Obama :Better then the rest is but good enough

Abroad, as at home, Obama coasts on a wave of disappointment | Gary Younge
Significant hope was invested in Obama to repair America's global reputation and reorient its foreign policy - but there's been precious little return
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/22/abroad-obama-coasts-wave-disappointment

polls, hearing what we want to hear

It's become natural to seize on polls such as 'X believe Obama is a muslim' to pour scorn on anti-obama voters, but as this article points out it's an irrational leap of logic to claim that ignorance in one area (knowing he's a Christian) means ignorance in all other areas. Indeed as this article points out, it's more coherent to think that initial rejection of Obama (whether based on policy or person) leads to buying into the more zany criticisms of him . Ironically the basis for liberal disgust at such conspiracy theories is they are irrelevant attacks on the person, not the policies, and yet in grasping with such glee on polls showing support for such theories, they are in fact doing the exact same - judging the voters on irrelevant beliefs and dismissing any other views they might have. Glasshouses and stones come to mind.

Liberal conviction affirmed by polling about faith! 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/14/obama-muslim-alabama-republicans-poll

Though this of course is not to mean that all tangential beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to politics. For example a recent poll found that "revealed that one in five Alabamians and more than one in four Mississippians believe interracial marriage should be illegal." (quote from this article). Such racist views really are relevant to the political process, since it is not illogical to think that someone who doesn't think black people should be allowed marry whites, might also think they shouldn't be leading white people. Not all prejudices are determining, but some indeed are...

The 'second Great Depression' saviour myth

 Dean Baker : "We're told that Fed officials and the Obama administration saved us from another 1930s-style slump. Nonsense"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/16/second-great-depression-saviour-myth

However, it might be disingenous to compare the US to Argentina, since in the case of Agentina a collapsing currency must have made it more competetive and allow it to grow with exports to a still existing world economy, whereas if something similar happened the US and the dollar, that entire economy would be severly shaken.
And furthermore even if financial armegeddon was always unlikely, extreme chaos and misery could still have been possible.
Still - hyperbole should be shot down, on both sides of the political divide...so worth reposting...

Obama campaign throws its weight behind Democrats' Super Pac

Head of Obama's campaign expresses concern that Republican candidates will be able to outspend president in 21012 race
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/07/obama-campaign-democrats-super-pac
"The Democratic party has watched aghast at not only the amounts raised by Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney – who is favourite to take on Obama for the White House – but Republican Super PACs storing funds for the general election, such as Karl Rove's American Crossroads.
Messina said American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS raised $51m last year while comparable Democratic groups collected only $19m over the same period.
Until recently, it had been widely assumed that Obama would be the first candidate to have a record-breaking $1bn to fight a White House campaign and his Republican rival would be behind, with about $750m. But these calculations are being up-ended."

Why Mitt Romney is 'not concerned' about the poor

Given the recent (and ongoing) crisis of the western economic model, and the untold hardship for many, then I think wealth, and candidates attitudes to it, are an important topic for our times. It should be said that since Romney is under the spotlight at the moment, of course most articles will be about him, and I will try to seekout post and highlight any similar articles about the other candidates, and Obama.

It's not just that all politicians  are wealthy, it's what their worldview of wealth, and how it should be distributed that matters, since it will set the tone for how society progresses (and letting the market decide returns is just as much a mechanism of re-"distribution", a transfer of wealth from one bunch of people to another, as taxation is).

And several elements in the following article are (even if taken as they are here in isolation) I think particularly worrying about Romney (extracts below).

Why Mitt Romney is 'not concerned' about the poor
The Republican frontrunner rejects the politics of 'envy'. How convenient for the multimillionaire candidate of the 1%
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/02/mitt-romney-not-concerned-about-poor

On the one hand he doesn't think the 'poor' are a group worth being focused on, despite this being an ever increasing section of US society, nor does he think there is anything wrong with siding with the 99% against the 1% who disproprotionately benefit from the current system, claiming, without any irony, that the mere thought of it is against the US ideal of 'one nation under God'. Maybe he means the '1% nation under God'.

Extracts : 

• According to the most recent figures available from the US Census Bureau, 46.2 million people lived in poverty in 2010, 15.1% of the population, the largest number in the 52 years the poverty estimates have been published. 2010 marked the fourth consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty

•  We will hear from the Democrat[ic] party the plight of the poor, and there's no question, it's not good being poor," he told CNN's Soledad O'Brien. "You could choose where to focus, you could focus on the rich, that's not my focus. You could focus on the very poor, that's not my focus. My focus is on middle-income Americans."

• Romney, in his victory speech in New Hampshire, said:

"This country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy. We must offer an alternative vision. I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success … We are one nation under God."

• The next morning, NBC's Matt Lauer challenged him, asking:

"Did you suggest that anyone who questions the policies and practices of Wall Street and financial institutions, anyone who has questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country, is envious? Is it about jealousy, or fairness?"

• Romney doubled down, claiming:

"I think it's about envy. I think it's about class warfare. When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99% versus 1% – and those people who have been most successful will be in the 1% … [it's] entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God."

Barack Obama's presidency, three years on – is it time to give up hope?

Given the focus on the republican primaries, is worth talking as well about the man they're fighting to go up against:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/19/barack-obama-president-hope-michelle

Perhaps the most wounding criticism of Obama is indeed :
"Which brings us closer to the core critique of Obama. That he avoids a fight, that he folds too early, that in his desire to unite and heal he too often surrenders his own position – to the point where no one is clear what his own position is"


It is true both that Obama could never have lived up to the many (divergent) hopes had of him when elected, but also that he has been less than stellar in his performance. Personally my interpretation is that while his heart is in the right place on most matters, he is ironically far from the driven left wing politican that the republicans paint him as, and is in fact someone who seeks compromise too much. When it comes to compromise it takes two to tango, and I think it is fair to say there has been often congressional obstructionism merely for the sake of it.

That this tarnishes his image is also ironic given that bipartisanship is something the electorate seems to want, and even the office of president itself was (in my understanding) originally meant to be for a sort of concilliatory guiding role, not an authoritarian all powerful one (I think Washington chose the term 'president' precisely for this reason, since the person was 'to preside' over government, and this would be in contrast to the title of 'prime minister' which they could have easily taken over from England, and which would imply much more superiority).

In the modern day however, and especially in a country with such deep cultural divisions, both sides want a president who is forceful in defending their values, and Obama is not very good at that it seems. Try to please everyone and you end up pleasing no one. But surely this is what the country needs at a divided time. To paraphrase the stones, you might not 't always get what you want, but sometimes you might get what you need.