Bob Morris wrote:
>
> So is Obama 1) a spineless dupe (like when he didn't even getting pissed
> when the investment bank CEOs couldn't make that big meeting because it was
> foggy) or 2) a total con man who was installed to insure the banks got their
> shovelfuls of $ and screw everyone else.
>
> What say all of you?
He is a Democrat. No further identificationn needed.
Every one _seems_ to be assuming that there exists a policy / program / ensembleof policies which, if followed by the U.S. government, would (a) alleviate the stress on much of the population (support the schools, respect unionts, provide medical care, etc) while honoring (as of cours any u.s. administration must) the essential needs of u.s. capital.
And since such a set of policies exist (in conceptual space), and Obama must be aware of them, and a "real" Democrat would carry them out. Obama obviously is not. There fore there is a mystery which posters and bloggers etc are trying to 'sovle.' And the suggested range of solutions all focus on Obama as a person and what is wrong with him.
Let us remember that for 8 years the Democrats supported with only minor kvetches the policy of the Bush Administration. They are now continuing those policies. Isn't it just possible that the ruling elites of the U.S. are in pretty complete agreement about what needs to be done and they are doing it.
And all the polls indicate that while this or that politician or group of politicians (including Obama) might lose their positons, there is every indication that their replacements wuld continue the same fundamental poliices, though under different rhetoric.
How does the world look from the view of rational and knowledgable men and women in Washington, D.C., in Thin Tanks, etc.? That is, what is the prevailing analysis of current conditons on the basis of which these policies are being fromed?
Carrol