November 4th downside

[JGQ]

A lot has been said from the supporters of each candidate about why they think their guy would be a better president. That is one way of looking at the argument.

Considering that there are still undecided voters out there, one other way of helping one make their mind is looking at the down side of President Obama or President McCain. I think it would be interesting to see what our diverse forum members think on this topic?

I'll start:
- I have made up my mind and will be voting for Obama


Obama's downside:
1) Higher taxes (I am in the above 250K bracket). The increase that is being discussed is incremental, but my concern is where will it stop?
2) The democrats will have Congress and the white house. They may even get the filibuster (sp?) negating majority in the senate.... Too much power for one philosophy of governing.


McCain's downside:
1) Possible war with Iran, and extended presence in Iraq and Afghanistan.
2) Missing the boat on the next big thing... the Energy Technology sector, which could be the new driver to our economy.
3) Possible, President Palin. (No offense to Gov. Palin or her supporters, but I think she is not ready for prime time yet)

[Wagner]

I would agree with most of what you've said, but I think a war with Iran will not be instigated by the US and the US would most definitely be involved regardless of the Whitehouse. I disagree with the Energy comment as this is one of Palin's biggest things.

Plus side of Obama is you'd get a "global" bump, not sure what this is good for. Plus side of McCain is he will not socialize the crap out of the country.

It is sad that these two are what we are down to. There were FAR BETTER candidates running.

[JGQ]

Palin's strength is oil, which is a key energy component for the next decade or two. What I am referring to is investing and creating the environment to innovate in alternative energy sources.
Thomas freedman this Sunday on "this week with George Stefanabolis" stated that this is next front of innovation and American opportunity to maintain economical and technological leadership. This could be our next big export that not will only benefit us economically but the whole world from environmental stand point. Obama spoke clearly on his intentions to address this issue by investing directly in it. It is a win win proposition; create home grown jobs (green-jobs) while getting a head start on the next big thing.

As far as Iran, I agree with your assessment (there are certain actions that will yield war regardless of who is in the white house). However, I see Obama's approach of talking first as the less likely to result in an unwanted confrontation.

[Wagner]

You're assuming that the US would lead the way, might want to look at Israel first.

[JGQ]

I will assume you are referring to the Iran issue not energy.

Being of Palestinian Background, my opinion will always be interpreted as bias and to some degree it might be. Now that I went through the proper disclaimer let me share my views:

If Israel wants to start something and want our support, they better clear it first with us! Nuclear technology is an old technology (WWII technology). You cannot prevent people from having it, you create the environment to incentivize them not to want it (the carrot approach) or the environment where they hate the consequences of that desire (tough sanctions that could only be tough if you build the proper alliances where everyone is holding to their end of the deal).

You cannot bomb the well out of 70 million people who are, according to some published survays, view the nuclear issue as a national pride issue. This matter is too critical and need to be handled delicately. Unilateral actions are too risky!!

Obama could build the alliances to make the sanctions tough and is welling to talk and dangle that carrot if need be. McCain is less inclind to do that IMHO.