I’m not sure which Clinton policy measures you are researching but his “welfare reform” gutted the social net that served to prevent many from living in degradation. Clinton’s “job creation” was a farce as well as the “economic growth” that the country supposedly experienced during his presidency as evidenced by the financial “bubbles” that festered during his second term in office. Lest we forget the final repeal of Glass-Steagall, the full deregulation of financial markets at the behest of the three headed monster known as the Committee to save the world (Greenspan, Summers, Rubin [am I the only one who read Obama’s biography and appalled at the praise he feted to Rubin?] ), all of which was directed by the Clinton administration. Most of the financial advisers during the Clinton years have been utilized by the Obama administration. So much for the theory about “symbols v. substance.” Obama possesses neither the fortitude to implement a logical policy nor, in my opinion, wants to. He is nothing more than a Bush II redux with a more floral syntax.

Finally, as for dealing “Congress and the Senate minority,” let’s not forget that at the commencement of his presidency, Obama did possess a Democratic majority but failed to capitalize on it. Considering how simple minded the tea party’s positions with regards to policy are, they should be an after thought as with the religious right. However, and this goes to the very nucleus of the issue at hand, conservatives do not mind engaging in cut and run policy measures and because of the universality in which they are conveyed, it is very comforting for stupid people to hear and recite and further regurgitate said stupidity within their ranks. One cannot reason with these people so why bother; they should be relegated to the arena of conspiratorialists and similar half wits.

And as far as the notion that there has been an unbroken sort of orchestrated war against the poor is really to lose sight of reality and its’ particulars. Clinton was not unfriendly to the poor (although many of the jobs he created, to pump up his numbers were minimum wage and go nowhere), he did create many other jobs and he did do a good job at growing middle class jobs and opportunity— he talked intelligently about a global economy and preparing American workers for it. Bush and Cheney, well they merit the rage.

As far as the subprime mortgage debacle— yes, I agree that this was basically the exploitation of the poor (for the most part)—- but it is not really something that works as (or is suited to the imagery of war on anyone) conspiracy either. You have to be woefully ignorant of bond markets, rating agencies, the way people are compensated and the extent to which your average trader understands his job past fluctuating values on a screen to say what they are saying.

I know you are talking about symbols v. substance but I just plain agree with you that King dealt like a king in symbols and so does Obama—

I also add— in these scattered thoughts— that Obama is not a king. He cannot act unilaterally. He cannot be a king or a revolutionary in that sense— he has to deal with congress and the senate minority— it is a damned shame and I wish he would find any and every loophole he can to bypass them and I agree with Jeff that he needs to be more forceful— but he created the tea-party. Crazy shit. The tea party is the religious right by another name and they have been gaining in force for about 30 years—- Obama is not responsible for them. We need to start by blaming Nixon and go from there–