Obama FT Interview: Call For Global Unity

Financial Times:

merican presidents sometimes give interviews in the Oval Office. On this occasion Barack Obama chooses the nearby Roosevelt room, named after Teddy Roosevelt and his distant relative Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the last American president to be faced with a global economic crisis of this magnitude.

Then, like now, the president inherited a world economic summit in London that was scheduled just a few weeks after he took up residence in the White House (FDR came to office in March 1933, the summit was in April). Fatefully, Roosevelt chose not to attend.

Read the whole story: Financial Times

Comments

[GrainOSand]

I wrote earlier that President Obama is a politician. On this (to me), there can be little disagreement. The man is well-studied in the art and profession of politics and (I imagine) he continues to hone his skills. Calling him a politician is not meant to be a putdown. I mean it as an indication of the world within which, the president operates. That world does not allow for extreme candor. That world requires consensus and compromise. Master politicians judge public mood and package their message according to perceived “readiness for the truth” within the electorate. They build consensus and coalitions towards change, and are capable of knowing when compromise is necessary (tactically) towards eventual realization of overarching goals. I hate that world -- the world of politics. I am glad a man who loves it, who is good at it, and who by all observable information is a good and decent human, is sitting in the seat of power.

Politics is a dirty game...a popularity contest or a beauty pageant. The public is fickle and diverse in opinion, understanding, and concern for what “is really going on” in this world we live in. A politician cannot do more than the public spirit allows them to do, they buck the electorate at their own peril. A politician will not be a politician for long if they do less than what the public demands (theoretically -- in practice this gets blurry). The people are not demanding radical transformation -- yet.

[GrainOSand]

I read the article and listened to the audio. Apparent, was a skilled politician capable of gauging public readiness (reflected by its’ mood) for change. Perhaps he anticipates a national groundswell moment, or a collective moment of societal awakening ushering in change. Why would he walk alone -- as a politician? He needs to know the people have his back before change can come. He needs to know what the people want before he manifests what they want in policy. Low hanging fruit is easy to grab. To reach higher fruit of change, the president is going to need a lift via the manifest will of the people. (You want manufacturing saved and bankers fired -- make some noise)

That’s how it is with politicians, they are reflective of the times and the people. George Bush stealing the election was an ominous sign of the times, and look what eight years of that has wrought. Barack Obama is a sign of the times as well. He has the right skill set to meet the demands but success is not assured. It will ultimately come down to the will of the people whether he succeeds or not. The people will shape him as a leader and he will shape policy based upon his ability to grasp the will of the people.

I like our chances but I have seen disturbing glimpses of our history. May courage and intelligence prevail, for the good of all.

[mrskorn]

Oh please. Get ahold of that ego.

[quantumspin]

The FT is all about 'capitalist fundamentalism,' meaning: how can corporations exploit workers and countries and the land to fully maximize profit. For instance, one of their 'special reports' a year or so ago was about the really cool idea of privatizing water resources. If you read the regular columns, you see them hand wringing about, 'oh no, not socialism!!!' while they love corporate welfare, and globalism. As Thom Hartmann says, the FT is 'rich people talking to rich people.' And so, its a good way to read about what the globalists are thinking. The FT is scared to death of 'socialism' in the United States, but corporate and banking bailouts? Excellent-Idea. Disclaimer: I've subscribed to the FT for four years, and its how I spy on the same guys who gave us our present global economic mess.

[djwfutbol]

Very true in many ways. Yet, given the scarcity of in-depth news of any sort and in contrast to my interest in being well-informed, the FT still provides the most information on a given subject that I can find in one place.

In terms of the far reaches of the world, they still maintain an extraordinarily high standard of reporting, so that I can know something about the Tamil Tigers or the economy of Mali, for instance, long before the whole thing blows up in the world's face. Tough to do just watching Jon Stewart.

I am completely with you on the rich-to-the-rich aspect. Witness their real estate ads and "How to Spend It" supplements. So, I take the good with the bad and try to think for myself.

[larry278]

I'm repeating myself, but since Murdoch is making the WSJ into a general interest paper, FT has taken up residence in the financial newspaper niche formerly occupied by the WSJ. The FT has become America's only financial newspaper of record. Pres Obama & his supporters knew that while BHO was still campaigning to become the Democratic party's candidate for POTUS in '08. It isn't a secret now; it is a well known fact. FT is THE business daily in the USA. The users of FT are a practical, pragmatic lot.
Pres Obama is well on his way to claiming the practical, pragmatic niche for himself. FT is more than willing to aid Obama in claiming the title of Mr Practical-Pragmatic President.
I'm waiting to see if Obama can convince US financial & business interests that he is practical & pragmatic. Obama has a long way to go before capital is convinced that he's practical & pragmatic.
His spin on why Mr Pandit of Citi is accepted as a suitable person to run Citi & why Obama deposed Mr Wagoner from GM because Wagoner isn't capable of rebuilding GM. Obama's spin on that had better be good if Obama wants street cred on Wall St.

[TJCole]

Try reading John Stuart Mill instead Mr. President....!

[TJCole]

Teddy Roosevelt would have thrown these Banksters in jail, not make them the Overlords of the nation..!

[Skyhawk]

I started reading it the day Murdoch laid his tentacles on the WSJ.

[TJCole]

"Global Unity" in this case is the epitome of the Bankster Bilderberg agenda...the subjugation of mankind to the bankster cabal and life long enslavement through endless debt..!

Good luck with that Barack..!

[camper65]

BEFORE the Daily Worker?? I'm amazed!

[SierraL]

WHY ARE YOU HERE???????????????????????

[Betrayed]

Right on! Those who question the King will be silenced!!!

[camper65]

To make you NeoComs realize that there are other political philosophies out there with a MUCH better track record than yours!

[djwfutbol]

True. The real test of wonkery is when one's subscription to the Economist began. Mine, in 1979, when it used to come to my New York city apartment (several days late) in a brown wrapper, from England, like some nudist magazine. As I recall, the inside pages were newsprint, as well. It didn't get all glossy until later.

The FT showed up first in NY on news stands and in short-lived dispensers on the street. I couldn't afford a subscription at the time and these days still can't (well, I can, but won't re-subscribe for other reasons).

[SierraL]

WHY ARE YOU HERE???????????????????????

[deeppeace]

Whoa, slow down. You're yelling at the wrong person, I think.

[djwfutbol]

I'm sorry. Does this seat belong to you?

[VivaZapata]

In the Eighties the Financial Times had a readership of 1.