Both sides (Dems and Repubs) practice nepotism. Sure it's hypocritical for the big Repubs offspring to spout off about "meritocracy", but it's just as phony for the similarly situated Dem's offspring to push "affirmative action" that in no way affects them personally. And remember, affirmative action (whether good or bad) is a government sponsored and enforced policy, while nepotism isn't, so they are not equivalent.

Obama and the Democrats were elected by voters for one overriding reason - To fix the economy. I mean the real economy (not Wall Street and the banks) which for most people means the unemployment rate, housing market and foreclosures, 401K balances, etc. So far they haven't done it; in fact, to many, Obama doesn't seem to be even trying to do it. Instead he appears to be "using the crisis" to push health care reform, cap-and-trade and the rest of the typical liberal agenda. While many here may support that program, it will do nothing to fix the economy in the near term (and no, for most folks, the economy has not turned around) and that fix has to come first. In fact, many now perceive the Dems agenda (starting with the stimulus bill) as aimed primarily to benefit "insider" liberal special interests and supporters, rather than the general economic good. Not exactly the "change" Obama promised during the election.

Obama and the Dems congressional leadership seem to have taken their eye off the ball as to why they were elected. And if they don't go back and focus on the economy first before trying to force these programs through, they'll suffer a disaster in 2012. Many Dems in congress see the warning flags, so don't expect much "rallying" around Obama, Pelosi, and health care reform. I wouldn't have believed the Dems could blow so badly the opportunity Bush and the GOP presented them last year, but they sure are doing it. Too bad.

Yeah, there's some "culture of impunity" in the US for the political elites. And sure, it's hard to sue public officials for actions that you don't agree with. But there's a reason for that - We don't want to "criminalize" political policy differences here in the US, like happens in so much of the world. Do some real "criminals" in high places maybe then skate from justice because of this? Maybe. But like so much in real life, it's a matter of balancing competing interests, with no perfect answer.

Some here may think it's wonderful theater and helps their cause to be able to harass officials you don't like, dragging them through various courts, ethics committees, or similiar bodies (like some political oppponent filing five bogus ethics charges against a certain Alaskan governor). But misusing the justice system and courts in this way (as against exposing corrupt politicians in the media, impeachment, recall, etc.) and just making the justice system another political weapon to use to try to beat up or get revenge on your political opponents, is a very big mistake. I see both left and right going down that path, and it's very dangerous. I've lived and worked in countries where the justice system was politicised that way, and it's the first step in virtually destroying any real rule of law.

And nice job comparing apples and oranges, implying the political elites here enjoy the same level of immunity as in the other countries mentioned. Try to even criticise high officials there (and actually in most of the world outside the Western deocracies) and you'll likely end up in jail or dead, not just having a lawsuit thrown out.

I see the liberal media and pundits have decided to play the race card now in trying to help Obama. Sorry, but that's a very bad strategy.

Obama was elected with historically high levels of white support because he seemed able to lead us away from the past confrontational racial politics of the Jesse Jacksons and Al Sharptons, and toward a new direction where where we could let race be basically irrelevant. Obama made a big mistake in putting that all into question with the "rush to judgment" questioning of the white cop in Cambridge, and now the Van Jones affair. But most people will excuse those as just showing he's human; we all have our past histories and experience which can affect our judgment. But Beck, Rush and his ilk smell blood in the water over all this, and you're just playing into their hands by opening up the old racial divides. The old racist blame-game, and guilt driven racial politics of the old liberal establishment are history to most now and not going to help Obama in today's environment.

Challenge his opponents' positions with logic, not with character assasination, if you want results.

Your linked NYT article says Norway is successful economically because it is very frugal in spending (we don't think it fair to spend future generations' money), restricts immigration (Norway is a uniform ethnic society), and on top of that likes to drill, baby, drill (Norway is a large oil exporter). So that appproach is contrary to Glenn Beck and the right wing approach in the US exactly how, again?

Don't you think drawing comparisons between two such dissimiliar countries such as Norway and the US may be just comparing apples and oranges, at best?