Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Corporations: The Real Reason Obama is not Making Much Progress
Before you can appeal to America's voters you have to appeal to the corporations
Almost a year after Barack Obama ascended to the White House, many of his supporters are bemused. His healthcare bill is a hefty improvement but it still won't provide coverage for all Americans, and may not provide a public alternative to the over-charging insurance companies - if it passes at all. His environmental team is vandalising the vital Copenhagen conference by saying the US - the single biggest emitter of warming gases - will not sign up to any legally binding restrictions there. He has placed the deregulation-fanatics who caused the New Depression, like Lawrence Summers, in charge of the recovery. Despite the real improvements on Bush - such as the end of torture, the resumption of stem-cell research, and opposition to the coup in Honduras - many people are asking: why he is delivering so little, so slowly?
A pair of seemingly small stories about the forces warping American politics can help us to answer this question. At first glance, they will seem like preposterous caricatures, but the facts are plain. The institutions that are blocking progress on all these issues - Republicans in the Senate, and the mighty corporate lobbying machine that bankrolls both parties - have rallied over the past few months to defend two causes with very little popular support in the United States: rape and slavery. No, really. If we begin to explain how this came to pass, then we might see why the American political system is malfunctioning so badly, even after a landslide victory for change.
Let's start with rape. This story begins in Iraq in 2003. The private military contractors sent by the Bush administration to guard the oil pipelines didn't want to get bogged down in expensive legal cases if anything went wrong. When it came to Iraqis, the Bush team simply exempted them from all Iraqi law, in a move so sweeping one Senator called it "a license to kill". But what about if their employees attacked each other, or other Americans? The private companies insisted all their employees sign contracts saying that, whatever happens to them, they will settle it in in-house, through "arbitration". Why? While representing the company at a real legal trial costs hundreds of thousands of dollars, an arbitration panel costs a few thousand. It saves cash.
This policy came, however, with a different price tag. According to her later sworn testimony, Jamie Leigh Jones - a 20-year-old working for the contractor Halliburton/KBR - was hanging out with co-workers one night in Iraq when her drink was spiked. When she woke up, she was haemorraging blood from her vagina and her anus. Her breast implants were ripped. The damage was so severe she later needed reconstructive surgery on her genitalia. She surmised she had been gang-raped by the seven men she had been drinking with. When she approached Halliburton/KBR, she says they locked her in a metal container with no food or water for 24 hours. A doctor came to see her wounds and took DNA evidence, although it was later "lost." A guard took pity on her and loaned her his cell phone. She called her father, who called the American embassy - and only then was she released.
In an Iraq that was collapsing all around her, there was no chance of the Iraqi police investigating. Halliburton/KBR insisted that her contract required the alleged gang-rape to be addressed by the company's private arbitration process, forbidding any claim in the American courts. (If this was how they treated blonde English-speaking American girls, what did they do if Iraqis said they had been abused?) After Leigh Jones went public, many other American women came forward to say they had similar experiences working in Iraq. Her legal team argues the refusal to allow rape to be pursued through the courts created a climate where it was more likely to happen.
The Democratic Senator Al Franken, when he heard about this, was horrified, and tabled a simple amendment to the law. It demanded that no company that prevents rape victims from having their day in court should receive taxpayers' money any more. Rape is rape. A majority of Republicans in the Senate - including John McCain - voted against the amendment. Why? The private contractors are major donors to the Republican Party, but the Senators claim this didn't affect their judgement. No - they said that Franken's proposal was a "vendetta" against Halliburton/KBR with "political motives". Franken pointed out any company trying to stop rape victims getting justice would be treated exactly the same by this law. The Republicans ignored him. They voted to maintain a system where some rape is not pursuable in a court of law.
At the same time, a group of Democratic senators have tried to amend the latest customs bill to ensure that nothing produced by slaves should be sold in the United States. It sounds uncontroversial - as uncontroversial as punishing rapists, in fact. Yet corporate lobbyists are militating behind the scenes to oppose it. As the private subscription-only newsletter "Inside US Trade" reported: "Business groups are worried by the potential effects", and a source tells them there will be, "a push from lobbyists closer to the Finance Committee mark-up of the bill... US industry groups and foreign governments [ie those that use slave labour] could form ad hoc coalitions to help send a united message." They will fight for their right to use slave labour.
These examples are extreme, but they reveal a powerful undertow that is at work on all political issues (and both main parties) in the United States. To see how, you have to understand two processes. The first is the nature of corporate power. Corporations are structured to do one thing, and one thing only: to maximise profit for their shareholders. No matter how personally nice or nasty their CEOs are, if they put anything ahead of profit, they will be sacked, and replaced by somebody who doesn't. As part of a tightly regulated market, this can be a useful engine for growth. But if it is not strictly reigned in by the law and by trade unions, this pressure for profit will extend anywhere - from trashing the environment to rape and slavery, as these cases remind us. The second factor is the nature of the American political process today. If you want to run for elected office in the US, you have to raise a fortune from corporations or the super-rich to pay for TV advertising. So before you can appeal to the voters, you have to appeal to the corporations. You do this by assuring them you will serve their interests. Once you are in office, you have to keep pleasing them at every step, or they won't pay for your re-election campaign. This two-step overwhelms the positive instincts the individual politicians may have to do good - and drags the US government further and further from the will of the people.
Obama had to climb through this system, and he is currently imprisoned by it. It explains his relative failure so far. Healthcare is proving so hard because the insurance companies are paying both Republicans and right-wing Democrats in Senate to thwart any attempt to provide universal healthcare coverage. Yes, it would save the 17,000 Americans who die every year because they lack insurance but it would depress their profits. Reducing carbon emissions is proving so hard because the oil, coal and gas companies are paying Senators across the spectrum to crush any moves to reduce oil, coal and gas use. And on, and on.
So far, Obama has tried to co-opt the corporations into his agenda by ensuring they will profit from any changes, but this inevitably waters down the proposals, often to the point of uselessness. The Cap and Trade legislation before Congress, for example, will barely limit carbon emissions at all because it has been gutted to please the polluters.
He will only achieve significant progressive change if he reforms the political system itself - to make it accountable to the American people, not the corporations. He needs to change the rules of the game. Ban big business from making political donations, and replace it with state funding. Shut down the lobbying industry. Make a big populist speech announcing you are driving the money-lenders out of the temple of democracy: it'd be surprisingly popular in a country where people can see they're being ripped off every day. The alternative is to become rapidly complicit in a system where defending rape and slavery is seen as just another day's work in Washington DC.
66 Comments so far
Show AllIs this some kind of a joke? The health care bill that is passing Congress and soon to be signed by Obama is hardly an improvement. Whatever Hari wants to call "improvements" sounds like a joke. Even John Mccain would have been a little nicer on stem cell research.
The rest of this article is utterly lame in blaming the Republicans for everything. The Republicans don't have a relevant number. The private military contractors and the rest of the corporate shenanigans do business with both parties.
If Obama loses, I could care less anymore. My state just got a new Republican governor elected and it won't make a difference. We should be seeing the same result in 2012.
The political system must be reformed to make it accountable to the American people not corporations - by OBAMA? What is he, superman?
If progressives need an issue around which to rally, start with a "wage disparity-CEO compensation cap" amendment.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/04/24/ceo_pay_caps_sabo/
Did we read the same article? I don't see it blaming the republicans for everything at all. It's blaming the GD corporations that are buying BOTH parties. It said so several times. And it also said that the bill won't be anything but a kiss up to the insurance companies. Try reading it again and tell me where it does any of what you are saying. I don't see it.
I can only imagine that Mr. Hari is not an American, else he wouldn't put forth such a naive proposal as he did in the last paragraph (unless he were one of the many naive Americans).
The Military/Industrial Complex kills people who go up against it. Literally and figuratively, it kills people. Presidents included.
http://www.commondreams.org/video/2009/11/20
EXACTLY RIGHT.
Obama knows that. He knew it when he ran for office. He knew it when he took the oath of office.
Give the guy a chance. He could do a Cheney musical beds thing of being in a new undisclosed location every night.
I'm afraid I see Don Quixote as a hero, not a fool.
Mr.Obama is president. if he dies in office as a result of saving his country (for which he is responsible) he will be remembered along with JFK or more accurately MLK who knew his chances of dying of old age were very slim indeed.
If I were he I would do it, but then I am old and tired anyway. But I didn't run for office either. The article asks him to do nothing he did not promise to do.
Come on Mr. President, I can't believe you are not going to try---Hell there is always the chance you might win.
Thanks Ted, that is a fine grit TV Video.
I hope you read this Mr.President. If it costs you the next election or even your life, this is something you have to do if this is to be a nation of citizens rather than one of corporations.
The last paragraph in the article is all you have to do. Easier said than done, I grant you but you know what it is like to be poor. You are a black man, the first partly black man to be democratically elected by any western country.
After thirty years of bungling by a series of white incompetents, you could show them how it's done.
No matter what it costs you, you took an oath. I don't think this is an opportunity you can afford to pass up.
This smells like an "apologist" piece for Obama that comes from across the pond in hopes that the writer and Obama will have more credibility.
I usually enjoy Johann Hari's written endeavors, but this piece leaves me cold. I didn't think Hari was this naive.
Obama was lured to the halls of power and privilege by the corporate sirens years ago and is not interested in making the political system accountable to the American people. He is already significantly "complicit in a system where defending rape and slavery is seen as just another day's work in Washington DC." Besides, even if he wanted to, which he doesn't, Obama knows that any president foolish enough to challenge the oligarchs and/or neofascists in the 'Family' by making "a big populist speech announcing you are driving the money-lenders out of the temple" will end up assassinated, either morally or literally.
As an example of the good to come from the Obama presidency, you mention his opposition to the Honduran coup. In fact, other than words, the Obama administration has done nothing to oppose the Honduran coup. As a practical matter, it has aided and abetted the coup.
No one can reasonably argue that there is no difference between Democrat and Republican when one compares Al Franken and Norm Coleman. Al is a principled, honorable mensch. Norm...not.
Mad Kitty
I think if you take an objective look at the positions of that beloved [alleged] progressive Al Franken [whose book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them I unfortunately bought when it first came out] you would soon realize that there is little substantive difference between Franken and his Republican counterpart.
* Franken, like Coleman, was against a single payer system and, unless I am mistaken, still holds that position today.
* Franken, like Coleman, did not back Kucinich's proposal to impeach Bush and Cheney.
* Franken, like Coleman, is against the immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces from both Iraq and Afghanistan where U.S. forces continue to keep its troops and where 500 and 2000 lb. American bombs and drone missiles keep ripping apart innocent Afghans.
* Franken, like Coleman, does not support Kucinich's position of cutting off the funds regarding America's illegal and immoral and unjust occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
* Franken, like Coleman, is a fervent supporter of Israel while caring little for the plight of the Palestinians and the fact that over 1,200 inhabitants of Gaza were slaughtered by the Israelis last year, most of them being innocent women and children.
Far from being "principled and honorable", Franken is just another Democrat who has been very successful at conning the public into believing that he is that much different than the Republicans. You may wish to ignore his advocacy of militarism and the apparent disregard that he has that Obama's puny public option will supposedly help the American people and his slavish devotion to the Israeli cause but I do not. Franken is very good at criticizing the Republicans but fails miserably at rebutting a leftist when that person is allowed to point out how shallow if not phony Franken truly is.
Your examples are narrowly drawn to serve a narrow purpose. Academic arguments are much easier than reality, which is much broader and which bites. Objectively, Al = mensch, Norm = not.
Mad Kitty
Is one actually supposed to take your comment seriously? You did not rebut one statement that I had written [since, realistically speaking, you cannot] regarding the less than admirable and similar positions that Franken has taken which aligns himself with Coleman. Academic arguments end up being much closer to reality than your fantasy that Franken, that lover of Israel and militarism, is somehow that much different than Norm Coleman. As Congressman Kucinich has pointed out in the past, if one votes for the lesser of two evils, one still ends up with an evil [as the Iraqis, Afghans, and Palestinians will attest].
"narrowly drawn"
Wow...Talk about the apex of denial.
In other words Al Franken's positions are all forgivable becasue he is a nice Jew from New York?
well, you are correct in that there are differences
but the similarities that Erroll pointed out are quite disturbing
Obama is a company man. He knows the language, the subtle and overt signals, and emits them like a beacon. Ruling circles got the message, and that is why corporate media made him a contender, and corporate billfolds financed him.
When no real change is offered - when both parties are wedded to a lingering presence in Iraq and to reestablishing U.S. hegemony in the world; when insurance and drug companies are left virtually untouched by tepid forays into broadening health care coverage; and when neither offers a whisper of an idea on halting the corporate-engineered global Race to the Bottom, then it is certain that, although "change" may come, it will be at the direction of the rich who have brought the nation and planet to the very brink of catastrophe.
But then, Obama would never have risen so quickly and remarkably to his current position of national prominence if he was anything like the egalitarian and democratic “progressive” that some liberals and progressives imagined
Sioux Rose
MCOYOTE: Well-stated analysis.
Sounds like a form of fascism to me....the corporations/banksters OWN the government and dictate the polices/laws through their 'lobbyists' (paid thugs).
The whole system is so corrupt, it's hard to see how we can correct course. Maybe someone could petition the Supreme Court to re-think the decision regarding the "rights" of corporations - if that were changed, it could be possible to create new laws/regulations to contain corporate influence.
I know.....I'm dreaming #:}
The Bush Family's Extreme Court are anointed for a lifetime.
No matter how long that may be.
Johann Hari thinks that one of the "real improvements" that Obama has implemented over Bush is "the end of torture". For someone who is supposed to be a perspicuous observer of foreign policy it is shocking that Hari seems to be unaware that under Obama's watch the American prison at Guantanamo Bay remains open while the detention center center at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan remains in full vigor. If Obama really cared about ending torture he would have closed those infamous dens of torture down as soon as he took office. But he has not which goes a long way in demonstrating that Obama's main difference over Bush is one of style rather than substance.
Unless we kill Corporate "personhood" the corporations will continue to kill us and our country.
Hear! Hear!
Hari's article is a classic example of liberal self-delusion. He wants so much to believe that we can have a "good" capitalism that will submit to regulations. But his own words show why this isn't possible: "No matter how personally nice or nasty their CEOs are, if they put anything ahead of profit, they will be sacked, and replaced by somebody who doesn't." So why wouldn't these CEOs do everything they possibly could to avoid regulations, including those on rape and slavery?
Here is the contradiction: "As part of a tightly regulated market, this can be a useful engine for growth." Sorry, but you have to make a choice here. We want a "useful engine for growth", which achieves this by elevating profit over human need, but we want it to be "tightly regulated." Unfortunately, those who privilege profit over humanity have every possible incentive to end those regulations, exactly as captains of capitalism have so successfully done over the last 60 years. And they have the money to buy the legislators.
The fact that Cap and Trade legislation has been gutted is not an accident either. It's why Obama was elected. The portrait of the imprisoned Obama struggling to enact progressive change is ludicrous. Obama is a happy and willing servant of the corporations and he has served his masters well. If he continues to please them as much as he has so far, his re-selection will be assured. Ban big business from making political donations and Obama would have to return to law school.
Why is it so hard for liberals to understand the role of class? Obama acts as he does not simply because corporations pay his campaign bills, but they pay the bill because they know he's one of them. Being one of them means working for their interests and Obama does this because by doing so he's helping himself.
I'm willing to wait a little longer because A: I have little choice and B: the lure of "immortality" might see him through yet. However; It's looking more and more as you say here. Pres. Obama is, in fact, a conservative by the nature of his unwillingness to change the status quo. Cap and trade is being undermined because it would eventually replace oil as the basis for our economy and harder for a few people to control.
What is strangest of all is that We the People have grown used to the idea that politicians are all liars and thieves - it has become normal to consider that thieves and liars are good enough to be allowed to retain most of the positions of leadership of this nation.
Live Simply So That Others May Simply Live
Diogenes would be disappointed but not suprised.
you left out killers, as in
liars, killers and thieves
Strong regulations won't eliminate capitalism or corporatism. Regulations are simply suppose to define the perimeters in which private interests can operate. The problem these days is that private interests have high-jacked the government at so many levels that the only regulations that exist or are conjured up, are regulations that undermine the public interest while increasing the burden on tax payers.
The solution is mentioned by Hari. The remedy is not that far fetched. In South Korea for example (the world's 11th largest economy) it is against the law to lobby government. Of course the culture of corruption that exists in Korea means that this is far from ironclad. Nevertheles it is a step in the right direction.
Another simple law, in which all candidates are State funded, would greatly reduce corporate influence on elections. This is also common place amongst democracies outside of the U.S.
The biggest hurdle is getting the U.S. public to realize that the MSM is also an extention of corporatism and therefore it must be ignored when dealing with issues such as elections, morality and ideology. Corporate media is brilliant at dumbing down the populace while placing the blame on everyone except their sponsors. Once the majority of Americans make the connection that a corporate funded candidate is their enemy, only then can the citizenry reclaim their government. It's a difficult challenge given the decades of brainwashing we have all been subjected to, yet it's not impossible... I hope!
"In South Korea for example (the world's 11th largest economy) it is against the law to lobby government."
That was also apparently almost the 11th amendment in the BIll of Rights, but the FFs decided it wasn't needed because all the states already had laws against it.
The good news is that YOU don't have to wait for the government to outlaw slave labor. You can do it yourself and start shopping Fair Trade right now. If you have to buy gifts for Christmas why not find your shopping place here:
http://www.fairtradefederation.org/ht/d/Home/pid/175
or here:
http://www.greenamericatoday.org/
Right on, lady!
Despite the mistakes in his short list of Obama's improvements, Hari lucidly explains how the totally corrupt US system of interlocking government and capitalism works and what it will take to change it. ("Ban big business from making political donations... shut down the lobbying industry." Bingo.)
I think he is saying in the end that Obama COULD take steps to change it-- not that he will. He correctly points out that Obama is imprisoned by this system-- whether he started down his political road already imprisoned or became so as he climbed the ladder doesn't really matter.
Since the late 70's the choice has been "The Gold or The Bullet". You already know the choice BHO made. I'm waiting for the hunger riots and Mr. Clean and Well Spoken calls out the North American Division to shoot hungry civilians, you know, like the Romanoffs did. Worked for them pretty good didn't it? You DID come here to live through a Revolution didn't you? You know, starvation, bloody human guts in the streets, headless mangled corpses, tortured children, city centers turned to rubble from tank rounds against civilians with small arms, like we do in Iraq/Af-Pak, except closer to home, much much closer. Nobody said which way the Revolution would go or who would win, did they? They still aren't saying...but either way it goes, you probably won't make it through. I'm will choose not to...there are already much worse things in this country than being dead. I've seen them. Thank you, NO.
At last, a comment from someone who read more than the first paragraph.
Have a drink and turn on "American Idol" while you send text messages to your girlfriend, and you'll be oblivious, then whine that Obama is screwing you over. Or pay attention and realize the guy is frickin' brave to even step foot inside the beltway.
We don't have to read it to know that Obama has squandered his opportunity.
Did reading it clarify anything for you --or tell you anything you didn't already know? I'll tell you what has us bemused--fools who are clinging to scraps in their defense of Obama now claiming that he should be commended for even setting foot in the door. That is sort of the last ditch defense for being utterly useless to the point that events are regressing instead of changing for the better.
Obama arrived inside the beltway before January of 2009. He is no innocent. And I get the feeling he's pretty chummy with sleazy Rahm. Brave? Not when you're keeping that type of company. How did Obama manage to get this "lamb-in-a-lion's-den" tag? Palin, as odious as she is, would fit this mold a lot better. She literally just stepped inside the beltway last year, as far as I know. Obama has been part of the Washington beltway culture since 2003? And part of Chicago politics even longer. Let's put to bed this image of Obama as a "babe in the woods" or "innocent dupe." It is really getting old fast. Brave? No, this was the plan all along. He knew exactly what he was doing.
The only way you could believe Obama is doing a good job is if you are not paying any attention, and you simply take it as a priori that Obama is a good guy. So go read up on the specifics of what is actually happening in the US before you start throwing the term "oblivious" at other people.
Obama said he would sue the telcoms for spying on Americans, then he granted them immunity. He said he would look into prosecuting Bush for his offenses, then he granted him immunity, AND secrecy. He makes his own comings and goings secret, after declaring that his administration would be "the most transparent in American history". He said that health care debates would be televised on C-Span and that he would not cave to Big Pharma, then had secret, closed-door meetings with Big Pharma and promised them he would put no price caps on their drugs. He said no more torture, then said that "extraordinary rendition" is an important tool of the US and he doesn't plan to give it up. He said "no more business as usual," and "no more ignoring Main St for the benefit of Wall St." Draw your own conclusions on that one, but try reading a little bit first; don't just assume that you somehow magically know without researching the subject.
By the way, I read the entire factually-challenged, apologist drivel above too.
I had a hard time getting through the first couple of sentences.
Since when did a president ascended to the WH. Someone ascends a throne, say like Prince Charley, if the Queens goes or JC, didn't he ascended into heaven and is supposedly seated at the right hand of the father, but a POTUS. Heavens don't let the crackpots see this article they go more bizzerk if that's possible.
And Obama's health care plan? What the devil might that we? Maybe if the golden tongue had actually articulated a Plan and then written a proposed Bill the dog's breakfast that will ultimately come out of the House/Senate conference could be associated with him, the ascended one. But you have to have invested at least a minute or 2 on a project to have your name on it, even if it turns out to be a fiasco.
I'm now going to try to struggle through the rest of the sentences.
pangloss, it's an empire, they've been taking "The Purple" since Nixon. Be grateful we don't deify them...although some would say we do, like the Hittites, after the bugger's dead...like Ray-Gun. When alive, they are the "Son of the God"...that's why yur supposed to get down on your fucking knees and pray that the genocidal blood god that we adopted from the Habiru will guide "Our President" to do the right thing - because you have no fucking influence at all...vilcomin du Amerika...
Health Care? A wonderful kabuki performance that has run for nearly a year...with a spot of luck they may run for another season to sold out performances...do you have any idea what kind of political cash cow this has been for our "elected officials" - they have made fortunes on this...every time there's a Single Payer or Public Option floated, the pols make their calls and the money cascades like a river of gold to make sure both die.
Of course, you're NOT going to get any health care out of this if you don't have it already, and the leaky sieve that so many are holding will quickly be seen as a legal way of stealing about $8-$16k/yr from every man and woman in America - while giving them NOTHING. Then of course after the $$ collapse and jobs truly implode - well, those hard working souls who didn't think they should pay for anyone else's health care, won't have any either. Practice saying this for yourself, it will help you to adjust to your future here:
Plebs are 80%.
Plebs get NOTHING.
Plebs are allowed to have NOTHING.
Plebs get NO education.
Plebs get NO health care.
Plebs are subject to chemical and biological experiments without their permission.
Plebs get to live to 47 (if they want to live that long).
Plebs have NO rights that any richfilth animals need to consider.
Plebs are disposable meat.
I am a Pleb.
It's your future in America.
Don't blame me. I was the crazy man they wanted silenced so they could watch their cartoons on tv. And they did...cartoon time is now over, Overseer is coming, time to go back to the fields...if you don't slave, you don't eat...isn't that what built the first fortunes here? Slaves? Well, now, the white majority will wear those chains. I'm sure they'll be a good fit. Their ju-ju men will tell them it's the will of their Blood God...just like the ju-ju men have been telling the Plebs for 6000 years. Oh yes, glorious days ahead for our Slave Republic.
Peace...maybe, someday, but not here, not here - we have the blood of too many victims on our hands, centuries of the dead, and we have gone mad as a people, I think the term is "blood drunk". You see others have already gone before to the place where we are now and left us the words...our living defines them for each generation. "Blood Drunk".
The genocidal blood god, blood-drunk analogies are sadly apt. Great post.
Obama's making great progress -- doing exactly what he set out to do.
OK I've finished reading all the sentences. I've concluded that the POTUS, contrary to the myth that he is the most powerful man in the world, is the proverbial 98 pound weakling. I guess he'd do something but he seems to have had too much sand kicked into his face and can't see where he's going or how to get there.
Another conclusion has to be that the USA is not a democracy any longer. Yes there are elections, but so what. An election is just the opening scene to a new version of a now old farce, formerly known as the grand Republic drama, the sole purpose of which is to excite the gullible and to impress the unwashed in the RoW with good production values. And the only ones that can change the farce back to high drama? Well they are the millionaire actors in the comedy of errors known as the USAs Congress.
So is the dream over yet? Nope stay tuned for more spin and feel good messaging and more and more excuses for the poor guy with the sand in his eyes. How's that thing you were supposed to believe in coming along anyway?
It's not sand, dude. Do the private security forces use "sand" in Iraq? They're not using sand in Washington, either.
BHO IS TOAST. Forget him. He wanted to wear the purple for a season and he sold you a ticket while selling you into Hell on Earth. He's worthless for anything you want from this life. You have to take this country away from him and all the animals like him. Incrementalists got you here as they gave up their ass an inch at a time to the animals until now the shaft is buried to the hilt and we are all screwed. Prepare yourself for 3rd world squalor - that is ALL that BHO (and soul brother Larry Summers) have in store for you. Whajagonnadoaboutit? Nothing? 30 years since Ray-Gun. 40 years since Nixon - WHITE AMERICA CHEERED THEM and still do...and so they die as a heartless blood drunk tribe of savage cannibals...RIP
Nothing.
"Bemused"
That is not the word that accurately characterizes it.
And this is a joke:
"Despite the real improvements on Bush - such as the end of torture, the resumption of stem-cell research, and opposition to the coup in Honduras - many people are asking: why he is delivering so little, so slowly"
How much longer can these editorial writers be taken serously when 2 out of 3 things listed as successes are failures?
And that is just the first paragraph. I don't know whether I can tolerate wading through the rest.
Based on the title--great presidential leaders confront entrenched corrupt power, weak or inconsequential presidents bow to it. I guess Obama must already be satisfied with his historical achievement as first African-American president. Too bad that image will be one of a servant.
Perhaps it was on "Democracy Now" that I saw a clip of Obama on Fox News stating "I couldn't make the Israelis stop building settlements". And this is supposed to be the most powerful position in the world?
After the first paragraph I went into scanning mode. If you think this one is an Obama-apologist piece check out the one by Gary Wills that just came up on this site. I just don't see Obama as this "crusader." I see him more as a willing participant looking forward to going the way of Bill Clinton post-Presidency -- raking in the millions. Am I being too cynical? Maybe.
Either that or the other explanation (excuse) that he wants to do the right thing but he fears for his life or will be Zelaya-ized--to which the response should be: Isn't the country worth it to Obama? The longer he dithers and disappoints, triangulates and capitulates, deceives and betrays- the less likely he can count on the good will of the citizens to cheer him on.