Thoughts & Commentary on the Obama Administration

[Beskar]

How is it smart to vote for someone who does not have a chance in France at winning when you could give your vote to the lesser of two evils and stop the greater of two evils from getting in? No, those people are just as stupid as the ones who voted for Obama in IMO.

Don't worry that was done. The greater of the two evils didn't get elected.

Also, why bother with the lesser of two evils? You can just pick the best choice and if everyone just did that, ta da.

[Vuk]

Don't worry that was done. The greater of the two evils didn't get elected.

Also, why bother with the lesser of two evils? You can just pick the best choice and if everyone just did that, ta da.

You cannot count on everyone picking the best choice, because the best choice is a matter of opinion and people are always divided (not to mention special interests). Let me ask you a question, if you had to pick one of the other, would you rather be lightly hit on the shoulder, or punched full force in the face by Kimbo? Obviously you would pick the lesser of two evils. It is basic damage control. :P You are not helping cut down on the damage though when you vote for someone who has no chance.

[Xiahou]

An interesting article by Robert Kagan about the Obama administration and their foreign policy philosophy. Lengthy, but insightful.

[Lemur]

An interesting article by Robert Kagan about the Obama administration and their foreign policy philosophy. Lengthy, but insightful.

Oh for Pete's sake, if there's a three-part series of editorials about the first year of Obama foreign policy, why not link to all three, instead on singling out the negative one? The full set:

Obama's Year One: Contra

Obama's Year One: Medius

Obama's Year One: Pro

[Marshal Murat]

I liked Kagan's article, always insightful but somewhat out-of-place. He seemed more intent on writing an article on the "foreign affairs" side than an overall view of Obama. Not to say that he is out of place because Obama's legacy is based on his results on the international stage. At the same time, however, he seems to be more focused on his views and thoughts than an analysis of Obama's total legacy (then again it's an article in Foreign Policy or whatever)

The "median" article is also somewhat denegrating of Obama, which accurately reflects the current situation. Despite overall hopeful attitudes, his actions have failed to produce concrete tangible results, which is true in the overall sense. Even the pro article seemed to be sad with Obama's overall results, but that's just me. Just this man's opinion.

[Lemur]

An interesting take on Obama and the environment in which he operates, from a Limey perspective:

In Britain, an opposition party in total revolt can do only so much. In the US system, where the constitution makes big change very, very hard, an opposition can gum up the works much more successfully. Because the Republicans lost so many seats last time around, their current ranks are dominated by those in the safest seats, and their main worry is being picked off by primary challenges from the Sarah Palin-Dick Cheney wing. Because of the still-waxing power of religious fundamentalism in the American South, the Republicans increasingly frame their arguments in doctrinal terms, rather than pragmatic ones. And so the party has become more purist and more radical in the wake of its defeat. To give a simple example, last week the Republican candidate for the governorship of Alabama was forced to offer the following campaign pledge: “I believe the Bible is true. Every word of it.” He had previously gaffed that some parts of the Bible might not be taken literally, but as metaphor or parable. No, this is not Iran. It’s America. In 2010.

Obama’s promise was that he would try to end this culture war. My view is that — to great dismay among his own partisan base — he has largely fulfilled that promise. He went to dinner with conservative journalists before he schmoozed the liberal ones; he spent more time on Capitol Hill with Republicans in his first few months than Bush ever had; he asked the evangelical Rick Warren to deliver the invocation at his inauguration; he avoided abortion and gay rights issues; he refused to investigate, let alone prosecute, the war crimes of his predecessor; and he has ramped up the war in Afghanistan. He has cut taxes and refused to nationalise the banks.

But for all this, he is the target of almost relentless and extreme opposition, painting him as the most radical and extremist anti-American ever in the Oval Office. And with a Senate that requires a 60-40 majority to get anything done, that makes his promises very hard to keep. When Europeans wonder if America is ungovernable, this polarisation is the critical thing to keep in mind. Obama’s gamble is therefore to outlast this reaction, to refuse to take the bait for total political warfare at home, and to enact as much as he can as quickly as he can in case the natural upswing of an opposition in a depressed economy renders his congressional majority moot by next November.

The Republican gamble, in turn, is that the extremism of their populist oppositionism doesn’t rally the fringe of their base at the cost of alienating the critical middle that still holds sway in American politics. My own sense is that in a low-turnout mid-term election, they could do very well with this tactic. But at a strategic level, I suspect that this is a trap for 2012. If they cannot attract younger or minority voters, if they continue to fail to offer actual policy alternatives instead of recitation of right-wing dogma, they could manage to stymie Obama later this year at the cost of immolation in 2012. Winning in 2010 could even persuade them that becoming even more radical is the way to win in 2012. A Palin nomination is perfectly possible.

It’s a war of nerves. If the Republicans win it, the culture war lives on. If Obama survives, he will remake the centre of American politics as a Democratic bastion again. Those are the stakes. And they keep getting higher.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Andrew Sullivan is hardly a Limey perspective, considering he lives in America and the topic of most of what he writes is America related.

And most of his arguments are poor - he makes mountains out of molehills, or campaign statements.

Dick Cheney's quote is reflected in the articles you and Xiahou posted from the FP mag.

He acts surprised that no Republicans voted for health care, since it was more conservative than Romney's in MA - and doesn't mention that didn't turn out well.

Basically, it's a long essay on how noble ole Obama is trying to end partisanship while those nasty Republicans keep trying to muck it up.

CR

[rvg]

I wonder if any criticism of Obama will fall under the Irish blasphemy laws.

[Lemur]

I think it's completely inappropriate for the Vice President to appear in Hennessey ads.

[KukriKhan]

I think it's completely inappropriate for the Vice President to appear in Hennessey ads.

More funny Onion stuff. Too bad his Mom died.

[Xiahou]

I caught an episode of "Stossel", where he covered what he referred to as 'crony capitalism'. One of the examples highlighted was a window company called Serious Materials. I couldn't find the actual clip from the show, but I did find this on youtube. Anyone have any thoughts?

[KukriKhan]

I caught an episode of "Stossel", where he covered what he referred to as 'crony capitalism'. One of the examples highlighted was a window company called Serious Materials. I couldn't find the actual clip from the show, but I did find this on youtube. Anyone have any thoughts?

I love her idea of "Peace Corps meets the Military... Green SWAT teams go into a neighborhood and retrofit the entire area with energy-efficient (Serious Materials) windows..."

Comedy Gold, that.

[/sarcasm]

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well, the Unions and government employees with collective bargaining agreements won't get the 40% tax on their expensive health care plans everyone else with such plans will get.



CR

[Crazed Rabbit]

Well Obama's got the wonderful idea to get back the money paid out stupidly by TARP by taxing large banks - most of which have either paid back the loans or didn't get money in the first place.

And what does he say to protests?

“Instead of sending a phalanx of lobbyists to fight this proposal or employing an army of lawyers and accountants to help evade the fee, I suggest you might want to consider simply meeting your responsibilities.”

Apparently being taxed to pay for other's debts is your responsibility in his America.

And why are they being taxed now? Because they're profitably, and the democrats hate a profitable business in a bad economy, and what better way to get more credit flowing than taxing banks?

God, what extreme stupidity.

CR

[Beskar]

So the government bails out banks, but you can't tax the banks as taxing the banks = Taxing the American people and apparently the people shouldn't be responsible for paying the debts of others (ie: the banks) in your post.

I love this, keep it up.

[Brenus]

"Because they're profitably" Yeap, like the Mafia and the Drugs Cartels...

[Crazed Rabbit]

So the government bails out banks, but you can't tax the banks as taxing the banks = Taxing the American people and apparently the people shouldn't be responsible for paying the debts of others (ie: the banks) in your post.

I love this, keep it up.

Good grief, did you not even read what I wrote? The government is taxing banks that paid back their loans. If they we're going after the banks that still owe money, that'd be different.


Also, it hurts the whole freaking economy. Taxes can't be used for petty, spiteful things because they effect everyone.

CR

[Brenus]

“The government is taxing banks that paid back their loans.” So, that is it. The crooks reimbursed all the money they took so they are clean again and are out of responsibilities…

[Crazed Rabbit]

Crooks, huh? Kindly list all those convicted of criminal actions in relation to the banking industry recently.

Populist actions may get some votes, but this will hurt the economy. Oh wait! Who cares? Fulfilling spiteful feelings should always be a president's top priority.

CR

[Meneldil]

Banks who had a role in the current crisis should be taxed to death. Good riddance.

[Crazed Rabbit]

And speaking of crooks; a liberal radio host says he'd break the law and vote multiple times to prevent republicans from being elected.

CR

[Beskar]

And speaking of crooks; a liberal radio host says he'd break the law and vote multiple times to prevent republicans from being elected.

CR

I think the majority of the country would do the same here.

oh wait... different Brown, silly me.

Though on another note, Republican is a very poor choice. I rather have our conservatives than anyone from the republican party, at least they aren't as bat insane.

[Samurai Waki]

Ah, American liberal is an oxymoron. I'll take the democrats simply because they're slightly left of the fundamentalism the republicans have made themselves to be.

[Beskar]

Indeed. Voting Republican is probably closer to voting for the BNP than Conservative, over here.

[Brenus]

"Crooks, huh? Kindly list all those convicted of criminal actions in relation to the banking industry recently"
And your point is?
Yes crooks. They sold products they knew were not safe. They made money on "toxic assets".
They lied in saying they were making money because they were just encreasing the debt, they were multiplcating the debts in order to make their bonuses.
they didn't workon their clients interests, they were just making their money.
Crooks, burglars and thieves...

And of course no legal action, because their friends, relatives and accointances made them untouchable by the laws.

If I sell you a car, and if you bring back the car, will my manager allow me to keep the bonus. No.
But bankers, yes they can.
Not only they can, but after the biggest financial mistake ever, they want to pocket even more money!
And they are right to do so.
Because with poeple having your opinion (poor riches), they should be stupid not to do...

[The Wizard]

Indeed. Voting Republican is probably closer to voting for the BNP than Conservative, over here.

Not entirely, because it depends on what Republican you're voting for. U.S. parties don't operate with party lists and the party program doesn't matter that much either (though I challenge you to take a good gander at the G.O.P.'s program, compare it with the BNP's and the Tories's, and then tell me the Republicans are more similar to the former).

[Lemur]

A balanced, well-thought-through examination of President 44's first year.

Reality bites
Jan 14th 2010 | WASHINGTON, DC

Governing is harder than campaigning. But America’s 44th president has made an adequate start

FOR some, the magic is undimmed. Carl Baloney is extravagantly happy that Barack Obama is his president. He is old enough to remember segregation: back in the 1960s, his local university turned him away because he was black, he says. He is also old enough to have high blood pressure, which pushes his monthly health-insurance premiums skywards.

Mr Obama plans to bar insurers from turning away the sick. That will take some of the fear out of life for people like Mr Baloney, who is self-employed and pays his own bills. Others in his neighbourhood near New Orleans are much worse off, he says: “Health care is the emergency room. Next stop is the funeral home.” This will change, predicts Mr Baloney, and he is proud that it will change under a black president. “I never thought I’d see it,” he says, “and such a sharp president, too.”

Others feel differently. “I’m neither a Democrat nor a Republican, neither a jackass nor an elephant. But I wouldn’t vote for a socialist. Hell, I’d vote for Adolf Hitler before I’d vote for Barack Obama. At least you know what he’d do to you,” says Ron King, a retired policeman in Stuart, Virginia. He adds that Mr Obama “lies all the time” and is “dangerous; he’s trying to change the entire country.” Mr King has perhaps not rigorously thought through his Hitler analogy, but his anger is real.

Mr Obama came to power proclaiming an end “to the petty grievances...that for far too long have strangled our politics” and to “the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long”. By electing him, he said, Americans chose “unity of purpose over conflict and discord”. Alas, this was balderdash.

Abroad, Mr Obama is still loved. But at home his star is tarnished. His approval rating has fallen from almost 70% at the time of his inauguration a year ago to 50% now. The proportion of Americans who disapprove of the job he is doing has quadrupled, from 12% to 44%. More than half of voters think the country is on the wrong track, and they are roughly evenly divided as to which of the two parties would do a better job of correcting that. A poll of polls by RealClearPolitics, a political website, finds that a generic Republican candidate for Congress beats a generic Democrat by 44% to 41%.

Mr Obama’s reputation as a miracle-worker was easier to maintain on the stump than in office. He said he would end the war in Iraq, bring health insurance to all Americans, erect a cap-and-trade system to curb global warming and clean America’s soiled reputation by closing the prison at Guantánamo Bay. He has not yet done any of these things, though he has made progress in Iraq and is close to signing a health-care bill.

None of this should be surprising. Governing is hard, especially during an economic crisis. The American political system is fraught with checks and balances: a president cannot simply tell Congress what to do. Everything takes time and requires ugly compromises. Nonetheless, many of Mr Obama’s fans feel let down.

The same technology that Mr Obama used so effectively to promote his candidacy can also be used to highlight his broken promises. When Democrats opted to hold the final negotiations on the health-care bill in secret, critics immediately posted footage of Mr Obama vowing that such talks would be televised. Ditto his promise never to hire lobbyists, and to post bills online for five days before he signed them. Some voters have concluded that he cannot be trusted. Others are outraged at what they see as his march towards European-style socialism. Anti-tax “tea party” protests have swept the country. Re-energised Republicans crow that they can recapture the House of Representatives this year, and cut the Democrats’ Senate supermajority down to size.

Mr Obama came to power at a time when American-style free-market capitalism was seemingly in disgrace. Many of his supporters thought he had a mandate to push the country significantly to the left. But since he took office, public opinion has shifted sharply to the right.

At the beginning of 2008 Americans trusted Democrats over Republicans to deal with the deficit by a whopping 30 percentage-point margin, according to Ipsos-McClatchy. Now they prefer Republicans by seven points. On taxes, Democrats led by 17 points, but now trail by two. On protecting America against terrorists, their nine-point advantage has mutated to a seven-point deficit. And in areas where Democrats still have the advantage, the gap has narrowed: from 39 points to four on health care, from 21 to five on Iraq and from 44 to 25 on the environment.

Americans have not suddenly fallen in love with Republicans, who seem keener to obstruct Mr Obama than to offer a coherent alternative. Rather, they are fed up with the recession and government in general. Since Mr Obama is the public face of power, he gets the blame.

Four cheers for 44

A YouGov Polimetrix poll for The Economist found that Americans disapprove of Mr Obama’s handling of the economy by 54% to 40%. They also frown on his handling of health care (by 53% to 40%), terrorism (48% to 42%), immigration (49% to 28%), Afghanistan (51% to 39%), Iraq (50% to 41%), Social Security (49% to 33%) and gay rights (39% to 33%). Of the ten topics mentioned in the poll, he scored a pass mark on only two: education, where he has taken tentative steps to promote autonomous “charter” schools and the environment. In short, Americans still like Mr Obama more than they like his policies, but they are increasingly souring on both.

Yet, by some measures, his first year has been quite successful. He has made no disastrous mistakes, and can brag of four substantial achievements. First, he has done wonders for America’s image abroad. Foreigners warm to his African and Muslim roots, his childhood in Indonesia, his Harvard cosmopolitanism. He seems less brash, more diplomatic and more respectful of Muslims than his predecessor. He calls for a world free of nuclear weapons. He takes a stand against torture. He talks in complete sentences. “[E]ngagement with repressive regimes lacks the satisfying purity of indignation,” he told the Nobel committee. “But...[n]o repressive regime can move down a new path unless it has the choice of an open door.”

How much does this matter? Simon Anholt, an analyst, heroically estimates the value of the “Obama effect” on America’s global brand at $2.1 trillion. Each year, Mr Anholt commissions a poll of 20,000-40,000 people to find out how much they admire various countries’ people, culture, exports, governance, human-rights record and so on. He finds that admiration in one area often translates (illogically) into admiration in others. When George Bush was president, foreigners expressed less positive views of American goods, services and even the landscape. Under Mr Obama, he finds, America is once again the most admired country in the world (having slipped to seventh place in 2008). Using the same tools that consultants use to value brands such as Coca-Cola or Sony, he guesses that the value of “Brand America” has risen from $9.7 trillion to $11.8 trillion. Writing in Foreign Policy magazine, Mr Anholt calls this “a pretty good first year”.

Second, and more concretely, the American economy appears to have stabilised. The crisis that was raging when Mr Obama was elected has eased. Carrying on where the previous administration left off, Mr Obama has used gobs of taxpayers’ cash to prop up tottering banks and insurers. He deserves at least some of the credit for the American financial system not collapsing. He intervened to rescue two of America’s largest carmakers, General Motors and Chrysler. He stimulated demand with vast injections of borrowed money. All this, his supporters say, helped to restore confidence, thereby preventing a painful downturn from turning catastrophic.

Third, Mr Obama has shown he is serious about winning in Afghanistan. As Iraq grows calmer, Mr Obama is pulling out American troops, as he said he would. If all goes to plan, only a handful will remain by the end of 2011. Meanwhile he is escalating the war in Afghanistan, as he also promised. By putting tens of thousands more American boots on the ground, he hopes to make the country stable enough to start pulling out by next summer.

Fourth, Mr Obama is close to signing the biggest shake-up of America’s dysfunctional health-care system since the 1960s. The House and Senate have each passed a bill, and now the two mammoth documents are being haggled into one. Before long—perhaps before Mr Obama’s state-of-the-union message—health reform will probably become law.

Many details have yet to be finalised, but the outline looks roughly like this. Every American will be obliged to have health insurance. Those who cannot afford it will receive subsidies. States will set up carefully regulated exchanges to make it easier for individuals to shop around for the right policy. Insurers will be barred from excluding those with pre-existing health problems.

Most of the tens of millions of Americans who currently lack health cover will soon have it, predicts Mr Obama. And ways will be found to curb costs. The House bill calls for scores of pilot schemes to find cheaper ways of keeping people healthy. The Senate version would set up a commission to explore ways of doing it. The greatest single threat to America’s fiscal solvency—galloping health-care inflation—will thus be tamed.

Mr Obama’s detractors scoff. So what, they ask, if foreigners applaud him? Being liked is no guarantee of being effective. His Nobel peace prize will hardly make North Korea surrender its nuclear weapons. His admirers insist that Mr Obama’s patient and tactful style will eventually pay dividends: for example, by persuading Russia to lean on Iran to stop pursuing its own nuclear arsenal. His critics retort that it has shown few dividends yet. They think the world’s thugocrats see weakness in Mr Obama, and intend to exploit it.

This is harsh. Mr Obama has been quicker on the trigger than George Bush when it comes to assassinating terrorist suspects in Pakistan with missiles fired from drones. He has ordered roughly one such strike a week since taking office, killing some 400-500 militants and an unknown number of civilians. He may have ruffled hawks’ feathers by pushing for terrorists such as Khalid Sheikh Muhammad to be tried in civilian courts, but he has shocked doves, too, by refusing to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay until he figures out what to do with those inside.

Mr Obama’s decision to ramp up the fight in Afghanistan could hurt him politically. Doves fret that it will be his Vietnam—that a costly, bloody, unwinnable war will derail his presidency. Hawks gripe that although he made the right decision to send more troops, he dithered for months before making it and then exuded irresolution as he did so. He said that America “has no interest in fighting an endless war in Afghanistan” and will only do “what can be achieved at a reasonable cost”. The Taliban may take that to mean that all they need to prevail is a little patience.

Brickbats and tea-parties

On the economy, Mr Obama’s critics make several points. Much of his stimulus spending will be wasted, they say, because government spending is always inefficient. The money he has borrowed will have to be paid back. Last year’s budget deficit, at an estimated 11.2% of GDP, was the highest since the second world war. That is not sustainable. Mr Obama will presumably address the deficit in his budget next month, but he has not said publicly how he will do so.

Tea-party-goers assume he will raise taxes. They worry that he plans to shift America to a permanently higher level of public spending and intrusive regulation. Mr Obama has hired legions of government employees, whose pay and benefits have outpaced those in the private sector. Although he says he believes in free markets, he does not always act that way. When Washington bailed out Detroit, politically favoured labour unions fared better than bondholders. Lobbyists took note. Conservatives fret that, having spent his life in law, academia and government, Mr Obama knows little about wealth creation. “He doesn’t know anybody who’s ever had a real job,” grumbles Grover Norquist, an anti-tax activist.

Mr Obama calls himself a free trader, but he slapped tariffs on Chinese tyres last year, provoking swift retaliation. No full-blown trade war broke out, but America’s reputation has suffered. Foreigners complained more about America to the World Trade Organisation last year than about any other country bar China, according to Global Trade Alert, a watchdog.

Mr Obama’s proposed health-care reform has attracted brickbats from both left and right. The left frets that the final bill will probably not include a government-run health insurer (the “public option”). Critics on the right fear that the final goal is socialised medicine, with rationed care and scant rewards for innovators.

Others worry that reform will cost too much. Both bills call for wasteful spending to be cut, but largely in unspecified ways at some time in the future. And pitfalls abound. For example, if the government compels everyone to get health insurance, insurers can fairly easily cope with the requirement that they turn no one away. But if the fine for not buying insurance is too low, young healthy people may simply opt to pay it. Many will wait until they are ill to start buying insurance. So the pool of insured Americans will grow sicker. Premiums will rise, prompting more healthy people to stop buying insurance. This is called a “death spiral”. If it happens, either the system will collapse, or the government will have to save it with public money. Most likely, Congress will be tinkering with health care for years to come.

Still keeping his cool

Mr Obama’s second year could be even tougher. If and when health reform passes, the Senate will start haggling about climate change. America’s failure to enact a cap-and-trade system for carbon dioxide earned Mr Obama frowns at the Copenhagen climate summit last month, but carbon pricing is hugely controversial in America, and has become more so since Mr Obama became president. The House narrowly passed a cap-and-trade bill only by making it much weaker than planned. Greens hope that, so long as the Senate passes a bill of some kind, it can be tightened later. But there is no guarantee that it will pass.

Some pundits chide Mr Obama for letting Congress call the shots. He left it largely up to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, the top Democrats in the House and Senate, to design a health-care plan and decide how stimulus money should be spent. The results, critics reckon, were more wasteful and less coherent than if Mr Obama had taken charge. Nobody wanted a health plan written wholly by White House wonks; but there was a middle ground available, where the president could simply have asserted his will more forcefully over the process.

Mr Obama is trying a more hands-on approach to regulating Wall Street, proposing a stronger role for the Federal Reserve in preventing financial firms from taking risks that imperil the system. House Democrats agree, but those in the Senate would rather set up a new regulator. Other looming battles include immigration reform (see article) and a bill to allow unions to organise without secret-ballot elections. Even if rogue states and terrorists are quiet, which is hardly likely, Mr Obama will have a turbulent 2010.

A Spock or a Clinton?

Pundits never tire of dissecting the president’s personality. Is he growing less popular because he is too aloof? Maureen Dowd, a liberal columnist, likens him to Mr Spock, the emotionless alien from Star Trek. Or is it his vanity? Conservatives mock his frequent use of the word “I”, as in: “I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world.”

Such perceptions matter far less, however, than the state of the economy. The main reason Mr Obama’s polls have slipped is that Americans have spent the past year in fear of losing their jobs. When the economy recovers, Mr Obama will get the credit. If no recovery happens, the Republicans may regain the House. But even that need not be a disaster. After 1994, when Bill Clinton had to work with a Republican Congress, he governed from the centre, balancing the budget and signing welfare reform. And in 1996 he won a second term in the White House.

[Furunculus]

pledges kept and pledges not:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...irst-year.html

Barack Obama: review of pledges kept and promises broken in first year
President Barack Obama was elected on a campaign pledge of sweeping change in US policies at home and abroad. A year after taking office, some promises have been kept, others broken and still others subjected to compromise or delay.

By Alex Spillius
Published: 8:00AM GMT 20 Jan 2010

ECONOMIC RECOVERY

Obama's biggest promise was to make rescuing the economy his top priority. The results have been mixed or inconclusive so far.

A $787 billion stimulus he said was needed to jolt the country out of recession but which Republicans said was larded with too much spending was passed.

The economy is growing again but job losses persist, with unemployment at 10 per cent. He is now vowing to spur job creation. Whether he succeeds or fails could determine his political future.

A Wall Street bail-out is credited with helping avert a collapse, but the return of massive bonuses has outraged Main Street. A promised financial regulatory overhaul faces obstacles in Congress. While Obama has been lauded for acting to defuse the crisis, critics fault him for tackling health care and climate change instead of keeping the focus on the economy.

HEALTH CARE

Obama's goal of getting a health care bill to his desk by the end of 2009 proved overly ambitious, and now with just weeks of negotiations to go, it could be wrecked if Republican Scott Brown wins Sen Edward Kennedy's old seat.

Dithering Democrats were probably more to blame than the president. Liberals wanted a government insurance option and moderates were wary of the cost of reform. Even a newly compromised bill would see Obama would make history.

AFGHANISTAN

As promised, Obama switched attention from Iraq to Afghanistan, deciding in December to boost troop levels there by 30,000 after lengthy deliberations that critics called too deliberative.

Now it is Obama's war. The problem is polls show public support has waned as US casualties have increased, and some of Obama's fellow Democrats are balking at the build-up.

Candidate Obama pledged to withdraw all US combat forces from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. He will come close if he sticks to the August 2010 deadline he set as president.

ENGAGEMENT

Obama pledged to talk to his enemies, breaking with the isolation policy of his predecessor, George W Bush, at least in his first term.

Obama made overtures to Iran but it remains defiant over its nuclear programme. He also has little to show for outreach to North Korea. He lifted key restrictions on Americans with families in Cuba, but Havana has given little in return.

Critics say such gestures signal weakness, but aides insist it has been important to improve the tone of foreign policy. The White House says it will give Obama greater international leverage if he seeks further sanctions on Tehran this year.

CLOSING GUANTÁNAMO PRISON, FIX IMAGE ABROAD

Obama will miss his one-year deadline to close the internationally condemned military prison at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, a promise stalled by political and legal complications.

But that effort plus his ban on harsh interrogation of foreign terrorism suspects have helped repair some of the damage done to America's international image under Bush.

He kept his pledge to reach out in a major speech to the Muslim world. But many Muslims are disappointed he has not done more to push Israeli-Palestinian peace efforts.

Obama's popularity abroad remains high, as the award of the Nobel Peace Prize before any major foreign policy success showed. But critics at home say he has been too apologetic.

MORE TRANSPARENCY, BIPARTISAN COOPERATION

Obama, after accusing the Bush administration of being overly secretive, pledged greater transparency. He did order more openness and tighter limits on lobbyists and held a few televised issue-specific "summits" at the White House.

But much has been made of Obama's failure to keep his campaign pledge to have health care negotiations broadcast live on C-SPAN. The White House press corps has complained that Obama has not held a full-scale press conference since July.

Obama has also faced criticism for allowing exceptions to his promised ban on lobbyists serving in his administration.

He recently acknowledged regret at failing to bridge the bitter divide between Republicans and his fellow Democrats.

KEEP AMERICANS SAFE

Although no major attack has been carried out successfully on US territory since Obama took office, an attempted Christmas Day bombing of a US airliner came very close.

The failed bombing drew criticism from Republicans that Obama's counterterrorism policy was inadequate to keep Americans safe, as he had cited repeatedly as his highest priority.

That has resulted in Obama taking responsibility for the intelligence and security lapses that led to the Christmas incident and promising new reforms to prevent a repeat.

GLOBAL LEADERSHIP IN FIGHTING CLIMATE CHANGE

Obama had promised to make the United States a leader in the fight against global warming, in contrast to Bush's more reluctant approach.

He helped broker a non-binding international pact in Copenhagen in December and now faces an uphill fight to get the Senate to pass a law to cut carbon pollution at home while opponents argue that caps would hurt the economy. His stewardship will help determine whether a binding UN climate pact can be reached in 2010 after Copenhagen fell short.

OTHER PROMISES

No tax rise for anyone earning under $250,000: Obama has kept this pledge, but political analysts say it could be tested as he faces greater pressure over record budget deficits.

Lift Bush-era restrictions on stem-cell research: Obama moved to ease such limits within months of taking office.

Repeal "Don't ask, Don't Tell" rule for gays in the military: Although the White House has said it remains Obama's goal, he has yet to make a move.

Work for immigration reform: the issue is stalled as Obama grapples with bigger items. He has said, however, he wants to tackle it in early 2010.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Ah, good. The Department of Homeland Security and the US banks are giving me my money back.

At last, I should add, and I am most pleased they finally admit, and put to an end, their perfidious practises of swindling people around the world of their cash.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

OUR REF: WB/NF/IMF/WA-XX027/N08
ATM carte de paiement (822)
DATE: 17/01/2010.

Attn: Bénéficiaire


Le Department of Homeland Security, Washington, Etats-Unis, Nations Unies et les banques concernées a été d'avoir une réunion pour les 7 passé des mois sur la façon de compersate toutes les personnes qui ont été escroqués dans n'importe quelle partie du monde, cela vaut pour tous les entrepreneurs étrangers qui mai n'ont pas reçu leur montant du contrat, et les gens qui ont eu une transaction inachevés ou les entreprises internationales qui ont échoué en raison d'gouvernementales probelms etc, la fin de réunion jusqu'à la semaine dernière.


Le Department of Homeland Security, Washington, Etats-Unis, Nations Unies et les banques concernées, a accepté de vous compersate avec la somme de ($ 850,000.00 US Dollars) dans l'ATM MASTER CARD.


Maintenant, votre carte de guichet automatique de dollars ($ 850,000.00 US Dollars) est sous la garde de notre représentant, maintenant contacter notre directeur représentant, par nom de M. David Green avec ses informations ci-dessous et demandez votre carte de guichet automatique.


Personne à contacter: Dr. David Green
Téléphone: Tel: +44-704-571-1123
Email: (dgreen.atmcard0@ymail.com)


(1.) Nom complet:
(2.) Adresse de livraison:
(3.) Age:
(4.) Sexe
(5.) Profession:
(6.) Numéro de portable:


Notez que nous avons mis nos titres de surveiller tous ces escrocs, assurez-vous d'arrêter la communication avec ces derniers et communiquer avec le bureau ci-dessus et de recevoir vos fonds immediately.Notify nous une fois que vous recevez votre Carte bancaire.


Observe,
Mme Euice Moore
Directeur régional, Gestion de la dette Office [DMO]
Fond Monétaire International.
Envoyez votre réponse à M. David Green On Email: (dgreen.atmcard0@ymail.com)

Link: my inbox.
And no, surely you don't expect me to translate all of that crock, do you?

I do wonder: somewhere, somebody wrote all of the above, in the expectation that it would sound somewhat convincing to some people.
Maybe I should forward it to Joyandet, he might fall for it.

[KukriKhan]

(1.) Nom complet:
(2.) Adresse de livraison:
(3.) Age:
(4.) Sexe
(5.) Profession:
(6.) Numéro de portable:

They forgot the colon, after "(4.) Sexe".