Settle Down Now (With The Arms Motion)

Last Monday was the first day in a month I commuted during the morning rush-hour on a day when the rest of the working world was driving to the office. Fortunately, the frustration of Rte. 128 was muted by a live broadcast of President Bush's final Q&A press conference. Listening was actually a saddening experience, in part because Bush's rhetoric so contradicted his administration's actions. He spoke of the need for inclusion, comprehensive immigration reform, etc, which clearly didn't happen on his watch. Either he truly believes these things and was so dazed a chief executive he didn't realize how his senior management was manipulating him, or he lies for the benefit of his legacy. "Probably some of both" is the likely answer.

The silver lining of the press conference, what made me sad in a happy way, was that Barack Obama would be the president doing these from now on. Three days away from his inauguration and, as hard as it is to be excited about the broader world these days, I'm quite excited. Here is a man who believes, in the next eight years, we need to do the following things: end the war in Iraq, promote democracy and confront terrorism, resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, respect international law and institutions, drastically curb carbon emissions, develop gigantic portfolios of alternative energy for the utility and automobile industries, re-create an economy that focuses on growth for all, end tax policy designed to benefit the wealthiest 2 percent, eliminate lobbyists' influence on federal governance, eliminate partisanhip's influence on the federal government, etc, etc, etc. How can one not be intrigued? (Of course, first his administration has to revive the national/global economy somehow.)

All that said, can we please tamp down all the "Obama lifestyle" pieces? In the past two weeks, the Times has published stories on Michelle Obama rejuvenating fashion, the Obamas rejuvenating the D.C. restaurant scene because they like to dine out so much (and by extension, reviving the whole city's social life after eight years of a president who liked an early bedtime), the Obamas rejuvenating the idea of having the mother-in-law move in and two on the D.C. restaurant scene in general! Under what auspices is this much non-news presented as news justified? Let's keep A1 and Thursday Styles separate, please.

Thanks to my former co-workers for the post's title and for teasing me about saying it.

Update: As much as I enjoyed Rahm Emanuel's intimidating sleep circles, was a full issue of portraits of the incoming administration necessary in today's Times magazine? I'd rather take more of Matt Bai's off-center-from-the-CW analysis.