Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in the Democratic presidential primaries and took office on the premise that he would wind down America's role in Middle Eastern and Central Asian conflicts. But his legacy will be the contrary.
When I heard about the death of Maria Fernandes, an exhausted worker who died while napping in her car between two of her four jobs, I felt an my immense sadness that quickly turned to anger. Maria was a victim of an economic condition that grinds up low-wage workers, particularly women.
Unless President Obama pulls back quickly, his administration risks becoming absorbed in another interminable, unnecessary war in Mesopotamia with unpredictable but almost certainly negative consequences.
By Margaret Spellings, President of the George W. Bush Presidential Center and Bruce Lindsey, Chairman of the Board of the Clinton Foundation ...
Unlike the neocons that ran Bush's failed foreign policy, President Obama is not going to be rushed into another ground war. He believes he needs a strong coalition, including Arab countries, and a more inclusive Iraqi government, to ensure a broader and more enduring solution.
The world's strongest military bombing terrorists back to the Stone Age isn't a strategy. And it isn't foreign policy. It's the kind of macho rhetoric that got us here in the first place.
This is perhaps the greatest legacy of 9/11 and the two wars it spawned. A nation that, whiled honoring its dead, seeks to preserve more of its fighting men and women from being sent into harm's way to die for dubious causes.
This cause is part of America's great unfinished business. We all have a moral obligation to carry on until the dream of equality is reached in full.
Until now, President Obama's foreign policy appeared to be based more on reason than emotion. However, the rise of ISIL may have cost Obama his equanimity. After promising to strictly limit the mission in Iraq, Washington is preparing to expand the war to Syria. Instead, the administration should push other nations into the lead.
Polling doesn't suggest that the race is neck and neck. It has tightened some, but Abbott still leads by 10 points and has a huge cash advantage for paid media down the stretch. Something has spooked his campaign.
Any ambitious path of executive action must be conducted in a manner consistent with the law and the appropriate role of coordinate branches. But should we snap to attention when we hear hyperventilating about his supposed abuse of power? At least so far, hardly.
I found three of Duncan's statements particularly ironic. He wrote about his continuing commitment to a "spirit of flexibility," flexibility that is completely lacking in Race to the Top mandates.
Finally, after six years as commander in chief, Obama may have just articulated his guiding inner vision of leadership during an interview the other day with journalist Thomas Friedman.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama may (or may not) have hugged it out, but there is no mistaking that the former secretary of state is looking to create some distance between herself and the president she served.
American vision of reforming and democratizing the Middle East lies in tatters. The ousting of Iraq's Saddam Hussein have unleashed a bloody sectarian and ethnic wars in Iraq and in neighboring Syria and Lebanon.
The Tea Party and legislative Republicans don't seem in the slightest fazed by the governor's assertion of executive muscle -- there's not a single searchable peep expressing concern over McCrory's announcement that he would act even if his legislature did not. So what is real basis for Republican outrage over Obama's "abuse of power"?