Just as every person has a finite amount of money in the bank, there is also such a thing as "political capital" and a politician must choose carefully how it is spent, because you cannot spend it well on many things. Obama used most of his political capital to overhaul healthcare, that was his top issue and it took years and years to do it. Now that it is more or less set in stone, he's finally had the opportunity in the last couple years to look at other important items to him, namely climate change (for which he also did some important policy-making work), guns, immigration, and the prison system. It is not easy to make sweeping changes to any major policy, and even getting one big thing done in 8 years is hard to do in the current political climate.

Getting _anything_ done in this administration is nothing short of a miracle.

Exactly right. No single administration in recent history has seen so much vitriol and tooth-and-nail resistance from the opposing party in Congress as Obama. The GOP went so far as to shut down the government to try to make sure Obama didn't get his way.

Don't get me wrong: Obama is definitely not without flaws. But I think history will remember him very kindly. The man has extraordinary patience and has proven time and again that he can remain mature and civil in the face of untold amounts of immature tantrums from the opposition.

I have read that the political tension in Washington is at its highest level since the U.S. civil war.

Funny how the administration got the drone program through and sheltered the NSA without any problems though.

At least you have the ACA, where the administration had to fight tooth and nail against a hostile right to get what they wanted. Oh wait, no, they compromised on almost everything and still passed it without a single Republican vote.

Weird how that narrative doesn't actually hold up when you examine the issues.

What does "too late" mean? He should not have done it because it did not come sooner? It's past some deadline and it can't/shouldn't happen?

Also, what does "pushing for legislation" mean if it doesn't include advocating for it in widely-read media?

You only read half the statement. I said "push for legislation to seriously curtail solitary confinement, for children and adults alike, throughout the state systems."

No I did see that. My response is

1) As my parent notes, He's still president. Time has not yet run out.

2) Publishing his opinion in the Washington Post is part of pushing for legislation, especially when we are talking about state systems over which he has no authority.

Including this piece, he has not yet pushed for for legislation 1) regarding adults or 2) regarding state systems.

'Too late' is only the first question.

Arguments like too little and 8 years to make sweeping changes - those arguments are far too myopic and cynical to be considered sound arguments.

Instead of isolated criticism, jMyles, tell me your ideas...how would you have done better. Issue identification is worthless to me.

* An executive order, on day one of the presidency, prohibiting solitary confinement of children. This is a no-brainer.

* The commission of a study, on day one of the presidency, to study solitary confinement across the country. This is a no-brainer.

* An executive order, within the first year, walking solitary back to the limitations it had in decades past.

* A conference of US attorneys, headed by the attorney general, to come to a policy regarding sentencing guidelines.

* In the first year of the presidency, introduction and advocacy of legislation to eliminate mandatory minimum sentences for all or nearly all nonviolent offenses.

None of these are controversial - every single one of these steps has vocal support from at least one member of both parties in both houses of congress.

There are many more steps that might actually take a small amount of political capital, and they too are worth doing.

But a single directive in year 8 of the presidency? There are children who have been languishing in solitary for years while this guy waited to release this statement.

True, but bear in mind that being "soft on crime" is something no politician wants to be accused of.

Bush Sr. used this to defeat Michael Dukakis in 1988, after an inmate committed a crime while on a furlough program Dukakis said could help rehabilitation.

Republicans eagerly picked up the Horton issue after Dukakis clinched the nomination. In June 1988, Republican candidate George H.W. Bush seized on the Horton case, bringing it up repeatedly in campaign speeches. Bush's campaign manager, Lee Atwater, said "By the time we're finished, they're going to wonder whether Willie Horton is Dukakis' running mate."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Horton#Horton_in_the_19...

Dukakis also suffered a major character blow in the eyes of the public during one of the televised debates when he said he would not support death penality even if his wife had been murdered (or something along those lines). It was an awful question to ask, but his reply was seen as unemotional to the audience when he reiterated that he still would not support the death penalty. I often wonder what the U.S. would have been like had he been elected. In any case, the American public apparently had a similar notion, since they kicked out Bush Sr to elect a Democrat anyway, just 4 years later. But that moment in the debate is often held as the defining moment that crashed his chances to win. A little silly, I think, but that's politics.

Disregard me. I didn't realize that he actually put it in place. I take back everything I said. Obama actually comes out looking good, and I'm an asshat

Publicly correcting yourself goes a long way to mitigating that last part, so bravo on that.

It's all about legacy. Obama is coming to the end of his 2nd term and he wants to go out on a good note.

As all presidents do. As would you or I.

Does it then not count?

If you believe a man should be judged by his actions, not his words, that pendulum swings both ways.

Dismiss this piece for being only talk, no walk: sure. But don't dismiss it because "it's for the wrong reasons." Who cares? If he does it, he does it! Win for society.

And if he comes out looking better in the process? Win for everyone.

I'm not saying you're wrong; I just don't think it's a bad thing.

(Maybe I read too much into your comment and neither did you… That joke would be entirely on me, then :) )