excuse for economic troubles that the Bushies used well into their second term.

Just two observations about this entry:

First, as anyone even remotely familiar with politics knows, George W. Bush and his minions blamed practically all of their troubles and failures on Bill Clinton -- from the economy to 9/11 to the failure to get tough on terrorists -- and did so regularly throughout the administration, not just the first year.

In fact, the blame Clinton first theme became so common it got to be a joke. And so, by scolding Obama to look forward not back, Secretary Jackson is simply embracing a standard theme of the "George W. Bush Legacy Project" which is to attack Obama for precisely those things that were worst about the George Bush and his administration. It's the old Karl Rove bait and switch -- use the other guys strengths against them, and then hide your own worst failures by project them onto your opponent.

You see this done practically every day in the Wall Street Journal editorial pages or on FOX. You see it when Karl Rove of all people attacks Obama for "politicizing" American public policy -- Karl Rove! The same guy who once wore two hats in the White House -- chief political advisor and chief policy advisor. You see it when FOX attacks Obama for czars who escape Senate confirmation -- the same FOX that cheered when Bush gave John Bolton a recess appointment as UN Ambassador after the Senate had REJECTED his nomination. An worst of all was Newt Gingrich's attempt to both throw the troubled George Bush under the bus and at the feet
of Obama at the same time by painting the new administration as the CONTINUATION of the Bush legacy instead of as its repudiation -- which Gingrich tried to do with his "Bush/Obama Big Government" meme.

So, that is the first point -- that the rescuing of George W. Bush's reputation from its current place as worst president in US History hinges on the right wing's success in projecting all of Bush's worst failures onto the new president.

The second point is that the "Obama is a radical" theme depends on the right wing doing what the old Soviet Union used to do with its failed leaders -- erasing them from the history books.

The coordinated campaign by FOX, Bush's old cronies and the the rest of the right wing to advance the "Obama is a radical socialist bent on dictatorship so he can destroy the country" story line requires that the public memory be wiped clean of what happened the last four years under George W. Bush.

The right will never succeed in casting Obama as a radical leftist so long as the public understands that Obama's "big government" budget-busting programs are a REACTION to the mess he "inherited" from George Bush and not some secret plan Obama had all along, hatched back in Chicago in those clandestine meetings with Reverand Wright and Bill Ayers, to steer America down the road of European-style Socialism.

The right isn't trying to get Obama to take responsibility for his actions, they are trying to escape responsibility for their own. That was why Charles Krauthammer wrote his column attacking the blame Bush game yesterday, and why we have this column urging us to believe the absurdity that President Obama has a free hand to do what he wishes instead of having one hand tied behind his back thanks to the guy that this writer once worked for.

I voted for Obama, and surely will again.
But I like the points you make. They are valid. The administration had better heed this kind of advice.

Why not remind americans of how deep the hole is we are trying to climb out of. Give credit where its due.

What utter hogwash. Like reading gerson lite, with less insight and a different picture next to it. Total garbage.

Please WaPo not another Gerson or Krauthammer! I've just read similar columns from both of them.

They all think that if we stop getting reminded of just what the Bush farce did to this country that we'll some how forget about it. Pres. Obama did inherit a mess, so like he has said, where is your mop Mr. Jackson et al to help him clean it up? Not one constructive idea?

Good to see an honest African American calling it the way it is. However, if Post’s leftist readers decide the selection to the next round, you may not make it. Don’t let it worry you as you are good and sooner or later you become a respected columnist.

"We have heard it for almost a year now. It has become their mantra."

a) No, it hasn't.

b) They did inherit.

c) "Waah! Quit picking on us for making such an incredible mess of things!" does not constitute an op-ed, no matter how much you, Mr. Gerson, or Mr. Krauthammer may wish for it to do so.

d) If Mr. Hiatt is the one making the selection, I expect you're a shoo-in.

Incidentally, in case any Washington Post website staff are reading this, I commented on Courtney Martin's entry but the comment doesn't show up. I wonder if something needs fixing with her page.

As Mark_Y1 points out, "Nice touch picking a former administration member to potentially work for the Post, but a totally vapid argument."

Yes, that is surely what the Post needs. Yet one more refugee from the worst administration in the past century. Hiatt is undoubtedly pulling for this one, since he's still running slightly behind the Moonie Washington Times in right wing idealogues.

The argument he's making is actually half right. Obama probably HAS mentioned this administration's "inheritance" more than any other incoming president in recent memory. Uhhh, he's also inherited the worst truckload of garbage that any president in HISTORY has. And I mean all 220 years of presidential record.

Naturally, accomplices to that former administration's malfeasances are going to wince whenever it is mentioned. The sooner they can own what they did instead of denying it, the sooner they can move on, I suspect.

So, anyone with a memory over a gnat's attention span is just a crazy person?

My husband was an top executive for Fortune 500 Companies. His promotions brought the challenge of dealing with the regimes of his predecessors. My husband was a self-made man. I NEVER HEARD HIM WHINE or COMPLAIN ABOUT ANY SITUATION HE FACED. He lived in the solution not the problem.

Okay. You would be the "African-Americican against president Obama" entry. Check. Nice touch picking a former administration member to potentially work for the Post, but a totally vapid argument. You screwed the place and and Obama inherited it. Give me a break.

You got great results from the leader you worked for. Good luck apologizing for him.

1. Congrats on being top ten!
2. You might say what goals of Obama's you're hoping he might accomplish. Like a lot of naysayers, you're complaining that he hasn't done more...but what agendas are you supporting? It would be a good start for your next column.