That is the burning question that must be answered!  Obama had the benefit of following one of the most unpopular presidents in U.S. history -- George Bush.  

When John McCain was running with the controversial Sarah Palin, Obama again scored a great advantage.  That was because McCain was looked upon as simply more of George Bush's failed policies.

Obama's political cry for change was welcome!  And Barack Obama delivered his "change" theme dramatically and convincingly from coast to coast.

The June 22 Newsweek in an article by Michael Hirsh explained how the Wall Street titans are currently trying to hold onto power.  The article explained about one brave individual who has seen it all, and desperately wants what Barack Obama claimed to seek -- namely change from the almost total corruption of the business world:

America's liberals are laying into Obama headlined the front page Financial Times March 28, an article by Edward Luce in Washington:

"Paul Krugman describes the toxic asset purchase plan as `cash for trash.'  Jeffrey Sach calls it a `thinly veiled attempt to transfer hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer funds to the commercial banks.'  Robert Reich depicts Tim Geithner, Treasury Secretary, as a prisoner of Wall Street while Joe Stiglitz says the plan `amounts to the robbery of the American people.'

"Democrat economists accuse Mr. Obama along with Mr. Geithner, and Lawrence Summers, the president's senior economic adviser, of taking dictation from the same financiers who have brought the economy to the brink of depression."

Herbert J. Gans, professor emeritus of Sociology at Columbia University, on March 29 was published on the New York Times editorial page:

The March 26 Financial Times front page headline proclaimed "EU Leader Condemns US `Road to Hell.'"

The article by Tony Barber in Brussels and Edward Luce in Washington explained:

"European Union hopes for a new era in relations with the U.S. were thrown into chaos yesterday when the holder of the EU presidency condemned American remedies for the global recession as `the road to hell.'

"Mr. Topolawek said EU leaders had been disturbed at a summit in Brussels last week to hear calls from Tim Geithner, the U.S. Treasury Secretary, for more aggressive policies to fight the global downturn.

That is the question!  No wonder Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao wants fiscal guarantees on loans of billions to rescue the U.S. financial meltdown.

The March 14 Financial Times headline read:

WEN CALLS ON U.S. TO OFFER FISCAL GUARANTEES

Geoff Dyer in Beijing and Alan Beattie explained in their article the following:

The topic below was originally posted at the Intrepid Liberal Journal.

Arguably America's greatest trial lawyer, Clarence Darrow, famously once said,

"First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."

Reading this morning's headlines about A.I.G. utilizing $165 million of their $170 billion tax payer financed bailout for bonuses, reminded me of Darrow's insight. The excuse being offered after all is that a "contract is a contract" and A.I.G. must fulfill their obligations.

Isn't it curious how contracts are deemed sacrosanct for Wall Street beneficiaries but not blue-collar members of unions in the auto industry? Unions are expected to get "realistic" and " renegotiate" their contracts but moneyed elites are allowed to carry on as before. Anyone who has the temerity to point out the contradiction is "unreasonable," "angry," "extreme," or heaven forbid, one of those "crazy left wing bloggers."

In the Seattle Times February 9, David Sirota's syndicated column exposes the lack of change in the new administration:

"America was told that finally after years of yes-men running the government, we were getting a president who would follow Abraham Lincoln's load, fill his administration with varying viewpoints, and glean empirically sound policy from the clash of ideas.

"Little did we know that the 'team of rivals' was what George Orwell calls 'Newspeak':  an empty slogan.

"Obama's national security team, for instance, includes not a single Iraq War opponent.  The president has not only retained George W. Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates, but also 150 other Bush Pentagon appointees.  The only `rivalry' is between those who back increasing the already bloated defense budget by an absurd amount, and those who aim to boost it by a ludicrous amount.

That is the question!  As far as I am concerned it doesn't look as though the change Obama based his campaign upon will become a reality.

To begin with, not one appointee in Obama's cabinet was against the Iraq War.  The old cliché "birds of a feather flock together" is tried and true.  

Why wasn't Dennis Kucinich, who was one of the most courageous congressmen in blasting away at Bush's Iraq War tragedy, given a significant post?

Obama, you knew very well why the public voted for you -- your opposition to the Iraq War and change!