As we watch the campaigning for the 2012 elections heat up it is obvious the only questions are about one side.  We still don't really know all the GOP candidates heading into their primaries.  We know that the current president will be the candidate on the progressive side of the US politics coin.  He is already giving what amounts to campaign speeches and, though in low gear, is basically in the mode.

      From the time the nation became glued to the president's word's, image and speeches in the lead up to the 2008 elections there can be no doubt about the riveting affect the president has had over many and that includes people that traditionally did not support his party and even those that usually decided not to vote for political reasons.  There was a feeling to the president's words especially during his speeches that just radiated hope and good feelings.  It was positive all around
    Things stayed that way until the voices that openly called for his downfall and impending failure from the moment he was sworn into office started to gain traction and momentum.  Obviously those were mostly from the opposite side of the political spectrum of the president's.  They did shape and change the way he dialed back a lot of the hope and optimism and perhaps even at times drained his cup of enthusiasm a bit whether he wants to admit it or not.  The constant strange attacks, both in level and in tenor, that no other president had to contend with in the same way, surely wore on him.
    He moved much more to the center following the onslaught of attacks.  From the early summer of 2009 and for a year on the attacks were blistering and from all sides of the media.  The tone and tenor whether or not directly taking a stance on what the president was doing definitely was launched in attack mode.  To his credit he did a good job of weathering (if not a became slightly grayer) the less than founded in reality kinds of criticisms like the death panels, the communism/ socialism stuff, the nazi stuff and the funniest of all – the birther stuff.
    That certain people actually believed he intended to murder senior citizens, turn us into a communist nation, that it was even possible for a black person to be a member of the nazi party or that he was secretly hiding his birth certificate in an attempt to take over the nation are scary as heck while simultaneously somehow being being rofl funny.  He kept certain promises, but dialed back a whole lot on others including his stated stances on privacy and government spying on ordinary citizens as well as issues related to ensuring future financial ponzi schemes like the one tax dollars were used to bail wall street out of recently would not be repeated. 
    He is only a person and only one politician.  To have expected him to be some kind of miracle worker from God is expecting too much of any person or politician.   Like any other politician, he had a propensity to shift politically when trying to get elected or re-elected in the past.  Many people that provided him with support or have criticize him also.  As activist and musician Chuck D pointed out in January of 2008 regarding his shifts in position previous to his initial presidential bid, “his track record has been conservative [...] for various reasons so he could get ahead.” (http://www.publicenemy.com/index.php?page=page3&item=135) 
    But he is a politician and not sent from God, as musician and supporter of Obama in 2008, Questlove, pointed out in an interview when asked by Guy Raz, “RAZ: Your last two records, 'Game Theory' and 'Rising Down,' were sort of reflections on the political state of America. And both...
    QUESTLOVE: Right.
    RAZ: ...I think it's fair to say, were pretty pessimistic. I read that parts of this record were inspired by the change in administration, that optimism that many people felt in the fall of 2008. Is that true?
    QUESTLOVE: Initially, I felt as though we were going to jump the gun. During the time that it took out in 2008 to campaign with the Obama administration, talking to people, it was almost as if they were talking about like a magician or wizard. And I was like, okay, well, do people understand how the government is run? Like, it's not like he's going to wave a wand and we're all going to live happily ever after. I think that was one of the prime reasons why we decided to put on the brakes, if you will (makes screeching noise) just to - let's see how, you know, let's look both ways before we cross the street first. Before we make the happy-days-are-here-again record, let's just see how America feels. And sure enough, we kind of called it [...]” (http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=127911510) 
    Questlove and Chuck D both supported and still support the president in many ways, but kept an eye towards a detachment and realism when viewing what was happening.  Other well known people have been more critical of him on certain issues like Anne Hathaway, Angelina Jolie, Maria Shriver and more.  Among them were movie director Spike Lee who said regarding the BP oil spill, “Before this [Gulf of Mexico] catastrophe, our President was in favor of offshore drilling. And when this thing happened, he backtracked real quick.” (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/from-no-1-fan-to-critic...) 
    All those watching politics that have an opinion will not always agree with certain positions, but when it comes to certain promises there are expectations and with good reason, especially on the larger promises.  Aside from the balance between Homeland Security and government intrusion on private lives the president actually moved in the opposite direction and this was of course not just him.  After capitalizing on anger felt regarding this issue towards the Bush administration as well as the two  wars Democrats swept into power in 2006 and 2008 promising to implement reforms. 
    As of yet they followed president Bush's draw down schedule for the wars essentially and have actually increased the losses of privacy in many areas prescribed by the Bush administration.  This was not the only major promise he didn't totally follow through on.  He also promised to ensure another financial catastrophe would never happened again as best he could.  But, though legislation was passed like the The Dodd - Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, we remain vulnerable and often for the same reasons.
    When you look at some of the bill you realize it did not reform things substantially at all.  For instance, if you are going to place a watchdog organization at the government level to monitor the industry, then make it meaningful.  The number one problem with the watchdogs and movers and shakers within the government system that dealt with monetary policy, financial regulation, enforcement of laws and regulations regarding financial institutions was that they were almost all if not completely people connected to the private financial system.  Often times this was in big ways.
   When problems were developing that needed to be reigned in people with the same mentality as those committing the dangerous practices were watching over things.  Thus, a group of foxes were in place watching the chicken coop. And like those committing the dangerous practices on Wall Street they saw nothing wrong with what was happening.  Why would they?  Their attitude was probably like, “So what if there's a hole in the fence? Hey a guy's gotta live.” 
    When the president ran for office he promised strict and serious reform.  The point was never to hamper positive productive practices on Wall Street, but rather to prevent things like, oh I don't know, setting up bonds that were guaranteed to fail, selling them to your customers as too good to fail, and then taking out massive bets that they would fail - that you knew would be covered by the government; because after all the companies holding the bets that would be bankrupt if they failed could literally stop the wheels of commerce or a good chunk of it from continuing if they were to fail.
      The rules passed and implementations often don't address the problem of the foxes watching over the hen house.  As noted in the Washington Post many people have “criticized the bill for […] leaving so many critical decisions to federal regulators, who missed many of the warning signs before the crisis.”  And it's not just the fact they are federal regulators, but that once again these are Wall Street people that saw no inherent problems in the practices.  Previous to the collapse the idea growing within the previous two administrations was to let Wall Street police itself with a private non-government institution and that was where the government was heading. 
    Alan Greenspan said in 1997 “As we move into a new century, the market-stabilizing private regulatory forces should gradually displace many cumbersome, increasingly ineffective government structures (quoted in '13 Bankers').”  Yet as the NY Times blog post that quote comes from points out, “the new century has not, so far, gone well, precisely because 'market-stabilizing private regulatory forces' turns out to be an oxymoron.” (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/the-volcker-rule-after-the-...)
    So again as if to appease people we set up new government regulatory bodies, but put the same folks that would have been running private regulatory institutions in charge of things.  It's like setting up mobsters to run the branch of the FBI that enforces RICO statutes.  Perhaps that is a bit harsh, but this is not the first time this has happened.  In 2008 Goldman Sachs, perhaps the major force behind the subprime mortgage bond market that so disastrously collapsed, were hired by the Greek government to hide their mounting debt and cook their books.  Obviously once on the inside they got a good look at the real financial problems the Greek government was facing that is partially threatening to implode the EU now. 
    What did they do?  They began taking out the very same kind of bets against Greek government loans that they did on the subprime mortgage loans.  These are not the kind of people interested in fair play or financial morals.  They are interested in getting as much money now as they can until they can't. Then they split and like in 2008 we get stuck having to pay for their financial mess.
    We were promised we would never have to get stuck holding the bag again, and we felt that. We felt the love, we wanted to believe that was true.
    Talk alone isn't enough, however.  We need more insurance against these things happening and having the foxes watching the chicken coop again is not very reassuring.  There are people that feel as actor Matt Damon when he expressed his feelings in an interview with the Independent in March of this year saying how, “President Obama's record on the economy particularly rankles [him]. 'I think he's rolled over to Wall Street completely. The economy has huge problems. We still have all these banks that are too big to fail. They're bigger and making more money than ever. Unemployment at 10 per cent? It's terrible.'" (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/from-no-1-fan-to-critic...)
    But the possibilities are still there. The hope is still there.  The question is in whom should we place our faith?  What candidate will keep their word.  I'd like to believe candidates that say letting Wall Street police themselves is the best option.  But I fail to believe a candy store full of sugar addicted employees can just be left to it's own devices.  Especially when the future of the place ties so closely to our own current economic safety and future financial prosperity.  Putting the addicts in a government regulatory body to watch over the place does little to restore that faith.  Putting people from consumer protection groups and people that were there in Wall Street and tried to stop it in charge would.
    We need the follow through on those promises. We need the promise of the man and the hope of those words spoken if it is to be president Obama.  Bring back the change and bring back the hope whomever it is.  No one is perfect and he cannot be expected to be, but if full faith beyond those guaranteed to vote for him again is to be restored we need to see real action.  He vanquished the birthers, that was great and it helped him out.  Now show us the love of love by helping us out.  Demonstrate that promises made by a person seeking to gain our trust can be promises kept by the president we elect - a person who means what they say.
    Whoever the next president is – please let them be that kind of person.
    To read about my inspiration for this article go to www.lawsuitagainstuconn.com