Unfortunately, I don't see Obama actually making much difference where most people would say it really counts -- in the nature and structure of society itself. He had a culturally varied upbringing to say the least, which is a strength, and worked for what seem to have been reasonably socially responsible organisations between his degrees in Political Science (Columbia) and Law (Harvard), so if any top politician is ever likely to want to make a change, he's a good candidate.
The bottom line though is that it is money that is in control -- not just in the US, in the great bulk of the world's countries -- and the money lies mainly with the multinational corporations and the super-rich.
That's nothing new, and there's no way Obama would have been able to raise such massive campaign funds if he hadn't been seen as a safe pair of hands.
But even if he wanted to shake things up, his power to do so is limited. In my last post, I rambled on about Fractional Reserve Banking and how it's the banks -- private corporations -- that actually create money from being legally entitled to lend out more than they have. Note what this means: almost all cash comes into existence because it's issued as a loan. Loans need to be repaid. With interest. So every time money is created, greater amounts of debt are created. It's literally impossible to reduce debt.
We seem to export much of ours to social groups (and countries) who can't fight back.
Also note that inflation is the measure by which the value of a given unit of money decreases. Most people have their money in bank current accounts, which pay little or no interest. Cash under the mattress gets a guaranteed zero interest rate, obviously. To get significant interest from a bank -- about inflation -- you have to have a lot of money to invest. So, in other words, inflation is a tax on small savings, that large savings are exempt from, or even more simply, it's banks taxing the poor and on behalf of the wealthy.
But it gets worse still.
As Obama's campaign has shown, bigger budget makes a huge difference in who is in power. Once an administration is in place, money can -- and does -- have huge sway on what becomes law. Through choosing who to fund or not fund, which debts to call in and which to let slide, banks can exert a high degree of control over scientific research, business development, social structure, and most other aspects of modern life.
And the banks, ultimately, are controlled by that same 1% of people who own 40% of all the global wealth. (That's linked above, under 'super-rich')
So if you want to know why things are fucked up and unfair, why the people who actually do all the work and grow all the food are all poor and debt-ridden, and why it's not going to change, it's depressingly simple:
The super-rich control the banks.
The banks control the flow of money.
Money controls society.
Society controls the populace.
... therefore, the super-rich control the populace.
And that's the way it's been for at least the last six thousand years.
Despite all our progress, and our illusions of freedom, we're still all peasants, enslaved in a hideous financial serfdom by our infinitely greedy imperial masters. Our politicians -- like our preachers and our media -- are there to distract us.
If Obama tried to change that, for example by making banking a government function, he'd almost certainly be shot.