How can there be any doubts? It won’t happen, period. Congress is bought and paid for, Obama Econ team is a by-product of the Trilateral and Wall Street, and the slothful American press never, ever ask the tough questions.

Case closed!
Next?

He is not a socialist? Haven’t you been listening to him talk? He seems to be even more in favour of big government than Bush was. And haven’t you been paying attention to the people that he has made a part of his administration? They are certainly very left wing and no friends of markets and individual liberty.

Sorry but I must be missing something. FDR took a sharp contraction made worse by his predecessor and turned it into a long depression that did not really end until after he died. There is little doubt to any objective observer that he was one of the worst presidents your nation has ever had. While not as bad, Carter was also a very bad president who had good intentions but no common sense and little understanding of economics. No matter which one Obama is like, the US seems to be in big trouble.

“Law” is always “authoritarian”. When it comes to avoiding another “tragedy of the commons”, we need some law.

>> Didn’t start a losing $2T war. ["start"? Right, he's continuing them. No difference here.]

Do you count sunken cost when performing a cost-benefit analysis of your next steps?

Clawback, the rest of your comments have some merit. (Not like I haven’t thought about them.) But not enough to change my mind that anyone lumping O in with W has grossly distorted perceptions.

Differences
——————–
Respecting science. Trying to push legislation to combat global warming.
[OK. But this makes him *worse* and even MORE authoritarian than Bush. Psst, if you think buying into the global warming hoopla = "respecting science", you probably don't spend a lot of time thinking about this.]

Didn’t start a losing $2T war. ["start"? Right, he's continuing them. No difference here.]

Trying diplomacy genuinely and not as cover for war. [Are you kidding me? BHO likes a little more foreplay, but the end result is known in advance.]

Reversed policy on torture. [Right, *we* don't torture anymore, but thank goodness all those other countries do. This has been well covered in the left-wing press. Maybe only us GOP folks read Glenn Greenwald and watch Amy Goodman.]

Reducing commitment to Iraq, increasing in Afghanistan. [Great! More war! And if he keeps murdering Pakistani women and children, we'll have ourselves a war there, too. All Obama has done is disarm the anti-war movement. Not good for peace.]

Improving civil rights for gays. [Bullshit. He's said some things about gay marriage, but he has no intentions of respecting habeas corpus for any of us -- gay, straight, whatever. Warrantless wiretapping? Yes we can! Fine you or throw you in jail for not supporting Big Pharma and Big Insurance? Will do!]

Is the financial picture the same as under W? Over 12+ years, Clinton and W (and the American people) dug the hole O’s standing in. You guys want to blame him for not solving it yet?

[Totally disingenuous. We want him to stop digging!]

I throw in ‘black’ because his race has really been a relatively large factor in his political success here and also his acceptance overseas. You could say that a white politician with his track record wouldn’t even have made the Senate, but for centuries ‘empty suit’ whites have succeeded where much better qualified AAs never could. The sad truth of Obama’s election is that it does show a long-time-coming change in white racial attitudes, but only to prove that an underqualified, well-marketed African American can now win a national election, just like underqualified, well-marketed whites do.

I guess on some level, this is progress. Still, I would have preferred someone who actually had a record of achievement and a greater familiarity with the workings of Washington. Although given all of the choices last time around, I don’t know if we’d really be doing any better on any front.

Differences
——————–
Respecting science. Trying to push legislation to combat global warming.
Didn’t start a losing $2T war. Trying diplomacy genuinely and not as cover for war.
Reversed policy on torture.
Reducing commitment to Iraq, increasing in Afghanistan.
Improving civil rights for gays.

Is the financial picture the same as under W? Over 12+ years, Clinton and W (and the American people) dug the hole O’s standing in. You guys want to blame him for not solving it yet? Criticize him as a means to push him. Fine.

But, to say he’s another W? Since it would be “at best” premature to say that, statements like that remind me instead of the “wishful thinking” you see from the folks who say explicitly that they want O to fail. Are any of you guys in that camp? Really?

* (I cheered. I love Obama but don’t wish “Olympic-sized debt” on Chicago. In contrast, with all those natural resources to tap, Rio might be able to afford it.)