I'm going to deal with my biggest concern about him here (Full disclosure: This ain't the only place I've posted this)...

On election day, the Ace of Spades website posted a picture of two Iraqi women, with purple-stained fingers showing they had voted in an election.

It was a "Get Out The Vote" message, noting that whatever hardships or inconveniences YOU may experience by voting, "These women literally risked their lives to vote".

My first reaction to that was, "And THE ONE can hardly wait to sell them out".

One of my biggest worries about Obama is that his rhetoric on Iraq, and rumored comments about Israel, show an almost casual willingness to sell out allies when convenient.

A commenter on another blog asked, “Who appointed us to be their guardians? Why is it America’s job to make sure they are safe?”

I feel the answer is we'd rather not have the entire world as a nuclear-armed camp, based on the idea that the more countries that have these things, the greater the likelihood that some will eventually be used.

Our alliances with these countries, to protect them, are not out of the goodness of our heart, but for what we see as our own best interests. Sell one out, and you can bet the others will sure take notice.

It seemed that commenter was advocating, “To hell with them, let them take care of themselves!”

Well, the problem there is they might do exactly that, and we may not be too thrilled with the results.

If countries under threat (Taiwan, maybe South Korea, even Japan) feel reason to believe that our word is no longer any good, they’ll almost certainly feel the need for self-sufficiency in nuclear arms as the only real deterrent to someone like China. And note, those countries mentioned ALL have the necessary economic, industrial and technical wherewithal to go nuclear. All they need do is make the decision.

Others, in the Middle East will want them to deter Iran. How about Saudi Arabia and Egypt? Maybe Libya decides that abandoning their efforts was a mistake. THOSE countries may lack the technology, but they can certainly afford to finance it.

It could just go on and on.

THAT, I feel, would be a very likely result of us deciding to just disengage ourselves with these countries.

We’ve tried successfully, and for a long time, to convince others that they did not need them, because WE would provide the protection of a nuclear umbrella.

When they decide we cannot be relied on, the whole thing unravels.

If that commenter gets his wish, and they take care of themselves, it could get real interesting for us as well.

Seeing that we also reside on the same planet, I think it almost impossible we would remain unaffected.

So, standing up for our allies is not merely a nice thing to do; it makes the hardest kind of common sense.

Simply put, we protect others in order to protect ourselves. Abandoning them, selling them out, would be an unbelievably short-sighted (as in STUPID) thing to do, and would hurt us more in the long run. No one would trust an agreement with us; and why should they, given such a record?

Instead of being worth anything, our word would only be noise.

And that would be tragic, because WE set its' value, by our actions.

Another upside: John McCain will probably live longer, which is great since he's such a cool guy. The downside is that he'll remain my Senator. But then, I don't know whether our Dem Governatrix would have gotten to appoint a replacement or there'd be a special election.

> show an almost casual willingness to sell out allies when convenient.

Obama's willingness to "throw people under the bus" is hardly limited to rhetoric.

And eventually, we all wind up under the bus.

> It seemed that commenter was advocating, “To hell with them, let them take care of themselves!”

Yeah, isolationism was fine when we weren't the richest nation on Earth -- in the history of humanity for that matter -- and had two large moats on either side making acting against us difficult, if not impossible. Much easier to prey on, count coup against, or get your rocks off by striking someone much closer.

Well, it's a modern world, now, and those moats are just short of useless at protecting us against WMDs and low-budget thugs and lordly wannabees who think to score big points by slapping us in the face and running away.

I predict there will be a major terrorist attack in the USA before 1/21/2010 (with many more to come), and a nuclear attack against Israel *or* the USA within 6 months after Iran obtains the bomb (which may be their first bomb, unannounced, esp. if it's the USA).

If it's the USA, it will be "by terrorists" -- probably Al Queda, with Iran denying connection (they've seen what happened in Afghanistan and Iraq).

Russia will attack neighboring states, probably both Ukraine and Georgia before the end of Obama's 1st term. Obama will "have a talk" with Putin.

Chavez will have destabilized the nearby nations in SouthAm by openly providing support for militants. Obama will "have a talk" with Chavez.

Iran will heavily subsidize (and provide people to) the insurgents again in Iraq, knowing that the USA won't send in more people. The existing newborn government, unable to deal with it on its own, will collapse. In the aftermath, 500,000 civilians will die. Obama will "have a talk" with Ahminajad.

The media, of course, will blame this all on historic GOP policies, and not suggest for a moment that ANYONE who so clearly will not use "the stick" (as in "talk softly but carry a big...") is doomed to fail -- abysmally -- in geopolitics.

I suspect that not only will Obama's term be his only one, but that it will tarnish the idea of a black leader in this nation for decades, strongly hindering another from being elected. Yes, that's racist, but, as someone pointed out, when you're looking for a Jackie Robinson, you don't hire Professor Dilwitzel instead. The first one sets the tone for future perceptions. Margaret Thatcher's excellent performance reflects well not only on women as PM, but women as leaders as a whole, and makes many nations more positive about selecting women for the top spot.