I'm probably going to vote for the Constitutional Party again, as I did in 2004. Basically the choice between Republican and Democrat is exactly the same as between Coke and Pepsi. The only real significant difference between them is rhetoric over abortion: One is pro-abortion, the other claims to be anti-abortion.
Concerning Obama, I already discussed much of this at the INFP forum.
Face it; other than being mulatto, there's no real difference between Obama and the establishment.
He likes throwing around the word "change", as if it's some abstract concept. He never seems to explain what change it is he wants. Change for the worse is still change, yet that's not the kind of change we need.
Seems to validate GK Chesterton's remark: “It is futile to discuss reform without reference to form.”
I argued about the supposed differences between Obama's views on foreign policy and the views governing Bush's foreign policy. Again, despite the rhetoric, Obama does not represent significant change in American foreign policy.
At best, Obama represents a change concerning tactics in American foreign policy. That's it!
In regards to the grand strategy, there's not one iota of difference he plans on implementing. This shouldn't come as a surprise, since American foreign policy has been governed by the same grand strategy for the past 50 years or so.
Obama has not in any significant way challenged the basic premises governing American foreign policy, or American policy in general for that matter. Namely of course the notion of American hegemony. He still adheres to that notion, but wants a more "diplomatic" approach to such.
If Obama really wants "change", perhaps he could challenge the whole notion of American hegemony altogether.
Not to mention I hate how Obama supporters protray him as some of Messianic figure. Com'on!