I used to love The Nation. It was such a well-written, informative journal. I would learn something new from every single issue. I would admire the language that was a lot less cliche-oriented than any other publication currently in print. I would feel happy that there are some people who share at least some of my political beliefs.
And then it all came to an end. An otherwise great event took away my favorite journal. As strange as this may sound, this event was Obama's election. For a couple of months before the election, almost every article listed what Obama should do if he gets elected. Afterward, every single article listed everything that Obama should do now that he is elected. If anybody tried counting the number of times the word "should" was used in The Nation over the last six months, I am sure that the result would be staggering.
Do the otherwise lucid journalists who write for The Nation really fail to see that these endless lists of what the President should do look very silly? Don't they realize that this makes for extremely boring reading, especially when it's done week after week after week? Aren't they forgetting that at least part of their job consists of providing us with information? Enough already with what Obama should do. Tell us what he actually is doing.
Of course, it would be great if Obama fixed the economy, the environment, the international relations, and in the process managed to remove the spots from the sun. And of course, he should learn to turn the water into wine and walk on water (hasn't he already? Were we wrong to elect him?) . But while we are waiting for him to achieve all that, can we get some information about what is happening in the world?