{Empty title} | The Nation

Referring to anything Obama-esque ocurring (or attempting to) in the last many months as revolutionary is genuinely going out on a linguistic limb. Any significant modification from one beleagured presidency to another has only been a blip on the societal and political radar screen.

In order to have anything "revolutionary" occur, there needs to be some thought and action which shows its radical (as in "root") origins, and, thus far, the Obama administration has either protracted and promulgated the moral laxities and economic toxins of the Reagan and Bush years, or merely mimicked the cheerfulness of the Clinton era.

Any revolutionary approach to the nation's ills would require both efficacy and efficiency, but almost nothing substantive has appeared, to date (Cash for Clunkers does not amount to much, in the grand scheme).

In Obama's speech to the UN (9/23) he said that the US was "setting its sights on" a good many goals, but there was no talk of actual planning armament or ammunition.

In order to have an appropriate explosion of revolutionary "change," some fissionable materiel is required. Thus far we have a pot of tepid water, simmering on the back burner: not even remotely revelatory, much less revolutionary.