I assume you're speaking of Iraq. While debatable (Iraq's violation of the cease fire terms was the proferred justification) one hardly makes a "tendency." Still, Obama can avoid entering into similar conflicts during his tenure, but he cannot produce a permanent change in this area. Future Congresses and Presidents will retain the war power regardless of what Obama does. And I'm not so sure he'd be a lot different than what we've had. He has, for example, indicated a willingness to invade Pakistan unilaterally if he doesn't think the Pakistani government is doing enough to go after al Qaeda elements there.

Nothing substantive will change in this area, I assure you. Old protectionist maxims are being wheeled out to dupe voters, but Obama is not going to back away from liberal trade policies.

The U.S. global reputation is far more complex than the Bush Presidency. There has been growing resentment of U.S. hegemony since long before Bush came into power. There'll be improvement but nothing drastic. Does he intend to lift the secondary boycott of Cuba? Will he repeal U.S. policies that exploit its economic power in the global marketplace? Will he stop attempts to assert influence in foreign nations? Will he close foreign military bases? I think the answer to all the questions is no.

Not everyone. Passing legislation requires majority consensus, not unanimous consensus..... and I'd argue that Obama isn't as much about getting everyone to agree with him as he is about getting most people to agree with each other... an important distinction and contrast from the current state of affairs.

__________________

Congratulations President-Elect Obama

Not a whole bunch. The forces of civilization are pretty entrenched. Probably the most significant change he can make is how the rest of the world views america.

Andrew

__________________
Ethanol is a fabulous solution to our energy dilemma because it will provide more fuel for us to drive around and look for food.

-- Unknown

I do not see how these two points are compatible with each other. How can Obama make US reputation and relations better, if he scraps international agreements on free trade? Is it not belligerent to unilateraly scrap bi- or multilateral international agreements?

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

However, as he is far left, how can he be better than the moderate McCain in reaching compromises and solutions in Congress? While McCain has a solid record of reaching across the party line, Obama has a record of voting that is among the most left-wing in the Senate.

__________________
President Josiah Bartlet: Sweden has a 100% literacy rate. 100%! How do they do that?
Leo McGarry: Maybe they don't and they can't add.

Depends on how he goes about it. However, if he does the right thing on trade, I think it's safe to say that while Europe will like us better, China will not. Unfortunate, but unavoidable. Take a look at the recent Chinese reaction to France and other countries over criticism of their treatment of Tibet, in the context of the Olympic Games. It's very easy to tick off China. We'll just have to live with it.

Europe will like us better, because the same thing that's hurting American manufacturing is also hurting theirs. Because American manufacturers move their operations to third-world countries with oppressed labor forces, an international competitor exists which is hard for Europeans to compete with, and so their manufacturers have to follow suit. Likewise with the Japanese. If we have free trade agreements with these countries, there's no reason to break them, as all are playing by the same rulebook. Even part of NAFTA can be preserved -- a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada is a good idea, just not with Mexico in it. But of course, the companies lobbying for NAFTA mainly wanted the Mexican angle, because that allowed the big labor savings; maybe not as big as moving all the way to China or Indonesia, but that's offset by the shorter distance and lower complications.

The bottom line is this. Right now, what we have is a situation that tries to pull every nation in the world down to the labor standards of the Chinese. If, however, we had a situation where free trade with the advanced economies was a privilege to be earned by enlightened labor and environmental laws, we would instead be pulling the Chinese (and everyone else who wanted that privilege) up to the labor standards of the advanced economies.

Change?

There would be a Dem in the Presidents chair.

There would be a person of a different color.

That would be about the total change that would be done.

We would still have the same .25cent inside the belt way just the tail of the coin and not the head or we would have the head and not the tail of the coin.

We would have the side that was on the underside up and the upside down.

The political machine is in bed with corp america and world corp that we would be told that there is a change but really no change would take place.

__________________
Fear the Government

If he could do all this crap without raising my taxes or centralizing governmental power, then I would vote for him.

__________________
"Officeholders are the agents of the people, not their masters."- Grover Cleveland

The 10 Planks of the American Populist Party
-Liberty
-The Bill of Rights
-Decentralization
-Democratic Process
-Non-agression
-Constitutional gov't
-Anti-militarism
-Oversight in gov't
-Read the Bills Act
-Accountability

I don't know how much money you make, but he isn't talking about raising everyone's taxes or even most people's. Given my ignorance of your situation, I can't say whether he's talking about raising yours or not.

I don't think it will be necessary to centralize government power more than it's already been centralized, either. Which isn't saying very much, granted.

He won't change anything of importance. Too many special interests to please and entrenched policies in the way. He'll just put a different face on an out of step empire with an unproductive and regressive foreign/trade policy. The US is missing the boat, Obama and superman couldn't change that.

__________________
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.”

Seneca

Superman, yes. Obama, no.

__________________
Who does vote for these dishonest shitheads? Who among us can be happy and proud of having all this innocent blood on our hands? Who are these swine? These flag-sucking half-wits who get fleeced and fooled by stupid little rich kids like George Bush?

--Hunter S. Thompson

I think if Obama were to win he would be able to do more than many give him credit for so far. I am assuming he would have a majority in both houses, his health care plan would have a shot I hope, and his foreign policy will change from some current issues.

But the other thing is that is being overlooked is the intangibles I think he would bring to the country. A sense of uniting after 8 years of true divisiveness, a sense of healing after 8 years of bloodshed. A big step forward for America. A new hope.

__________________
Abstinence Education at its finest:

Obama seems to be the most divisive presidential candidate in my lifetime.

What do you mean "uniting"?

Uniting what?

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

How is he being divisive?

The US has not been the aggressor in any war in the past 8 years.

The U.S. has been at war with Iraq for longer than 8 years.

Also, the Taliban was colluding with AQ.

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.