That is a pretty rational assessment, Little Hawk, and I tend to agree with you on several points.
The current reaction to this concentration of economic power under huge entities(read Tea Party for "current reaction") is to say that government restriction and interference are at fault for our current woes. This approach is pretty much invalidated by results we have seen in our lifetime, where deregulation specifically in the housing, banking, and stock fund industries has resulted in manipulation by corporations that has actually proven destructive to those industries. In the absence of governmental regulation, the solution has been governmental salvation for these industries. In my view, you must have one or the other, and I much prefer regulation.

The taint of business influence on government has long been a major concern in my country. Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, both Republicans by the way, articulated these concerns and particularly in TR's case, sought to use governmental power to restrict negative influences on competition, such as the huge Trusts of the early 1900s. But in the name of Laissez Faire, their successors, like Reagan, both Bushes, and even Bill Clinton, have sought to restrict governmental control in industry.

I do think that Obama had real power to effect change at the point of his election, but the work required to affect this change is ugly, hard work, and if has fallen short in his efforts, I believe that it is in the area of articulating the crisis in terms the average man and woman can understand, which was what another Roosevelt, similarly set upon, was able to do.