|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 5, 2008 1:24:59 GMT -5
Thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by duster on Nov 5, 2008 1:42:15 GMT -5
I'm glad the Democrats got in. I think the U.S. reputation abroad is at an all time low and a change in approach and attitude was very much needed. That said, the honeymoon will likely end when Obama has to announce that there is no way the country can afford half the promises he's made.
|
|
|
|
Post by roke on Nov 5, 2008 2:12:05 GMT -5
If I were a betting man, I would say that there will be some disagreement with what I have to say, but I think the United States has elected a man who can restore their standing Internationally. duster is correct, there is no way that he will be able to pay for everything that he is promised, but I believe that Obama is a figure, a person, a leader who can unite, overcome differences to reach solutions.
Call that naive, and admittedly it probably is, but his skills as an orator are his greatest asset, and will enable him to accomplish things an above-average speaker will not be able to do, for they would not have the ability to persuade and articulate as well as he can. Once again, my naivité will show, but he I believe he may be one of the most inspirational figures of my generation. I have only heard recordings and read speeches of Winston Spencer Churchill, seen clips of Martin Luther King and John F Kennedy, but I get the same feeling seeing Obama and listening to him as I do those men. Now surely, he will not be able to accomplish nearly what Churchill or King accomplished, but like Kennedy I believe he will be able to focus that elephant to the South of us, or even great parts of the world, toward a goal. I also believe that, much like Kennedy, some of the failures of his Presidency will be overlooked, because of his speaking skills. There will be hiccups along the way, hopefully not like Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs, but should Obama accomplish what I hope he will accomplish, history will look fondly upon him and he will do much for the United States, and hopefully, the world.
Then again, I'm just one of the young, naive people who have been inspired by him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 5, 2008 3:11:19 GMT -5
Then again, I'm just one of the young, naive people who have been inspired by him. Sadly, I'm neither inspired nor young. Here is the reality sucks for his "Change". How is the bailout going to be paid? GM is going to buy Chrysler with public money. Who is going to pay for that? New MASSIVE social programs on the agenda. Old social programs (pensions, etc) need massive, massive funding as people get older. We are talking about 10+ trillions of dollars of public debt. 14+ trillion of private debt. It's a massive financial minefield. You can't spend oneself out of debt. You can't tax because that will slow the already dwindling economy. You can't "redistribute" wealth from companies in significant enough numbers because it will cause massive unemployment. You can't keep printing dollar without collapsing into hyper inflation. The economic path is oily, dirty incline into a deep recession and the cliff to depression. (I am using the word "massive" far too many times) Here are some economic "options". 1. Recession. 2. Deep recession. 3. Depression. 4. Stagflation 5. Inflation. 6. Hyper inflation. No amount of rhetoric is going to make the debts disappear. Countries that hold massive amount of American debt or cash (trillions) are either their economic competitor (China/Japan) or depend on the US for support (Middle East). Any mistep and they can react, which means the Octomber that we just went through will lool like a picnic. I wish he was a fiscal conservative and I would kiss his feet as my Messiah. As a "progressive" re, socialist bent tax and spender, CHANGE are six letters that can lead to economic hell. Sadly, there is no shelter from the napalm. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 5, 2008 6:20:32 GMT -5
I was listening to the radio this morning and Obama is already talking about a second term. I just hope he survives his tenure.
Sincerely.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 5, 2008 6:58:52 GMT -5
I was listening to the radio this morning and Obama is already talking about a second term. I just hope he survives his tenure. Really. Even though the election year doesn't end in "0" I have this feeling that some nut-job is going to try for another Kennedy "likeness", putting Biden in the Oval Office. So much for change. otoh, if Obama does indeed survive his first term it will be interesting to see what changes do indeed happen. Here is another word to add to HA's list: Protectionism. If US jobs are the key to a "return to glory" then barriers will in some way be put in place [or an attempt will be made] so that people buy American. The problem is that American products are more expensive than Chinese, and people do not have enough money [or enough will] to not buy the cheapest product. And tarriffs are not only inflationary, but prices rise and people don't buy because they can't afford to. Consumerism has caught up to North America and we are about to pay a large price. |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Nov 5, 2008 7:10:15 GMT -5
I was listening to the radio this morning and Obama is already talking about a second term. I just hope he survives his tenure. Sincerely. Sadly I'd be surprised if he made it through his first year!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 5, 2008 7:39:10 GMT -5
Then again, I'm just one of the young, naive people who have been inspired by him. Sadly, I'm neither inspired nor young. Here is the reality sucks for his "Change". How is the bailout going to be paid? GM is going to buy Chrysler with public money. Who is going to pay for that? New MASSIVE social programs on the agenda. Old social programs (pensions, etc) need massive, massive funding as people get older. We are talking about 10+ trillions of dollars of public debt. 14+ trillion of private debt. It's a massive financial minefield. You can't spend oneself out of debt. You can't tax because that will slow the already dwindling economy. You can't "redistribute" wealth from companies in significant enough numbers because it will cause massive unemployment. You can't keep printing dollar without collapsing into hyper inflation. The economic path is oily, dirty incline into a deep recession and the cliff to depression. (I am using the word "massive" far too many times) Here are some economic "options". 1. Recession. 2. Deep recession. 3. Depression. 4. Stagflation 5. Inflation. 6. Hyper inflation. No amount of rhetoric is going to make the debts disappear. Countries that hold massive amount of American debt or cash (trillions) are either their economic competitor (China/Japan) or depend on the US for support (Middle East). Any mistep and they can react, which means the Octomber that we just went through will lool like a picnic. I wish he was a fiscal conservative and I would kiss his feet as my Messiah. As a "progressive" re, socialist bent tax and spender, CHANGE are six letters that can lead to economic hell. Sadly, there is no shelter from the napalm. The thing is in this scenario, it might not matter what he does/doesn't do. Depending on what the economy does he just might end up the fall guy anyway, HA. I remember when this financial crisis first hit the papers. The initial reaction to many folks was "Bush-Bush-Bush". Well, after more information came out many of those people understood that Bush was simply now the front guy for an initiative made years ago. Obama? Like every candidate, he was willing to take on this mess I guess. A sinking economy and a war no one wants. I wish him luck. He'll need it. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by BadCompany on Nov 5, 2008 8:14:57 GMT -5
Truly a historic event; the first black President in US history. As Georges Laraque said, how can anyone play the race card now?
But I have to ask the question, with no offense intended - if George W. Bush isn't President for the last eight years, arguably the worst President in US history, does John McCain lose to a black man?
Obama inherits a mess. Or I should say several messes. Several big messes. Cleaning up just one of them would make his Presidency a success. I don't think it will be possible for him to clean them all up. If he did, well the worst President in US history would be followed by the best President in US history. I am reminded of that John F. Kennedy quote; "When we got into office, the thing that surprised me the most was that things were as bad as we'd been saying they were."
Having said that Obama will look good just because of who he is not. And he'll be able to ride that both locally, and on the international scene. US standing around the world just went up, just because Dubya and the Boys are no longer in power.
|
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on Nov 5, 2008 8:18:20 GMT -5
If I were a betting man, I would say that there will be some disagreement with what I have to say, but I think the United States has elected a man who can restore their standing Internationally. duster is correct, there is no way that he will be able to pay for everything that he is promised, but I believe that Obama is a figure, a person, a leader who can unite, overcome differences to reach solutions. Call that naive, and admittedly it probably is, but his skills as an orator are his greatest asset, and will enable him to accomplish things an above-average speaker will not be able to do, for they would not have the ability to persuade and articulate as well as he can. Once again, my naivité will show, but he I believe he may be one of the most inspirational figures of my generation. I have only heard recordings and read speeches of Winston Spencer Churchill, seen clips of Martin Luther King and John F Kennedy, but I get the same feeling seeing Obama and listening to him as I do those men. Now surely, he will not be able to accomplish nearly what Churchill or King accomplished, but like Kennedy I believe he will be able to focus that elephant to the South of us, or even great parts of the world, toward a goal. I also believe that, much like Kennedy, some of the failures of his Presidency will be overlooked, because of his speaking skills. There will be hiccups along the way, hopefully not like Kennedy and the Bay of Pigs, but should Obama accomplish what I hope he will accomplish, history will look fondly upon him and he will do much for the United States, and hopefully, the world. Then again, I'm just one of the young, naive people who have been inspired by him. Well, I must be naive like you. Real Leadership will make people do unbelievable things... I guess we will have to wait and see..... Certainly won't be worse than Bush..... |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 5, 2008 8:44:35 GMT -5
The historical significance of Obama's election isn't lost on me....the first African-American President.
The jubilation is more than justified....but I think it begins and ends there, because that alone won't clean up, as BC has outlined above, the several steaming piles left on the White House lawn.
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 5, 2008 9:50:05 GMT -5
The historical significance of Obama's election isn't lost on me....the first African-American President. The jubilation is more than justified....but I think it begins and ends there, because that alone won't clean up, as BC has outlined above, the several steaming piles left on the White House lawn. Here's a huge opportunity for the USA to prove they are the Land of the Free. BC, if he pulls those troops out of Iraq I think he'll secure a second term. If he finds relief for his economy ... My fingers are crossed for this guy. I just hope he's give a fair chance. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 5, 2008 10:31:13 GMT -5
But I have to ask the question, with no offense intended - if George W. Bush isn't President for the last eight years, arguably the worst President in US history, does John McCain lose to a black man? . Not a chance. Sometimes, I wonder....what are the masses thinking andwhy are they so stupid? Two years ago, the masses where happy as pigs in a trough to borrow and spend. Not that kind, gentle borrowing to buy grandma some underwear, but rather, the kind of borrowing that would get them on the quick road to gold faucets. Today, when the entire thing splatters in their faces, they want a nanny to wipe it away. Blame Bush for the war. Fine. But to put to blame Bush for the economy is to ignore their own avarice and stupidity. But hey, a lawyer with a telemproter really, REALLY inspires them.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 5, 2008 10:38:30 GMT -5
I remember when this financial crisis first hit the papers. The initial reaction to many folks was "Bush-Bush-Bush". Well, after more information came out many of those people understood that Bush was simply now the front guy for an initiative made years ago. Cheers. The masses STILL blamed Bush at the polls and Obama will blame Bush for everything. Look at the Liberals in Ontario. 6 years later and they still blame Harris. Never mind that they they govern with glossy cosmetics. Ontario lost a quarter of a million manufacturing jobs but the most important thing is......to ban weed killers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 5, 2008 10:44:07 GMT -5
I was listening to the radio this morning and Obama is already talking about a second term. I just hope he survives his tenure. Really. Even though the election year doesn't end in "0" I have this feeling that some nut-job is going to try for another Kennedy "likeness", putting Biden in the Oval Office. So much for change. otoh, if Obama does indeed survive his first term it will be interesting to see what changes do indeed happen. Here is another word to add to HA's list: Protectionism. If US jobs are the key to a "return to glory" then barriers will in some way be put in place [or an attempt will be made] so that people buy American. The problem is that American products are more expensive than Chinese, and people do not have enough money [or enough will] to not buy the cheapest product. And tarriffs are not only inflationary, but prices rise and people don't buy because they can't afford to. Consumerism has caught up to North America and we are about to pay a large price. Don't forget that he will also keep the sky from falling...while fixing the economy...while making the world a safer place..while bringing peace to the Middle East....while saving Africa. Did I forget anything? But hey, as long as he has a telemproter, he can convince people that they are about to enter Obomanation Wonderland. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Nov 5, 2008 11:26:37 GMT -5
I don't like Obama. Not because of his politics - he's a moderate democrat, so he's not so far left wing that I'm going to have problems with every project his government undertakes. But because I think he's come too far, too fast.
Credit where it is due. Obama is bright and charismatic. He's a strong orator, and he's got a sharp mind that will almost assuredly keep him out of the kind of trouble Bush got into when he went out in public. But let's not forget that four years ago Obama wasn't even in federal politics. He's ridden a very strong and powerful wave, a wave generated by mass dissatisfaction with the existing government and a smile that most politicians can only dream of. He ran ruckshod over the far and away favorite Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries (and Hillary - well, she's got some charisma in her camp too). He went into traditional Republican states and turned them to the Democrats. He attracted a legion of followers and was better funded than any presidential candidate in history.
And that bothers me. Because I see all these people getting swept along in Obama-mania and I think "are they voting for change, as they profess, or are they voting for Obama". Of the two I'd far prefer to have Obama at my dinner table (that's actually a lie - I personally would prefer John McCain - but that's because I think McCain would have interesting stories to tell and I'm a sucker for that kind of thing. Let's say Obama would be a better dinner candidate for most normal people) but being a charming fellow does not a great leader make. People with that kind of charisma tend to have ego's to boot, and things can go south in a big way. Hitler was a great orator and supposedly a charming man. So was Stalin. So was Hussain. So was Nixon. So was Johnson. None of them worked out terribly well.
There is a counter point. Many of the greats have also had charisma pour from every orifice. Lincoln was said to be a masterful speech writer, and the powerful words of the Gettysburgh address speaks to that. Churchill was also a great man before the crowds, who with words alone gave a nation the strength to resist when things were at their darkest. The thing is, of course, that both Lincoln and Churchill led their nations during wartime. Churchill was a trained soldier and knew war very well. He knew how to lead men in battle. And when Churchill was in power outside of war time he was revealed to be a very weak PM. Lincoln never had that chance, being murdered shortly after the American Civil War ended. He is remember for his speeches, and considered great amongst the Presidents for his leadership in war, but who knows what would have happened beyond that.
And that is why Obama makes me uneasy. Too little experience. Too quick a rise to prominence. Too many people following along - maybe because they want to believe in something again rather than the right reasons to elect someone. Obama has sold everyone a dream. But can he make it happen?
History says not likely.
|
|
|
|
Post by franko on Nov 5, 2008 11:39:36 GMT -5
Don't forget that he will also keep the sky from falling...while fixing the economy...while making the world a safer place..while bringing peace to the Middle East....while saving Africa. Did I forget anything? I say: but who am I and what do I know? the sky falls no further because of the impression of change and hope, and because hope will trump fear . . . the economy runs on its own [as ever], and because of the hope of change [am I repeating myself? . . . Bush is gone so there is an impression of change and h . . . the Middle East receives lip service and no more, but he will give an impression of caring . . . and funny how the people of Africa are looking to him as a saviour but will do diddly for themselves to rid themselves of despots. An interview of a manwoman-on-the-street in London this morning talked about Obama being the leader of the world [used to be the president was the leader of the free world]. I guess he may be president-elect but will put his emperor crown on in January. I wonder how long until the luster wears off and he is found not to be perfect. All said, I wish him well. |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Nov 5, 2008 12:07:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 5, 2008 12:39:45 GMT -5
Do you think they would have deployed their missiles anyway, PI? Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cranky on Nov 5, 2008 12:40:20 GMT -5
Didn't Medvedev get the Messiah's message? It's just the beginning.....  |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Nov 5, 2008 13:17:11 GMT -5
I forgot that McCain was going to straight talk Medvedev into not deploying ballistic missile regiments... possibly by sitting Medvedev on his lap and telling him a story.
This was going forward regardless of the outcome of the election.
|
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Nov 5, 2008 13:47:55 GMT -5
Do you think they would have deployed their missiles anyway, PI? Cheers. No I don't think....McCain is a proven Military guy, I'm sure (or would like to think) Russia would have wanted to at least talk to him before taking action. give him a chance to adjust the US stance in Europe. |
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on Nov 5, 2008 14:40:58 GMT -5
Do you think they would have deployed their missiles anyway, PI? Cheers. No I don't think....McCain is a proven Military guy, I'm sure (or would like to think) Russia would have wanted to at least talk to him before taking action. give him a chance to adjust the US stance in Europe. I don't know much about politics, but I don't understand how McCain being a military guy would have changed how Russia would have handled this.... It's not like Obama will surround himself with idiots ? He will have the same Generals at his disposition.... Or do you mean that Russia would be more scared of McCain (and Bush) and because it's Obama, they now think they can get away with it and bully him ?.... If anything, Obama strikes me as someone who would try to solve a conflict every way possible before sending the troops.... Maybe that's what the world need, more talks and less bombs..... |
|
|
|
Post by Polarice on Nov 5, 2008 15:03:41 GMT -5
No I don't think....McCain is a proven Military guy, I'm sure (or would like to think) Russia would have wanted to at least talk to him before taking action. give him a chance to adjust the US stance in Europe. I don't know much about politics, but I don't understand how McCain being a military guy would have changed how Russia would have handled this.... It's not like Obama will surround himself with idiots ? He will have the same Generals at his disposition.... Or do you mean that Russia would be more scared of McCain (and Bush) and because it's Obama, they now think they can get away with it and bully him ?....If anything, Obama strikes me as someone who would try to solve a conflict every way possible before sending the troops.... Maybe that's what the world need, more talks and less bombs..... That's exactly what I think....but it turns out that a few months ago he and Medvedev spoke about meeting about the US missile defence plan, however, when he lost that went out the window. Perhaps Obama should have been speaking with world leaders during his campaign run, instead of hanging out with the likes of Oprah and company!! |
|
|
|
Post by CrocRob on Nov 5, 2008 15:08:30 GMT -5
I don't know much about politics, but I don't understand how McCain being a military guy would have changed how Russia would have handled this.... It's not like Obama will surround himself with idiots ? He will have the same Generals at his disposition.... Or do you mean that Russia would be more scared of McCain (and Bush) and because it's Obama, they now think they can get away with it and bully him ?....If anything, Obama strikes me as someone who would try to solve a conflict every way possible before sending the troops.... Maybe that's what the world need, more talks and less bombs..... That's exactly what I think....but it turns out that a few months ago he and Medvedev spoke about meeting about the US missile defence plan, however, when he lost that went out the window. Perhaps Obama should have been speaking with world leaders during his campaign run, instead of hanging out with the likes of Oprah and company!! I could say that conversely, perhaps McCain should have been hanging out with the likes of his constituents instead of planning for his assumed Presidency. But in the end he likely would have bungled that up as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Disgruntled70sHab on Nov 5, 2008 15:12:14 GMT -5
If anything, Obama strikes me as someone who would try to solve a conflict every way possible before sending the troops.... Maybe that's what the world need, more talks and less bombs..... I'm really hoping this is the case. I was on another discussion board over lunch and as I said there I'm hoping there aren't too many rednecks who will disagree with this approach. If nothing else the high voter turnout and win for Obama is indicative of the US public moving forward with change ... at all levels. Would like to see this through. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by The New Guy on Nov 5, 2008 15:15:32 GMT -5
No I don't think....McCain is a proven Military guy, I'm sure (or would like to think) Russia would have wanted to at least talk to him before taking action. give him a chance to adjust the US stance in Europe. I don't know much about politics, but I don't understand how McCain being a military guy would have changed how Russia would have handled this.... It's not like Obama will surround himself with idiots ? He will have the same Generals at his disposition.... Or do you mean that Russia would be more scared of McCain (and Bush) and because it's Obama, they now think they can get away with it and bully him ?.... If anything, Obama strikes me as someone who would try to solve a conflict every way possible before sending the troops.... Maybe that's what the world need, more talks and less bombs..... It sure is what the world needs. Now try selling that ideology to the Russians. McCain would have a stronger hand to play over Obama in this type of crisis for three reason: (a) McCain is a military man. He understands how the military works. He knows how to use it more effectively than Obama. That's not a slight against Obama or his ability to lead in general, because the President serves many other roles than Commander-in-Chief and it's not a prerequisite for the job. Bush Jr. had limited experience. Clinton had none. Reagan was in the military, but did not serve on active duty due to vision problems. However it helps in military matters to have an idea of what's going on. (b) McCain is a social conservative and less isolationist than Obama. He would be more likely to see the actions of the Russians as a heavy-handed swipe at American interests. Consequently the Russians would probably want to tread more lightly - the idea being to rock the boat, not capsize it. (c) McCain would represent a continuation of the current political climate in Washington. While McCain != Bush, they do hold many of the same core ideals when it comes to foreign policy. The shift to Obama and the Democrats represents a shift in the climate, and consequently leaves a certain space of uncertainty for the Russians to operate in. |
|
|
|
Post by CentreHice on Nov 5, 2008 15:56:15 GMT -5
Fully agree with TNG in regards to Obama's out-of-nowhere rise to power. He's quite possibly the true definition of "American Idol" right now. Lots of sizzle.....time to check out the steak.
I was speaking with a fellow today who was based in Chicago for the past few years, and even though Obama's support is huge there, there are also stories of a "ruthless ambition" that left quite a few in its wake.
Then again, is any politician with aspirations of that magnitude not guilty of that?
Point being.....squeaky clean? Highly doubtful.
The mystique of breaking the Presidential colour-barrier will wear off. He's still a man....still a politician.
Many on the radio said today that Bidon was not his running mate.....rather Dow-Jones.
------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting times ahead......and I enjoy looking at all sides.
McCain is a good man, no doubt. But the Bush legacy would have done-in any Rep. candidate.
|
|
|
|
Post by jkr on Nov 5, 2008 16:14:10 GMT -5
I don't know much about politics, but I don't understand how McCain being a military guy would have changed how Russia would have handled this.... It's not like Obama will surround himself with idiots ? He will have the same Generals at his disposition.... Or do you mean that Russia would be more scared of McCain (and Bush) and because it's Obama, they now think they can get away with it and bully him ?.... If anything, Obama strikes me as someone who would try to solve a conflict every way possible before sending the troops.... Maybe that's what the world need, more talks and less bombs..... It sure is what the world needs. Now try selling that ideology to the Russians. McCain would have a stronger hand to play over Obama in this type of crisis for three reason: (a) McCain is a military man. He understands how the military works. He knows how to use it more effectively than Obama. That's not a slight against Obama or his ability to lead in general, because the President serves many other roles than Commander-in-Chief and it's not a prerequisite for the job. Bush Jr. had limited experience. Clinton had none. Reagan was in the military, but did not serve on active duty due to vision problems. However it helps in military matters to have an idea of what's going on. I see your point on McCain's military experience. What I find interesting is, recently, miltary experience doesn't seem to be the trump card I thought it would be to the American electorate. If you go back to the early nineties candidates with little or no miltary experience defeated presidential hopefuls like George Bush Sr., Bob Dole, John Kerry & now, John McCain. I'm not sure what it means. Perhaps the American public doesn't feel it is necessary or maybe they feel the a good president will surround himself with the right advisors. |
|
|
|
Post by HabSolute on Nov 5, 2008 16:14:30 GMT -5
I don't know much about politics, but I don't understand how McCain being a military guy would have changed how Russia would have handled this.... It's not like Obama will surround himself with idiots ? He will have the same Generals at his disposition.... Or do you mean that Russia would be more scared of McCain (and Bush) and because it's Obama, they now think they can get away with it and bully him ?.... If anything, Obama strikes me as someone who would try to solve a conflict every way possible before sending the troops.... Maybe that's what the world need, more talks and less bombs..... It sure is what the world needs. Now try selling that ideology to the Russians. McCain would have a stronger hand to play over Obama in this type of crisis for three reason: (a) McCain is a military man. He understands how the military works. He knows how to use it more effectively than Obama. That's not a slight against Obama or his ability to lead in general, because the President serves many other roles than Commander-in-Chief and it's not a prerequisite for the job. Bush Jr. had limited experience. Clinton had none. Reagan was in the military, but did not serve on active duty due to vision problems. However it helps in military matters to have an idea of what's going on. (b) McCain is a social conservative and less isolationist than Obama. He would be more likely to see the actions of the Russians as a heavy-handed swipe at American interests. Consequently the Russians would probably want to tread more lightly - the idea being to rock the boat, not capsize it. (c) McCain would represent a continuation of the current political climate in Washington. While McCain != Bush, they do hold many of the same core ideals when it comes to foreign policy. The shift to Obama and the Democrats represents a shift in the climate, and consequently leaves a certain space of uncertainty for the Russians to operate in. You might be right and only time will tell,... but I think it's time the Americans try to take a different approach towards the rest of the world, at the risk that Russia doesn't buy the "ideologie"..... It seems obvious that the Bush / McCain ideologie didn't do too much good as far as maintaining good relationships with the rest of the world....It doesn't seem like Bush was a very good "listener"... which is never a good quality when you try to negotiate any sort of peace... If Russia isn't cooperating but the rest of the free world (and maybe beyond) gets on board, I say the USA will be in better shape. I don't think more Bush scaring tactics is what the world needs right now.... I still don't understand how the fact McCain was a military guy give him such a gigantic advantage. Although the president has the final say, I'm sure they must consult with a multitude of experts and generals etc...... before they make that call. How would Obama not understand just as much ? ..... he will be well surrounded ? He seems like a very smart men ? How many President were war heroes ? Like you said, I really think there is a LOT more to be president than being the commander in chief. |
|
