Though it might be argued that Obama doesn't have the power to change anything on the Hill, he's useless if he doesn't at least try. He should have laid out a comprehensive plan in a State of the Union address on Day One informing the public of a plan to tackle corporate America's control of government... if he were at all serious about representing the public interest. If he had gone down in flames, at least he would have paved the road for the next leader to carry on this epic and endless battle in the interest of the majority of Americans in our attempt to establish representative government in D.C. Unfortunately it is a lot easier for the vast majority of people to succumb to the promise of easy riches while abandoning their fight for justice in the process. Obama, above all else, has shown just how average he is and therefore a poor choice to occupy highest office in the land. His arrogance failed to protect his principles (I'm assuming that at some point in his life he had lofty ideals!) from his 'circle of advisors' and in the end I'm sure it proved far easier to capitulate to the demands of Wall Street than to lead the charge for justice and social equity.
Meanwhile the MSM continues to place blame on either the Democrats or the Republicans for all of our woes while conveniently ignoring the necessity of ending corporate influence in politics all together. The illusion of a debate still occurs within the limited parameters of a Democrat versus a Republican frame, denying Americans any opportunity at witnessing an intelligent and informed discussion on politics in general.

No mention of the culprits, the Blue Dogs.

Surely the Democrats can rustle up a better candidate than Obama for 2012. If it has to be a DINO, at least pick one that's not channeling W. I'm sick of their version of Bush.

Well, I always thought that presidents have had great dictatorial emergency powers and they increased after 9/11, of course.

In my view, we came too close to be in the middle of a new Iran War by now with these emergency powers under McCain/Palin's direction.

At least, that possibility did not happen.

Things could have been worse and still may get worse before they get worser.

oops....I decided to delete my comment, because I jumped the gun, believing the author held the Obama apologists' view that he detailed in the first paragraph.

After reading the article in its entirety, I'll have to reformulate a comment.

The revelation of the letter to Pelosi, is consistent with who Obama is. One who must have become a "Constitutional scholar", so he would be able to better create a strategy to trash its contents.

Political Art from a Free Country:

http://www.spiegel.de/kultur/gesellschaft/0,1518,719965,00.html

I have a problem with the second sentence of this article:

"Sure he went in with high ideals about moving the country in a more progressive direction, but the reality of money and power in the nation's capital have rendered him unable-at least in the two years he's been in office-to achieve the objectives he so glowingly promised."

I don't think Obama ever had any intentions of moving the country in a progressive direction. He caved in to the money donors and he caved in to the Repubs. So he rendered himself unable.

Lots of glowing promises during the campaign. Lots of broken promises during the presidency. He made his own bed himself.

"He has the power to put people to work rebuilding the infrastructure of the country." He does? Granted, we could use a trillion-dollar infrastructure stimulus, from high-speed rail to high-speed internet access, and a 21st century clean energy revolution, investments which would pay for themselves over and over, but a president can't just "implement" this sort of thing without, I'm truly sorry to say, 60 votes. I wish he could, and I bet he wishes he could, too.

More important yet rarely mentioned, Mr. Obama has the power to change our foreign policy decisions so that we don't create terrorists. For one, stop occupying other's countries and expecting them to bow down to imperial America by letting McDonalds, Burger King, etc. ad nauseum, in. How would anyone feel after being shock and awed, then invaded, then occupied. Then there's the terrorizing of the population due to kicked in front doors followed by residents disappearing in the night. Anyone out there think this kind of behavior would endear us to our occupiers if any of us could for one minute, put outselves in their place. . I now fully realize that our system of government is broken and beyond repair for anyone outside of the elite 1 percent of Americans who are getting fabulously rich off of an eternal war status. And Mr. Obama's declaration of a national emergency in the form of the terrorist threat. What a laugh. Isn't the destruction of America's middle class an emergency you brilliant idiot? Isn't the selling out of the American commons an emergency? And climate change, that doesn't really seem to be on your radar so i'm letting you know that our climate is going to kill more of us than your boogeyman terrorists armed with box cutters and hijacked planes.

Z1
"Except Clinton(?)" What group are you a part of? It isn't a bunch of stale and necrotic republicans, is it? Clinton won two terms, on his own, and, much to your frustration, remains the most beloved living president, easily surpassing the bland, half-wit presently in office. Are you worried that Hillary's immense popularity will induce her to seek the presidency one last time? Don't be so frightened, it's 1000 to 1 against. And, another one of your group, who called Hillary a "witch," can only be another republican creep. I supported Clinton against Obama, and have never for a moment regretted doing so, nor have I ever heard Hillary described as a witch, by anyone that wasn't a republican. In fact, with each passing day, I feel vindicated. I remember how close I came to fist-fights with other maniacal democrat males, full of bluster in their support of Obama, certain that he was the Messiah. Being a democrat certainly doesn't assure that you have a vibrant brain in your head. I'm not so much a fool, that I expect a presidential aspirant to be free of monied interests. I voted for Hillary, for the simple reason, that, among those candidates with the any possible hope of winning the election, she was far and away the best candidate.

I'm sure your crowd will lose your cool, and start screaming all the usual anti-Clinton lunacy and hatred, if I tell you that Hillary would have been vastly better for our country, than Obama has been. In fact, it's arguable that Hillary won the "popular" election, though she apparently lost with the delegates. If you can get a tape of election day, on CNN, when Wolf Blitzer presided over a final count of the vote, he made Hillary's probable win as clear as it could be.

"...reissuing mortgages at a lower rate" will definitely NOT work, and is counter-productive. That is just what happened during the Bush Tragedy, er, presidency.

Let's do a thought experiment. The Bankster sees a Critter that can afford, say, a Maximum of $1,000 a month for a mortgage.

To keep the example simple, say the mortgage is set at 10% interest, interest-only, and nothing down... you know, like the Bush years. So, the Critter can afford a house worth $120,000, according to the Bankster (maxed-out $1,000 per month or $12,000 or 10% per year).

But now, DROP the interest rate to 5% per year, due to, oh, say, the GREEDSPAN FED rate. Hooray! The Critter can now SAVE $500 a month on his mortgage, or save $6,000 a year and pay $6,000 a year(5%) vs. $12,000 a year(10%). Oh Happy Days! Nation and public flush with cash and out of debt!

Uhh, oops, nope. Out of debt BAD, says the Bankster, and then instead of sharing the good fortune of low-interest by keeping the value of the house at $120,000 for loan purposes, Bankster now says that, in NEWSPEAK value, the house is now worth $240,000... becaue that is what 'the market' (Critter's available maximum of $1,000 per month) will bear... bear to pay the Bankster, that is!

SO now the $1,000 per month mortgage payment to the Bankster remains the same (new 5% of $240,000= $12,000). And no savings at all, but maximum stress to make the payments.

But Hooray, the first Critter is now 'richer' by the $120,000 the Bankster says the house has increased in value.

Only now the next Sucker-Critter to buy the house (the ONLY way there is ANY real value exchange) is on the Hook and in debt with the Bankster for $240,000, not $120,000.

Now run this death-spiral of maximizing debt for, oh say 10 years, and you can see from whence came the bottomless cesspool of debt the nation is drowning in today. Same house, except more run-down, and more in hock than ever to the Banksters, who own it all. Throw in the fractional leverage-amplification of Critter-mortgage securitization, to really rev-up the debt load on top of this, and heap it all on the Critter.

But now in this scenario, the FED says, well, gotta take the rate back up to 10% interest 'to fight inflation'... caused by the FED. OR the Critter's silly time-bomb of an ARM jacks-up-from-the-box. Either way.

NOW the Critter in the house is frogged. Because now he has to pay $2,000 per month interest (10% of $240,000), or $1,000 a month MORE than Critter Maximum! You can see what happens next! Can you say BANKRUPT!?!

OR the house must be re-assessed back to $120,000. But then the Bag-holding Critter is STILL frogged, 'cause he STILL owes the Bankster the original $240,000 on a house worth $120,000. And Critter owes this, even though the Bankster's New Pretend Value was All A Fraud in the first place. Just ask the people left bag-holding Bankster's junk-riddled worthless mortgage-backed securities.

OR you can reset ALL the mortgages to some half their existing value today, and then reset the interest AND the banking rules accordingly to keep prices from inflating beyond the underlying working economy supporting values, which could be one good idea.

BUT THEN the Bankster is frogged. Because Bankster owes $240,000 to the FED and others, and only has $120,000 in assets to cover. And there is no one to enslave for this excess debt, as the house cannot be pawned-off on someone for it. So can Bankster say BANKRUPT!?!

EXCEPT the FED will now come in and cover Bankster's losses. Just like now! And prop up home prices 'for the simple homeowning people'... er, the Banksters, but hey, they're people too! (But the FED will most definitely not cover the losses of those deadbeat Critters, after all, they knew what they were doing! Oh, and 'cause finally ya gotta have some Suckers to pay for it all, with their hides!)

And that is why reissuing mortgages at SIMPLY a lower rate will not work! Because it didn't! Because it will actually create EVEN MORE DEBT to the Banksters by keeping house values artificially high, and set up the next debt cycle of death-spiral-and-disaster!

It's just like the fact that the new same-ol' Republican and Neo-Con economic and tax plans won't work. Because they didn't! And all these failed spectacularly just recently, as I seem to recall! Though apparently America doesn't recall.

"Sure he went in with high ideals about moving the country in a more progressive direction, but the reality of money and power in the nation's capital have rendered him unable-at least in the two years he's been in office-to achieve the objectives he so glowingly promised"

Obama lied! He is a corporatist. There was never any intention of implementing progressive ideas, after all, it was Obama who single handedly took single payer health care off the table. So stop the propaganda that Obama is a progressive. He is not. Obama is despised by progressives.

The emergency that we face is the disconnect from Nature, which translates into moral corruption.