And that is the generous interpretation: That he lacks the courage, rather than commitment, to fight the good fight, win or lose. Think of it this way: Say you had a nation where the overwhelming majority of people were dyed-in-the-wool socialists (I am not saying America is such a nation, but for the sake of argument.) If you wanted them to adopt supply-side economics, would you market it as such, or promote it as "socialism"? Which approach is most likely to win democratic elections?

Realistically, the only thing that changed at the White House when Obama took over was the letterhead. Corporate welfare continues apace, with massive windfalls to energy, auto, banking, investment and insurance companies. Income and investment tax cuts for the wealthiest likewise continue as if the 2008 election never happened. The last US troops only left Iraq a few months ago, and no departure date is in sight for those in Afghanistan.

What changed, apart from the White House stationery...?

Savvy Republicans cannot help being gratified, and if the best chance of keeping the ball rolling is to condemn it as "socialism" before an electorate fed up with supply-side and trickle-down, so be it.


Legislators can be quite effective executives, and US history has furnished many such; Jefferson, Madison, Polk and Lincoln come to mind, and, more recently, LBJ (love him or hate him, there is no denying he DID much as both senator and president.) Unfortunately, even Obamas legislative resume is light; he did not finish his only US Senate term, and did not enter the IL legislature until 1997. In other words, he announced his presidential candidacy barely a decade into his political career.


Well, how much COULD he push? He was only in office four years; first term Congressmen are to be seen and not heard. Finishing his term might have made him more experienced with the kind of Senate arm-twisting for which LBJ was infamous, but would also have meant missing the closest thing to a slam dunk for a Dem presidential candidate since 1976. He seized his oppportunity, ready or not; pity he was less ambitious and opportunistic in holding the office than in pursuing it. Yet perhaps he was not; he has done a great deal, just very little for the public, and nothing of merit.


As a figure head and salesman, what more could supply-side economics want? Remember, its most revered leader was "The Great Communicator."