Despite my general cranky-pants attitude I’m an optimist. The US is about the future. I have not wavered from my support for Obama, not because I agree with everything he says, or think he’s the anointed one, but because he holds out at least the possibility, however slight, of a better future.

I have kids. Have to go with the guy I at least hope can give them a better country. Of course, knowing my kids they’ll promptly set about breaking the country and fighting over the pieces, but hey, I’ll have done what I could.

I’m of mixed minds when it comes to reform, though. On the one hand, I agree with you that a divided gov’t could come up with reform that’s more of a compromise between the ideas both sides have. But it’s also a stalemate recipe, which is maybe the last thing we need. So on the other hand, a gov’t where one party controls the exec and legis branches is better able to swing reform strongly in one direction. A good direction? That’s a partisan mileage issue, right?

When I consider this, it does give me pause when I consider the high likelihood that Obama rubber stamps his party’s big gov’t/new programs approach. Obama seems smart and realistic, so I have kept waiting for him to show sensible deviation from party line approaches. But so far he really hasn’t. Will he do so after getting elected? OK to hope for, but no reason to expect it at this point.

Cast our minds ahead a bit, presuming Obama wins. What does he have to do to be a two-term President if the incipient economic malaise extends 2, 3, or more years? If he enacts a bunch of “tax the rich and big businesses for new programs” approach and things stay bad, I think that makes him a one-termer.

I think that either Obama shows a thirst to understand economics and a facility for it, and deviates from a very liberal approach, or the next President needs to be an economist, If we have an ongoing lousy economy come 2011, whose prospects does that help most? Mitt Romney’s? Clearly, with hindsight, Romney would have been a very fortuitous choice for McCain. In fact, that would be a very interesting October surprise if Palin were to step aside so that a guy well-versed in economics could be on the GOP ticket.

Also, whatever reforms you may have in mind for McCain, he, McCain has probably already rejected them and moved on to the neo-con poistions. He’s a reformer in his own mind. Period.

After George Bush defamed him and his family, he hugs George Bush. What kind of man is this? He sold his soul long ago. Goldwater could not stand him and the Reagans could not stand him. Whatever one thinks of their their policies, no one ever seriously doubted the integrity of either one.

As mayor of Wasilla, Palin hired a city administrator, as Salon wrote:

When Palin ran for mayor, she dismissed concerns about her lack of managerial expertise by saying the job was “not rocket science.” But after a tumultuous start, marked by controversial firings and lawsuits against the city, Palin felt compelled to hire a city manager named John Cramer to steady the ship.“After all her boasting about her executive experience, what did she do?” asks a longtime borough official, who, like many in local circles, requested anonymity because of Palin’s reputation for vengeance…“The borough takes care of most of the planning, the fire, the ambulance, collecting the property taxes. And on top of that she brought in a city manager to actually run the city day to day.”

The Anchorage Daily News reported about the city administrator position:

(Palin was) reworking the city budget to find money for the $50,000-a-year position, which had been empty for several years. Critics said it showed she wasn’t up to the job, but Palin defended it as necessary for the fast-growing city.

The Washington Post reported more on Wasilla’s government:

The universe of the mayor of Wasilla is sharply circumscribed even by the standards of small towns, which limited Palin’s exposure to issues such as health care, social services, the environment and education.

http://dailysource.org/palin

the post before mine mentioned the prosecution of past misdeeds and if you care at all about that you have to go obama. mccain has not demonstrated that he recognizes any misdeeds to prosecute.

I only know about each candidate’s economic advisers, but from what I can tell (and coming from an Obama supporter, though I try hard to not be too partisan) Obama has a pretty diverse group of moderates, and although they tend to be left-leaning they are well-respected among all persuasions in their respective fields. McCain appears to have less qualified advisers on economic issues and they seem to be a bit more partisan, judging by run-downs on each candidate’s economic policies by institutions such as the Tax Policy Center.

Anyway, if anyone has more information on advisers in other areas such as foreign policy that might be useful. Also if people are interested I will provide links to each candidate’s respective list of advisers.

I am leaning to wards Obama too, but I have made a recent decision regarding McCain. After all I have seen of his straight talk and how he has shown his honor, there is no way in hell I am voting for him!

Can he swing me back? Maybe. But he better be very impressive.

So I probably will vote for Obama. I believe it is my duty to vote for the best candidate, and if I can’t vote Obama for some unforeseen reason, I will chose a 3rd party candidate.

Many say it would be a wasted vote. Keep in mind that if enough votes are cast for a 3rd party candidate, that candidate can receive federal funds next election. We were not founded on a two party system. I don’t like how the two current parties work to ensure no other party can compete effectively. Please correct me if I have this really screwed up because I need to know.

At this point I will be voting Obama, unless he demonstrates a significant reason not to vote for him.

Other Concerns:
VP Pick – McCain is very old. Obama would be the first black president in a nation that is historically quite racist. More ominously, I am afraid that we are entering a period when many countries might believe that furthering political instability in the US would be in their interest. The VP having to take over the reigns is not the biggest concern, but it should certainly be a concern.

Prosecution of Past Misdeeds – I’ve said this over and over again and it is probably my biggest issue. I think the misdeeds of this past administration should be investigated vigorously and those responsible to be brought to trial. I am specifically referring to our nation’s use of torture. It is immensely important to make an example of those who signed off on these programs so that it never happens again (would help our international standing too). Not that a McCain administration would support torture, but specifically who’s more likely to prosecute?

Good post. You did a good job of explaining the pluses and minuses of each candidate.