It's impossible to tell at this point. His voting record is liberal (for the U.S.) but brief. His stated policies are somewhat left of center. What he does if he is elected will depend on a bunch of things, including the makeup of the congress, Bush's antics during the last few weeks of his term, world events, etc.

I think there is a hope amongst many in the liberal wing of the Democratic party that he will be a combination of FDR, JFK, and LBJ, perhaps with a bit of the Messiah mixed in, and that we will make considerable strides towards becoming an admirable society. One argument supporting this is that he ran a huge campaign without any major complications.

Alternatively, his term could be a friggin' disaster. Nobody knows.

My fear remains that he will try to be bipartisan and govern from the beltway centre and not from the centre of sentiment out in america.

Also, as far as I can see, the US needs some pretty urgent interventions on stuff that I'm not sure Obama is ready to do. And you have to divert a signinficant proportion of the military budget into the civil structure of the US to do it and he won't do that.

As Pete Townsend didn't say, "Meet the new boss, not the same as the old boss, but not different enough for it to make a difference".

keep to the Fen Causeway

I have very mixed feelings about Obama, but it is really not reasonable to pretend that his positions are unknown.

On the negative side, he has long called for an increase in US military personnel numbers and a concomitant increase in the military budget. This is the number one reason I am lukewarm about him. It is popular in certain circles to pretend that this policy, stated two years ago an reiterated many times, simply doesn't exist. If you post this fact on dkos you will be called a liar and the hounds of hell set loose on you, but it is true nonetheless.

The reasons that I voted for him, the day before yesterday, have more to do with the fact that in other areas, he is pragmatic, not captive to ideology.

There are degrees in these things. We have a vice presidential candidate on the GOP side, one 72 year old heatbeat away from the presidency (never mind recurring melanoma and possibly senile dementia) who believes the earth is six thousand years old, and was recently convinced she was talking to Sarkozy for seven minutes as the hoaxer dropped hint after hint in an accent that would have embarassed Jerry Lewis or Mel Blanc.

There is the matter of the Supreme Court. The next president will in all likelihood appoint two justices and maybe more. Absent the will to govern on the part of the legislative branch, the court is left to decide much more than it should have to. Questions of whether or not the US will abide by international treaties, for instance including some that it wrote itself. Pressing issues of individual freedom v cooked up state interests.

Just a little hope of pragmatism, that's all I have. You can see it in the eleven pages on science policy put out by the Obama campaign. There is no corresponding document from the other side, I assure you.

NB the opening salvo:

It is essential that federal policy benefit from the most complete, accurate, and honest scientific and technological information available. When federal policy is informed by objective evidence rather than by ideology - whether the concern be national security, energy, global climate change, the environment, health, healthcare, or investment in education and research - the people of America will be the winners.

Unfortunately, the current Administration has undermined the integrity of U.S. science policy. It has stacked scientific advisory boards, suppressed research that conflicts with its political agenda, failed to make decisions on the basis of the best available evidence, and prevented government scientists from speaking openly with the public and the media.

Much more in the same vein and in much greater detail.

You might say "But this is merely common sense," and rightly so. But going back to common sense is a radical departure at this point. It is difficult to convey to foreign readers how much we are in the death grip of fundamentalist ideology here, both capitalist and christian. When fonfronted with contradictory facts, the response lately has been to throw more money and pray harder, not to reassess the assumptions.

I presume it is the same thinking that has driven 76 living American Nobel laureates in the sciences to sign an open letter pleading that Obama be elected. Not because they approve of his politics, merely that they want to see a return to simple sanity.

Obama had made it clear that he intends to surround himself with the brightest people he can find. I am willing to take him at his word. Note the campaign he waged, defeating the most powerful machine in American politics without breaking a sweat. This is not a fool.

Experience keeps a dear school, but fools will learn in no other. -- Dr Johnson