Mr. Obama: Man of the World?

There has been plenty of spin this election year. We have seen the good, the bad and the ugly. Many have been frustrated with the lack of his openness, but that has been clearly by design by the front runner. I read the following link recently. The writer from the NY Times wrote:

In foreign policy as well, Mr. Obama would bring to the White House an important
experience that most other candidates lack: he has actually lived abroad. He
spent four years as a child in Indonesia and attended schools in the Indonesian
language, which he still speaks... (while)... So, granted, Mr. Obama lacks the extensive experience at top levels of diplomacy...

But, experience is very important, especially in these times were are in.

So, what are we really getting with Mr. Obama? Redistribution of Wealth Makes Us All Poor and there is clearly concerns over that side of Mr. Obama. Further, idealism that was a challenge during the Carter Presidency and it appears to be on the horizon with Mr. Obama?

Here's some commentary about idealism, in regards to Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain. The writer is critical of both candidates. Later, in another article, he picks up on the lie or illusion of the front runner.

His speech (Mr. Obama's acceptance speech of his party's nomination) last night was
brilliant and perfect. It is too bad that the whole thing was a lie, which
depended on the smoothness and apparent sincerity of Senator Obama's delivery to
lull the listener into a state of credulity and prevent him from asking too many
questions.

Couple the fact, the media wants Mr. Obama, the prevention of asking too many questions receives a major boost for the front runner.

Later, the role of the media in wanting Mr. Obama and going after Mr. McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as Vice President. The writer defines the selection of Palin:

Her appeal is non-ideological: it is the fact that she represents the outlook of
the "regular people" as opposed to the "elites."

The problems on Main Street vs. the problems on Wall Street. Again, "regular people" vs. what can be called Ivy League "elites"... who are a byproduct of ethics being removed in the classroom in the 1970s-80s-90s, as compared to local colleges, like Mt. Mercy College in Cedar Rapids.

Over the past 20 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush, we have seen an elevation in class warfare. Both political parties have expanded public policy favoring the expansion of large corporations and new "iffy" non-profits. Small business in middle America and elsewhere have paid the price.

Now, looking ahead to November 4th, we may witness the President's office and both houses of Congress in the control of one party. We look ahead to a possible president who may lead our country to the following...

It has not been derived from equalizing wealth through progressive taxes (a
socialist economy). When anyone of the three pillars of wealth is
confiscated, producers lose the incentive to produce more. Those who receive
unearned, redistributed benefits have no incentive to produce at all. When
the incentive to produce is lost, we all become less wealthy.

A good recommendation on who our next president should be. Read the following editorial on the Presidential Campaign of 2008...

As inspiring as Mr. Obama's history-making presidential bid has been, it is
risky to take a chance on an untried leader at this point in our history.

We need to bring about bipartisanship back to all levels of government. Once a Democrat or Republican is elected, they need to put the Country First. John McCain can help lead by example in bringing back a focus on reducing Washington spending habits.

They need to put what is in the best interest of the people, not the party. We have lost that in Washington DC and we have lost that in Des Moines. We need to encourage groups like this, but more importantly, we need get Congress and State Houses working together again for the best interests of our States, while remembering a limited government is often the best solution.

peace