It's no secret that Wall Street holds the key to American politics. Obama did what he had to do. The alternative was having Republicans run the gov't. You have to ask yourself, would things look any different.
The US Supreme Court recently gave corporations the right to free speech, allowing them unfettered access to the corridors of power by doing so, and the Democrats want to pass legislation that will be bullet-proof against the Supreme court. They need to turn one of the 5 votes around, and that's probably Kennedy.
Now, if McCain had won, this would be a moot point. He would have appointed conservative supreme court justices.
American politics run through Wall Street and will continue to do so until the day that the country somehow manages to revamp its campaign finance and campaign system.
But, I note that Europe is not so different. There seems to be a cleave in Europe with financiers and ex-finance guys in gov't battling it out. So, one of them wants an EMF, while the other kills the idea, and what more, announces his faith in New York's rating agencies. There are two sides of the same coin.
Obama doesn't get elected without Wall Street behind him.
For insight into this dynamic, you should see how Warren Buffet and Sumner Redstone operate. both are Democrats with Democratic principles when it comes to social welfare, but they will not abide by one who even remotely threatens the flow (and lack thereof) of capital. Control is established through the media.
I have no idea why someone who is mixed race might be more susceptible to careerism than someone who is white, but...
i can...further to fall, higher odds to beat, both can focus the mind quite well.
great reply, full of good points, thanks Upstate.
perhaps it was not necessary to include that factor, if it seemed crass in any way, i apologise. ~"When an inner situation is not made conscious, it appears outside as fate." Karl Jung~
In that context, Obama's actual race is much less a factor than his perceived race.