I found this to be interesting and entertaining stuff re deceptional Obama:

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/jemima-khan-the-things-you-say-sound-great-mr-president-so-why-do-you-end-up-disappointing-us-2302561.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/jemima-khan-the-things-you-say-sound-great-mr-president-so-why-do-you-end-up-disappointing-us-2302561.html

the golden rule of dealing with the 2 slipperiest characters in life - politicians and women - I expect to get get some abuse for that line - is to ignore what they say and focus on what they do - 2 very very different things...

which leads to another topic...

considering their innate ability to say one thing and mean another, plus their social savvy...why are women generally very poor at pursuing or not even interested in politics?

Wow Leo Tincrowdor you must have been rejected and neglected in life to say such a bitter stance regarding women. I'm sorry for you.

Funny though how we women, in many instances, regret that men say one thing to us and then do another (the exact opposite, in fact) whereby we are constantly reminded that acts are stronger than words - as you imply - but that, unfortunately, most men do not live up to that very simple expectation.

Since you expect to get some abuse from your line I will certainly not feed your masochistic tendencies.  Your golden rule can be applied to mankind, it is our acts that are important, n'est-ce pas?.

Why do'nt you open a new thread with your second topic? I am sure it will rise the temperature of the forums with a few degrees....!!!!! 

I notice that you are both not even denying being slippery and a complete failure to even answer the secondary question - a weird proof of womens indirectness

men are liars but men are proactive liars - women are reactive liars

politicians are proven liars

maybe women have it too easy so politics is not of interest ...why buck the system which benefits them?

All "men are liars"?, All "women are reactive liars"? Most politicians are proven liars, I'll give you that much.

Dude, you need to change your attitude, so young and so cynical! My man is not a liar, he's a great guy...and I'm told I'm too honest for my own good...

Please lets base our discussions on proven facts not emotional outbursts!

My research indicates that party politics are irrelevent. Therefor the scam is keeping people busy defending their party or bashing the other - similiar to sport rivalries.

Expecting your vote to count, is like expecting 3g cell phone calls to get through using a plastic cup and a string.

Here is a good read to start off with - a recent article, that speaks for itself.

http://www.businessinsider.com/politics-is-a-scam--why-i-will-never-vote-again-2011-6 

Yes - one must always keep in that mind that the appearance of power does not necissarily equate to real power. 

The same goes for the rivalries, the appearance of a rivalry to does not mean that said rivalry actually exists. 

Perception is reality, and reality is based on one's perception of what appears to happening - hence the games.

 

It wasn't the politically incorrect comments that offended some people...it was the ridiculous generalisations based on, well, let me see now....er, nothing!

Yes, you have made it very clear that you don't like the liberals. So, just out of curiousity, do you like fascists? I mean, when you say that 'equality works both ways' are you rooting to emulate the fascist and intolerant tendencies of some regimes in eastern countries? Therefore, if they have fascist laws in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, western countries should follow suit? Just because its a tit for a tat? or what? curious, you see.

Not to intrude - but I don't think that was the point she was making, yet rather the political correctness in itself is a virus.

I myself see "political correctness" as nothing but a tool to quite down conversations/debates on taboo subjects, or one's where to conclusion has already been reached. Which can only lead to people being less informed on said subjects, in comparison to a playing field where people are free to say as they please without being stigmattized for having shared their thoughts on the matter. 

That's how I read into it at least. What else could be concluded from the rest of that post - I will leave be and do not care to comment on

In a nutshell - political correctness, to me at least, is a tool to make up the minds of others.

Other tactics are used as well - such as being able to label a person/ a "---x---" because of their view/s. Making it into a "if you have this view, surely you must have these other view/s on other subjects do to the connotation of that particular word, whatever word or label is in question.

Not to intrude - but I don't think that was the point she was making, yet rather the political correctness in itself is a virus. 

I myself see "political correctness" as nothing but a tool to quite down conversations/debates on taboo subjects, or one's where to conclusion has already been reached. Which can only lead to people being less informed on said subjects, in comparison to a playing field where people are free to say as they please without being stigmattized for having shared their thoughts on the matter. 

That's how I read into it at least. What else could be concluded from the rest of that post - I will leave be and do not care to comment on

In a nutshell - political correctness, to me at least, is a tool to make up the minds of others. 

Other tactics are used as well - such as being able to label a person/ a "---x---" because of their view/s. Making it into a "if you have this view, surely you must have these other view/s on other subjects do to the connotation of that particular word, whatever word or label is in question.

P.s - I might have posted this reply more than once, I'm having some tech problems with this forum

Yes, thank you for your reply...actually it was a combination of two different conversations we were having on two different threads (Ban the Veil?)...it really was meant to go on the other thread but I posted it here by mistake...I've asked Nir to remove it now so it doesn't cause confusion.

political correctness is BS...'banning' certain words is just a poor excuse for bad reasoning

From my experience, the term "political correctness" is just a term made up by people who don't want to take responsibility for their views.  They want to make outrageous statements full of stereotypes without backing up their views with facts.

There is always freedom of speech. And there is no reason why people shouldn't be asked to explain their views. Most people who criticize Obama (or other politicians) on this site have rarely even got down to specifics and cited evidence. 

On business and financial matters, there is not a great deal of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.  On domestic civil rights, there is a huge difference namely:  right to unionize; abortion rights; equal pay; voting rights for minorities; affordable health care as well as a number of other issues.

To spout annoyance about politicians is one thing.  To generalize that women are "slippery" and "generally very poor at pursuing or not even interested in politics" is indeed sexist, (1) and ridiculous (2), given the steady rise of women in political positions around the world.

(1) sexism:  [a] prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially: discrimination against women and  [b] behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. [Source: The Free Dictionary]

(2) women in politics :http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm

http://www.unifem.org/progress/2008/media/POWW08_fig_chapter2.pdf

@ Leo: In 2006, this statement may have made better 'reasoning' on Swiss soil. In the last 4 years, three terms of the President of the Swiss Confederation have been held by two women.

Guess what? Going by the Swiss tradition, next year should see a lady gracing this position too. So yes, you may make a point about women in the Federated States of Micronesia but here in CH, you're slightly off the mark.

I agree with you on one point, though - politicians spin stories...for thats what seems 'reasonable' to most people. Here's a great 2010 BBC article that delves into why people vote against their own interests.

If it were Bush, he'd claim to be attacked by Greatestest Dippreshun and it'd have provided comic relief, but that'd make it easy to evade responsibilities. I guess Obama lacks that finesse & sense of humour. It sure is a problem.

In God we trust. Everyone else brings data.

An excellent paragraph from the article you cited:

"Right-wing politics has become a vehicle for channelling this popular anger against intellectual snobs. The result is that many of America's poorest citizens have a deep emotional attachment to a party that serves the interests of its richest."

"As Mr [Thomas] Frank sees it, authenticity has replaced economics as the driving force of modern politics. The authentic politicians are the ones who sound like they are speaking from the gut, not the cerebral cortex. Of course, they might be faking it, but it is no joke to say that in contemporary politics, if you can fake sincerity, you have got it made."

So, according to these angry, "authentic" voices, if you ask for facts, you're a snob and full of pc bs... 

Hmmm... well, perhaps maybe some "feminists" hate men because they can't find one... Many others are too busy to hate men. They are out there working for equal pay, decent child care, parental leave, getting deadbeat dads to pay child support, getting rapists put in jail or just trying to be great single mothers.

Then again, there are other feminists who are interested in men...not because they hate them, but because they prefer the company of women.

Whoops, in that final paragraph, I meant to write...who are not interested in men..

Why do you even waste your time hating on people who are religious or feminists or whatever?

Nah, Breshna. I don't think its the feminists she hates, its witches. Witches! Burn them all! Buuuurrrrnnnnnn!

*chuckle*

Anyway, kudos to your work and your husband. Best wishes for both of you :)

I must say, excellent choice of words.
I think there was another play on that - "In God we trust, everyone else we MONITOR."

@ In God we trust. Everyone else brings data.

--

Anyway, there is not much more I'd like to bring to the table.

Signing off, enjoy your talks :)

//HK 

I am a feminist (only hate those men who demean women), a Muslim (but not an extremist), a liberal (but I recognise that Freedom without boundaries is meaningless). I have been married for the last 15 years to a liberal, feminist Muslim and we have three sons...whom we are raising to be liberal, feminist, Muslims. So I guess my household and I will not be in your good books any time soon!

However, our ideological differences aside, I wish to thank you for bringing the political forum back to life. It was becoming a bit boring and now all of us have much to think about and much to respond to!

Cheers love, have a nice day!

What you see is not what you can afford and what you don't see is what you can't get. What you click is what you don't double-click. 

Someone's monitoring you and storing the data which you may use to support the claims you make on online forums. The Asians are then hacking all that and sending to Andromeda, where they are denied healthcare. So, stop voting because democracy sucks as much as republicocracy, if not more.

Plus, thanks to modern cosmetics, there's always a kilo more than the eyes can see; so believe anyone who says in a deep hypnotical voice, "Son, it is all MAYA - an illusion. Somewhere inside everyone & everything there lurks a conspiracy, deeeeep inside...think about it."  

We are ALL GONNA DIE!!!! 

Well everything I read from you is:

* Americans are backwards

* American women are bitchy

* Religious people are morons

* Feminist are frigid witches who can't find a man

* Liberals are overeducated morons

* Muslim women with the Ninja outfit want to impose their cultures here

If you're so enlighted and way more superior than the so called morons you describe above, you should not be on glocals but on Tibet speaking about the world and the meaning of life with his holiness Dalai Lama....

I don't know if they ever told you this but..... You have some serious anger issues.

Life is waaaaaaayyy to damn short to even give a f-*-c-k about issues that most likely will outlive us all and that we will not be able to solve in our lifetimes.....

Only evolution fixes things.... it has been proven throughout human history that only social evolution fixes the issues humans have faced since they came into existence, not you or me sitting in an internet forum.

It's funny you 'dislike' the same folks who're fighting for equal rights for women.

Watch out! Because of these witches and their uptight hatred, YOU may one day - be able to wear your mini-skirt in Pakistan.

Right wing and Left wing are all meaningless now - its just like choosing between Pepsi and Coke - they are both shit

Do we really NEED evidence to hate politicians in particular smugface Obama? Lets see...we had to trust them on WMDs for Iraq and 9-11 is definitely not fishy at all...and they have never screwed over their own public for twisted ends? Politicians - guilty until proven otherwise IMHO

Its NOT sexist to say that women are slippery - Are you dictataing that slippery has only on e meaning and that it is a negative one?

Just count the female politicians and you know that women are just are NOT that bothered with politics

revolution fixes things - evolution is the cowards way..lets join hands and everything will be all right and maybe maybe my great great great granddaughter will do the necessary fighting

the trouble is bringing this back to Obama is that people are too scared of being thought racist if they criticise him...in short if Obama were white few people would put up with the level of BS that he spews. So really TPTB are just using blacks against blacks and a fear of a calling a spade a spade (pun is intended)

Now if someone can seriously explain WHY Obama deserved the Nobel Peace award I'd be curious to hear their twisted reasonings

man of peace...no way he is just a sick fuck

I categorise Bush and the Repubs in general as straightforward evil - and come on Bush's ineptness with the English language IS funny...but Obama, Clinton etc do not even have that going for them...smugness by the boatload...humour and charm ...NO. But  what it all comes down to is actions and BO and crew have just not really turned things around instead they have escalated them while saying the opposite....so not only they are worse but they have that added extra factor of deceit - double evil or in fact evil squared

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/01/torture/index.html

Obama, shame on you!

Mate, seriously - is there an actual medical term for your condition? 

You know, I think we will probably all find that we have more in common than we think we do. We're all reasonably well-educated, all been internationally exposed and most of us on this forum have questioning minds.

No one likes feeling attacked. The natural response of someone who is feeling beseiged is to fight back. I think a lot of it is how we say things. For instance, instead of calling feminists 'witches' or making statements like 'religion is rubbish' which are sure to raise people's hackles, we could say "I don't like feminists who hate men"...or "I think religion has been responsible for a lot of pain and suffering in the world". These are reasonable statements and we can support them with a fact or two. This facilitates the debate without the unpleasantness.

I enjoy reading, responding and following the political forum but I really don't like vitriolic attacks on whole groups of people or any one person.

Politicians are proven liars reminds me of Claud Cockburn's maxim "Don't believe anything until it is officially denied".

As for proactive vs reactive I find Michele Bachman and Hilary Clinton to be quite pro-active - but then being politicians does that exclude them from the 'normal' male and female liar dichotomy? Some men and women combine the two and are often sociopaths - lies and alibis - twisting and turning to avoid the shame of being caught. Remember the torturous interview to which Oprah subjected the authour of a Million Little Pieces, James Frey?!

For examples of Bachman's proactive lying, take a gander: http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/28/a_perfect_product_of_the_religious

I don't think it is so simple to say one is worse than the other. Which criteria do you use and how do you account for the environment/times in which different presidents rule? Obama has only two years in office as well. And the mess Bush made was a continuation at least in the finacial arena of what people like Clinton had initiated by repealing Glass-Steagall, so called welfare reform.

Still Bush managed on his own to mess up Iraq and Obama doesn't seem capable of fixing that mess nor reducing base presence worldwide. In Afghanistan his surge (or was that Petaeus'?) has led to more combat attacks against Americans and is an utter failure: http://counterpunch.org/porter07042011.html

Having said all that, I think it's a mistake to look for messiahs and to recognise that Obama is one in a long line of similar presidents and administrations, keeping many of the Bush administration or recycling some from the Clinton era, and special emmissaries from even further back, so one can more or less expect a continuation of things past. I don't think Obama will be the Change You Can Believe In, Nero or the last emperor but just one in a line of last emperors.

I am and was as puzzled by the Noble prize for so called intentions rather than any proven actions to further peace. He called MLK and Gandhi (I believe) more or less naive in his speech as he as commander in chief had to work in the real world (whereas by implication MLK and Gandhi were floating on clouds and not being beaten, imprisoned, spied on, sent letters to commit suicide etc.).

I don't think people are scared of being branded racists - I've read too many black political/social commentators criticising Obama to believe that proposition. People of all colours want to believe (human nature and naive) and give him the benefit of the doubt esp. after the Bush disaster years even though literally and theatrically comically entertaining as those years were - not finding his way out of a room, "nucular" etc. The question is how long will people give BO before turning off (more likely than turning against - witness the midterm elections!). (It's the economy stupid!).

As for revolution, I think it was Christopher Hitchens (perhaps quoting someone else) who said that a revolution replaces one corrupt regime with another whereas a rebellion forces a regime to modify. Debatable semantic argument as one considers the Cuban revolution (or was it a rebellion?) and the rebellions in Tunisa, Egypt.

BO is not a sick fuck but rather a product of an elite education, a static political system where advancement isn't necessarily by doing the right thing but finding and motivating your niche of supporters (especially the big paying ones like BO's Wall Street friends, Geitner, Paulsen, Sumners). Clinton wasn't much different. Bush had oil money. LBJ had Brown Root and Kellog (later to become Halliburton). It's the system and not the individual politician (otherwise they're all sick fucks and there I'm more likely to agree than singling out BO).

Finally what's the difference between Cameron, Clegg, Blair, Thatcher, Major, Milliband, Prodi, Berlusconi, Sarkozy, DSK, Segolene Royal etc?

It is good however that you provoke others out of their comfortable somnabulent hologram!

The Nobel Committee makes its own decisions. Here is the list of laureates.  Some were obviously more deserving than others.

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/

That said, it is way too early to make pronouncements on the Obama Administration or its potential legacy. Many commentators, particularly those on the foreign side have little to no idea of the interaction of the 3 branches of the US government. In this system, the US President is not all powerful. In the case of Democratic party presidents, they are often hampered by the centrist and more conservative elements of the party.

Whatever people may believe about Obama, there are many worse amongst the Republican candidates. 

I should hope the committee makes its own decisons and doesn't ask Macdonalds to do so but what is the relevance of that remark. The question asked was why a person got a peace prize for not having done any peace work? It would be like offering the prize in Physics to Herta Muller!

I agree it is to early to make final pronouncements but one doesn't wait until the appendix bursts before make prognostications. And I have yet to hear anyone say or imply that Presidents are all powerful. I for one have indicated vested interests and influences as well as constituencies which is clear proof the President must respond to and keep in mind others than him/herself. The question is who are these interests? And why are they his/her constituency?

In the end the proof will be in the pudding one or two terms down the line and a relevant question will be by which criteria and according to which efforts undertaken or not to solve some of the major pproblems facing the US (and other countries). Recent statistics sow the surge to have been a failure so far and thus what do you conclude? Was it a foreseeable mistake in the first place? Do you now stay the course and hope for the best or scram as many American opinion polls seem to indicate Americans want.

Why one should particularly pick out foreign observers is a bit beyond me. I grew up in Canada and am sure there are Russians who know more about my country, its geography, history and government than I do. Also having worked in an area does not make one an expert on everything in that area nor necessarily better informed on it. I've worked extensively in the Pharmaceutical industry but there is far more I don't know than what I do know in that area. This, in my opinion applies to all areas of human endeavour.

In fact work in government might be posited to have indoctrinated one into believing how certain things work and what so-called obstacles are. Ellsberg discovered an obstacle and that was willing blindness to see the reality of the history of the US war involvement in Viet Nam and he overcame that by going into the field literally, walking through marshes on day and night patrols, travelling the country and reading cables showing the Tonkin Gulf Affair to be anything but certain to be an attack by North Vietnamese. Yet people wanted to believe and hence the war dragged on. Ellsberg did the simple thing and opened his eyes and that of America and helped bring that sad war to an end.

So being in the system is often an opportunity to understand it but also to misunderstand it.

The Republicans have there divisions too. Parties change over time as the Southern Democrats did and the south became Republican property.

Obama had a chance to fix some things in the first midterm with Democratic control of the house and some LBJ like politicking but he didn't. He catered to Wall Street, General Motors, off-shore drilling, and a host of other pre-existing maladies - so it is fair to pass some judgement and make some prognostications at this current time.

Certainly there are worse than Obama but I bet there are some who are better.

Obama had to promise so much to get elected. It was clear that he would not be able to fulfill all the wishes of his supporters, because even the power of an US-President is limited.

But I think this is a general problem of all democracies. Usually you only have a chance to win elections, if your campaign is very emotional. But after you are elected only the facts count. And because of that there is usually a big gap between the expectations of the supporters and the action of the new government and then the distance between the population and the politicians increases. I don't know how this can be prevented. Anybody has an idea?

para 1:

My point about the Nobel Committee making the choice is that it was not Obama's fault he was awarded this accolade. From a political point of view, it was not really helpful.

para 2: The consistent focus on President and Prime Ministers tends to reduce the conversation towards the too simplistic. There are two overriding powers in many western political systems: the financial and military sector.

para 3: Many foreign observers/commentators tend to focus their anaylsis on Presidential policies and actions, not understanding the complexity of the interactions. There may be Russians who know more than yourself about Canada. The level of this debate -- with one or two exceptions -- does not show that kind of analysis or argument.

para 4: Work in government or an industry could lead one to being indoctrinated, yes. However, Ellsberg, a government employee, was particularly effective because he understood fully the existence and importance of government documents. Many people outside the system cannot effect this kind of change alone. Whistleblowers and leakers amongst government employees have changed US history. TThe FBI official who steered reporters in the direction of Nixon's Watergate break-in fiasco is just one example

para 5.  Of course, Republicans have their divisions. However, Republicans have generally shown much more party discipline over the past several decades.  One reason is because Republicans tend to be much more ruthless in punishing their wayward colleagues. Democrats have been less willing to do so and sometimes even tend to reward recalitrant members.

This is one reason why it may not be wholly correct to posit that because the Democrats controlled the Congress in the first half of the Obama should have gotten more done or done things differently. With the sole exception of health care legislation, Nancy Pelosi could not be said to be an effective Speaker of the House.

The Democrats have been infamous for lack of party discipline. The LBJ-like days of influencing members of Congress are long gone. LBJ knew how to do this, in large part, because he was a long-serving member of Congress and he had the personality to wield the power. Then again, LBJ got the US fully engaged in Vietnam.

Yes there are worse out there than Obama. Those who might be better are unlikely to have the political muscle to get elected. The only one who comes close is Hillary Clinton and she is certainly far more conservative than Obama on foreign policy.

Arun,

I'm not quite sure how you read that out of what I wrote. I was just referring to human behaviour in general.

And the bit about monitoring was something that some else said earlier in thread, which I found pretty funny and clever - that's it.

Democracy works - given that you have in informed voting public.
On the other hand, if the voting public is not informed it undermines the whole concept.

To put it more simply, just so you don’t misunderstand me this time around.
Like a car, you see - it’s works, as long as all the parts work. Say the engine gets blown out, it’s not so likely to work as well. It has to do with the right components functioning properly.
So one could conclude that, democracy might be in need of some fine tuning is some countries.
Because like with cars, you have more than one - therefor just because one works, doesn’t mean they all work and vice versa.

Things are not always one way or another - some people just like to give issues some thought, whether those issues are political or not.

I advise you to steer clear of making assumptions about people who you do not know - based on ill-founded conclusions that you, not the writers of the text drew up. For it could not possibly benefit you in any way, rather just make you look - well I’m sure you can fill in the blanks, or the other readers can at least.

If you reply - don’t expect one from me. I have not the time to argue with you any longer, I filled my foolish topic rebuttals quota with this post.

Dear Hogni,

On one hand, we agree...democracy works and needs an informed public.

On the other hand, you have previously said:

"Here is a good read to start off with - a recent article, that speaks for itself..."

and quoted an article that is titled, "Why I will never vote again," which makes a pretty weak case on strategic complicity at a Federal level of the subject we discuss, ignoring everything else that makes a democracy. Thus, regrettably making no case against universal suffrage that it promises thro' its title. 

As you've pointed out, by writing it myself and also using words like Maya I didn't reinforce the idea - that it is I, who's elaborating my thoughts. So if you've found a way to analyze my post to the extent that it is I who is presenting YOUR thoughts and therefore I'm a juicy 'fill in the blank'. 

Either ways, this year I welcome all free advice on my 'image' however, only if accompanied by beer. 

It is, after all about, as you rightly said, perception...and we're on the same page. I fail to understand what you disagree with - Are we all not gonna die? I'm already famously foolish.  If you don't reply, I'll be foolish and ignorant. I'll have to learn to live with it, while filling up blanks.

Oops, sorry. Wrong phrase & foolish 'mistkae' - not "against universal suffrage" Against how every vote counts...

Dear Arun,

I'm simlpy replying to retrackt my "I won't reply....." - this post warrents that much.

I am not one to judge you as ignorant or foolish - nor do you look so highly upon myself that I think I should be trying to re-shape anyone's image over an online forum.

I simply expressed my thoughts to you previous reply - which I found to be foolish, unlike this last post of yours.

Thank you for your imput and have good day :)

*Well I've now learned my lesson - don't press "post" until I've double checked my spelling.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/06/science/earth/06epa.html?_r=1&hp

An article regarding US Environmental Protection Agency's efforts push for tougher environmental regulations and opposition from some in Congress and industry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/science/earth/21warming.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=liptak%20and%20emissions&st=cse

Article on recent Supreme Court decision reaffirming the EPA's role in regulation.

Ah, another Pilger article. Oh joy! Oh rapture! And how interesting how the first two paragraphs are all about John Pilger's film being "censored" by the US Public Broadcasting Station in 1980.

And guess what, the article is not really at all about "[T]he strange silencing of liberal America" but all about how another Pilger film and talk has been cancelled. Oh, boo-hoo!  It seems Pilger needs the US of A more than the US of A needs Pilger...

As Marksist and many others can attest, the US "liberal" media doesn't really need Pilger in order to criticize Obama. We have lots and lots of homegrown sources who are doing a stellar job.  Amongst these sources are Salon, Huffington Post, The Nation, Counterpunch, Democracy Now... the list is almost endless.

http://www.thenation.com/article/161094/three-strikes-and-youre-hot-time-obama-say-no-fossil-fuel-wish-list

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/07/01/torture/index.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lynn-parramore/et-tu-obama-talk-of-socia_b_892568.html

http://www.counterpunch.org/madar07072011.html

Finally, Obama's greatest achievements to date include passing the first ever national health care program and to be the first US president to have appointed 2 women to the US Supreme Court, including the first woman of Latino descent.

Yes, Obama could not achieve a lot so far. But the main reason are the Republicans, who just obstruct everything they can. Maybe the Republican party was a reputable option in former decades, but in my eyes they are becoming more and more fundamentalistic. Yes, there are also similar nationalistic parties in Europe (like SVP in Switzerland), but not with the ability to get so much influence on the world policy. That's why I really hope that the Republican party will not get into power until they have said Goodbye to the people of the Tea Party and decided to become more liberal and responsible-minded again.

http://www.economist.com/node/18928600