I agree that your commentary is wrong, and I would add often wrong about Obama, just as you predicted him losing in North Carolina by how many points? 8?
Yeah, but I got the John Mccain thing right when almost no one else would predict a McCain win.
Although the observation about Obama's platform is not a prediction, it's an analysis of his own writing. It's standard Democratic boilerplate. It's change only in the sense that we haven't implemented such policies since LBJ. It's a much more liberal platform than what Carter and Clinton ran on.
So if a lobbyist for, let's say, American steelworkers wants higher wages for the millions of people he represents and a lobbyist for their boss wants to keep the wages the same, the lobbyist for the boss will win because the boss can offer the legislators more money. How is that fair?
That's not exactly true. Unions are very powerful and spend millions on lobbying. Until recently, they outspent corporations on lobbying and campaign donations. It wasn't until the 80s that the business world overtook organized labor.
The vast majority of his campaign contributions come from average americans. Forgive me as I've forgotten the exact figure, but something like 50% of Obama donations have been less than $20 per person.
The lobbying issue is complicated. Obama may not be influenced by their money, but he is influenced by his experience governing. For example, his energy plan consists of heavy subsidies to the coal and ag industries because in Illinois he saw how much the people there were dependent on those industries for jobs. He's naturally friendly to them for the same reason Bush, from Texas, was sympathetic to oil interests.
As Margaret Chase Smith said, "The right way is not always the popular and easy way." Obama has not been in politics long enough to lose sight of this idea.
He's been in politics longer than Reagan or Carter were.
I don't know who you're talking about, but that's not Obama.
NAFTA. He's already pissing off Mexico and Canada and he's not even in office yet.
Obama is the man who wants to meet with all world leaders unconditionally.
A position that only makes sense if you don't know anything about diplomacy. JFK, in answer to a question about when he would meet with Kruschev, pointed out that if you hold talks at such a high level and they are unsuccessful, it actually increases tension. Talks between heads of state should only be undertaken if there is a reasonable chance of something good coming of it.
If Obama say, goes to North Korea and gains nothing, he's going to look like a fool and his political capital will go poof.
That's the sad truth. However, our presence is hardly lessening the bloodshed.
Depends. We won't know until we pull them out. I'm okay with a pullout, but we have to have at least a vague plan for handling contingencies like civil war or a genocide or even a regional war.
First, those policies don't exist to help his friends, those groups became his friends because they agree with his policies
You will find very few people outside those industries who think that coal and ethanol are a viable way to reduce greenhouse emissions. Obama is thinking about jobs here, not global warming.
I can't give you a source to prove this, but you are dead wrong. I am a member of the youth and I can assure you that we are not a selfish as you believe we are.
That's not selfishness. Most young people need every dollar they are making. Most Americans cannot afford to give more. Young people especially cannot afford to give more.
You said it yourself, stem cell research is potentially lucrative. It needs government help to get it off the ground.
No it doesn't. Any technology that is potentially lucrative is funded lavishly by the private sector. The only research the government needs to support is that research whose practical uses are uncertain.
I don't know about you, but I see a slight difference in their viewpoints.
__________________
There is, but it's not particularly dramatic. There will be no actual movement on these issues at the federal level over the next four years.
Right on Taliesin-It amazes me also that people don't like the state our country is in-but a person comes along offeres change
He says change, but he doesn't mean change. He means going back to Democratic policies. If you like that sort of thing, great, but don't act like it's something new.