When Obama ran for President what is left of the Left in the USA was delighted thinking he was someone who would reverse the militaristic, rightwing drift of the Bush years as well as the overpowering influence of Wall Street in Washington. Hopes for real change were high. But the Left forgot the deep, deep roots of anti-Black racism in the US and quite soon after his election this began to seep out sometimes openly, more often in a covert form. Obama began to perceive that any real leftist initiatives, any attempt to appease the Muslim world, any real attack on Wall Street, any increase in social legislation, would raise such widespread anger (fueled by racism) that he quite soon began to water down his positions, make himself as unthreatening as possible and show his willingness to "compromise" with (often simply give into) his sworn enemies. He feared being called a "secret Muslim", a non-American, a "socialist", etc. Hence his soft approach to Wall Street, his escalation of the Afghan war, his reversal on closing down Guantanamo and his very pronounced rightward drift. Indeed, whatever her limitations, I think Hillary would have been much better able to be more reformist and more leftist by far than Obama has been. Why? She is white, has an "American" name and a birth certificate no one can challenge. In retrospect the Left's eagerness to get a "Black" elected (thinking this would miraculously be the end of US racism) was probably a mistake. In fact it has only revived and rekindled racism in the US.

Obama's biggest mistake is covered in the stunning 8-part interview with Lawrence Wilkerson on The Real News Network:

"JAY: And I said finally, but here's another finally. Did President Obama make a mistake, was he wrong not to--at least, to have a proper due process of investigation, the possibility of crimes committed by Bush and Cheney, both on the front of torture and on the question of the Iraq War itself?

"WILKERSON: Yes. Yes. And the way I would have done that would have been to give, as Bill Clinton did for different reasons to Janet Reno on one or two occasions, I would have distanced myself from it as president, because I realize the political ramifications, but I would have given Eric Holder carte blanche: do what you think is right; I will not stop you. And I think Eric Holder would have done it. I think he would have found some guilty people, too."

Instead, Obama and Pelosi (and other Dems) choose to hound Wiener out of Congress. Because his crimes are, of course, so much more egregious.

Foolish, foolish Dems.

I give Obama and the other Democrats who've had the courage to call out Weiner much credit. Any member of the government who plays with the affections of other women while married--even over the internet--shows sufficiently poor judgment (not to mention mental health) to represent his constitutents' interests. If Weiner has any sense left, he will resign immediately and try to repair his life and marriage.

Lobewiper, Men (and women) are motivated by something. Money's nice, but it is often a means to an end. Some simply are motivated by greed of money, some power, other's sex. It's often been said that men are inversely as faithful as their opportunities to cheat. Wealth, power and influence that politicians enjoy is arguably the only thing that post offers them. They likely could make more money (and will, when they're) out of office. But, they won't likely be in the limelight, won't be lobbied.

What do you think lobbyist do? You do realize that all of them most certainly have stunning college interns ready and willing to do anything to influence that vote. What do you think these young, nubile interns do; research? Come on.

I'd far rather have a man who's motivation is sex. At least they're inclined to seek favor; further, there's a limit to sex. But, when it comes to greed for wealth or power, there's no limit.

Certainly, as a foreigner it's not up to me to judge Obama or this analysis about his goods and bads, however I want to share my opinion that I disagree not only with Obama's policies, but also with this analysis of the latter. Let me focus my critics on this analyis of Obamas policies here.

I doubt that "the administration's initial response to the financial crisis clearly averted a more serious and lasting meltdown." As Obama took over presidency after 2008, the net public debt of the USA stood - according to IMF data - at 45% of BIP. After two years of Obama's reign at the end of 2010 the net public debt rate in relation to GDP of the USA was - according to IMF data - at 69%. The idea behind this was was clearly to initiate growth by deficit spending. That can work under the circumstance that the underlying problem is a conjunctural problem. But in the U.S. the problems are structural. SO what was needed were a tackling of structural problems and strict austerity measures. So it's no surprise that Obama's deficit spending policy didn't work. From 2008 to 2010 GDP just rose marginal, from 14.3 trillion USD in 2008 to 14.6 trillion in 2010. And of course, now, in 2011, we see, as deficit is unsustainable and structural problems were not tackled that Obama just wasted lot's of money to ignite a flash in the pan, that U.S. growth is slowing down again.

So, what would be a path to sustainable growth? Bring tax collection and spending into a balance. Bail out main street instead of wall street. Convert unprofitable military industries and it's military adventures into security profit centers or a civil industry. Make friends and trade with other nations instead of trying to dominate them.

Obama was in a good position to bring change. He coud have said, that eigth years of the Bushists desastrous military spending and subsidizing the rich made the U.S. almost bancrupt. But Obama didn't do that. He preferred to continue all of the Bushists failures and make the U.S. even more bancrupt. He didn't stop subsidizing the rich but gave mega bail out to bankers without getting control over the banks. He didn't bring the troops home but regrouped the from Iraq to Afghanistan. He didn't create sustainable growth, but created unsustainable debts. He didn't stop doing wars for Israel but added with Libya another war for Israel.

As a foreigner I'm not complaining that U.S. food stamp figures under Obama rose from 32 milion to 44 million. Whether that's a sign of good economic pollicy Americans shall decide themselves. But what Obama did to the U.S. was just making the inevitable austerity measures even more painful - for the U.S. and the rest of the world. What I see is that Obama with his deficit policy just created a new bubble, and a large part of the whole world will be teared down a bit with the complete U.S. crash, when this bubble does what all bubbles do and bursts.

Regarding to "strengthening ties in Asia" I can just hope, that Obama is too busy to deal with the Middle East and Northern Africa as that he is able to send more U.S. military to Asia, because, if he is as foolish there as in the rest of the world, and he continues to accept China as the supreme power there, his aggressive policies could lead to a nuclear war there.

Like most other such pieces, it's based on the idea that Obama or any other president can achieve any damn thing he feels like more or less with the stroke of a pen. It evades or simply fails to recognize that president Obama is one arm of a government and powerful forces in the other arms are dedicated to ensuring that he achieve virtually nothing at all.

Nothing uniquely Obaman about this. other presidents have been beset similarly.

It might be possible at some future time to assess which of the evident reasons dominates much of this drive -- he's black, he's a Democrat, he's had no military service -- and there's clearly a broad streak of active and powerful governmental thinking that thinks messing up the way the government is run, even to the point of driving it into bankruptcy, is right just so long as it clears the way for Mr Obama to lose next year's election.

Professor Walt really should disqualify himself from this get-Obama nonsense. He certainly destroyed his credibility in this field of human endeavor when he announced in lordly fashion that the president's speech on Palestine-Israel issues was crap, some days BEFORE the president delivered the speech. Walt's admission of error after he'd heard the speech did not unstain him, or restore him to the paths of righteousness.

Strictly from a political perspective, President Obama has erred most seriously in allowing Americans to forget George W. Bush.

He began making this mistake, really, even before he was elected, with a frontrunner's campaign that relied on quick responses to his Republican challenger and gauzy positive rhetoric. It is certainly true, as well, that Obama and his team genuinely believe in the symbolic power of his election, as America's first black President. The problem is that all the positive stuff from the campaign, and all the symbolism of Obama's candidacy, did not get Obama in the White House.

America does not elect a black man President unless it is convinced the other choice is much worse, something George Bush's Republicans worked very hard to show over eight years. Bush was more unpopular for longer than any President since modern polling was invented: more unpopular than Truman during Korea, more unpopular even than Nixon after Watergate. He was the face of the Republican Party for nearly a decade; then he disappeared from public view. Obama let him.

With 5% unemployment, this is not a problem. At 9% plus unemployment, it's a huge problem. Obama right now is assuming the burden of public discontent over a recession that started before he got elected. This may be unfair, but it is also something Obama allowed to happen.

"the administration's initial response to the financial crisis clearly averted a more serious and lasting meltdown."

Not clear. Bailing out badly run companies with tax dollars taken from well-run companies and other taxpayers sent exactly the wrong message to the business community. They've rewarded the incompetent while punishing the competent. Granted, this was Bush's idea as well, but two wrongs don't make it right.

1. it isn't considered very polite and presidential to slag off your predecessor too much. And it is very unlikely that it would help create a coalition in congress to do so. Only Reagan was so impolite as to junk Carter who had the bad luck of a crashed helicopter in a raid at least as daring and politically brave as the one to get Binladen.

2. If this president and congress really were not bold enough in pressing through their slightly leftist ideas .. why did the american voters support the republican party in the last elections, making bold policy even more difficult?

.. I can feel along with the sentiment of Stephen Walt, that some more bold policy would have been timely, especially also on energy and climate change. But none of this has been allowed by a conspiracy of the electoral system, and allowing the senate to grab power for its minority via its private filibuster rule, and finally also the american voters. You ask for it, you get it! Don't blame the guy you put up there to be the figurehead of 'change'.