Dear Banjo,

Voting is not compulsory in the US
as it is in Australia.

In the past elections have been won by
a pittance - just scraping in with the
electoral vote as Bush did with 271, after
he won the re-count in Florida.
(270 is the requirement for the Presidency).
Gore won more popular votes than Bush (several
million more).

Obama won both the Electoral votes (380+)
and the popular vote count by over six million.

That may not be a landslide in your books - but it's
not chicken feed in anyone else's. And, this election
had the largest voter turn out in history. Which says
it all.

You mentioned Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton left the legacy of a huge and
growing budget surplus. He left office with the largest
boom in US history. Bush has only himself to blame
for his problems.

As for the rattling of sabres under Kennedy...
I seem to recall that Kennedy founded something called the
US Peace Corps which sent thousands of Americans abroad
to help developing nations raise their standard of living.

Then there was the Disarmament Treaty that was signed by
the US, Soviet Union and the UK, banning the testing of
Atomic weapons in the atmosphere, outerspace, and under
water.

I won't mention Civil Rights achievements - because I'm
running out of the word limit.

The point that I'm trying to make is - negativity can always
be found in anything, if you're looking for it.

In the end Americans had a choice in this election,
whether to go with
the politics of cynicism or the politics of hope.
They chose hope.

As Barack Obama put it:

"America, this is our moment. This is our time.
Our time to turn the page of the policies of the past."

John McCain lost because he didn't get it.

And there's many like him still out there.

foxy,
We could debate this until the cows come home and I doubt if either of us would come out on top.
The performance of the US Preident and his popularity can depend upon many things, that involve a lot of big "IFs".

IF the Carter administration had not passed The Community Reinvestment Act and IF subsequent governments had not passed various amendments to that act, they probably would not have the financial mess they have at present. IF anyone of them had brought peace to the Israel/Palistine situation their office woud be assured.

The Iraqi war ended when the Saddam statues came down, now IF the Iraqi people had embraced democracy, instead of blowing each other up, Bush would have been a hero. The sad thing about Iraq is that any intervention will now not be contemplated no matter how bad a despot is and how many people are murdered. The outlook is poor for quite a few African countries. The current UN action there seems hopeless without US participation.

The other thing about US Presidents is whether or not they are supported by both houses of government. This can determine whether he gets his way or is directed in a certain way by the government.

At this point the Democrats control both houses so Obama should get what he wants but he will still have to argue his case. this could easily change at the next election for the Senate or Reps.

Despite the debate going on in the US about who is to blame for the financial crisis, it seems to me that both parties have to wear the blame equally because they both made decissions and ammendments that led to it. The financial crisis did not develope overnight, or in the last few years. Anyway it will be interesting to see what takes place.

As I have said before, I wish Obana and America all the best but I see tough times ahead, for us too. What you deem negativity I call objectivity.

Banjo, sorry but the present financial crisis really did blow up
in the last few years, when Bush/Chaney had control of both houses
and the job of prez. Ultimately the buck stops with him, as he
could have changed any law he pleased, as the writing became
clearer on the wall. Ultimate power also means ultimate
responsibility, when things go wrong. So its on his shoulders.

As to Iraq, did it really need the death of 100'000 people and
the dismantling of the Iraqi army, to get rid of 3 people,
ie Saddam and his two sons? Why could some well informed
intelligence and a couple of targeted missiles just get rid of
the three of them? The regime would have collapsed after that.

The thing is, Bush/Chaney just loved playing with their war toys,
no matter the consequences. Every thought was given as to how to
use them more effectively, no thought given to what happened after
that. Once again, Bush bears ultimate responsibility for the
disaster which has followed, as he had ulimate power at the time.

Dear Banjo,

I've always respected your point of view
because your arguments are
never personal or insulting.

However, allow me the euphoria of this
historic win. I lived and worked in the
United States (Los Angeles) for over
nine years. I know what this win means
to so many in the US.

Let's wait and see what the future brings.
You're entitled to your conservatism.
I'm entitled to my joy.

All The Best,

Dear David, What Barak said was something like this "All men regardless of race, creed, or culture are one nation under God .
As he attended a christian fellowship He learned only that is possible in Jesus . I have no doubt that he understood what he was saying and I am sure he was not saying A people "devided" by race, creed, or culture or other supostitions can ever be united, UNLESS they CHOOSE to put aside their diferences. I chose to believe and hope that Barak Obama is God's man for this hour for the world until I see the fruit of his presidency for we need a leader with an enlarged heart big enough to believe with God nothing is impossible or we are destined for more of the same ,
If you always do what you have always done you will always get what you always got . In the 30's and 40's Roseveldt , Churchill and Curtin were 3 such men , not perfect but willing to put aside their diferences for the sake of the world . Men with enlarged hearts who answered the call and paid the price to keep our world free so you can have the luxury to believe what you chose .