Since getting elected, he’s let spending get out of control, enacted a massive prescription drug benefit in an already bankrupt Medicare program, signed McCain-Feingold, and on and on. He also insisted that his tax cuts stay in place, regardless of the deficit.

By "he" I assume you mean bush, if so then I agree. What ever was left of the Reagan Coalition Bush killed, which is ironic given that I've heard blatherings about how Bush, et. al. wanted a permanent Republican dominance of government. They appear to have set about doing everything to ensure anything but.

Medicare is, IMO, one of the biggest challenges facing this country and neither Obama nor McCain will/would have addressed this problem. In fact, Obama will add to it with his health care proposals, if they are implemented as per his campaign promises.

In a comment below I noted I'd be pissy no matter who won and this is why. Neither candidate has the intestinal fortitude to take on this issue. In fact, it could be that no candidate does given how our system operates.

But don't let me spoil everyone's fetishizing voting, democracy, and all that nonsense.

I voted for Gore in 2000 because his tax cuts were more modest and he expressed more concern with the entitlement crunch. That was the losing side. None of the things you complain about seem surprising from what we knew or should have suspected in 2000. Foreign policy, however . . .

What? Bush was against McCain-Feingold in 2000 very explicitly. He said that candidates should have disclosure requirements and nothing else. It's one of the things I liked about him.

In this alternative world, does Bush win the 2000 election by campaigning against these things or does he gain elevated stature by breaking his pledge?

The main reason I even found McCain even mildly acceptable is that he would check a Democratic Congress.

You have far more confidence in the Democratic party cooperating with the Democratic party than I do.

If Obama doesn't have it all fixed in nine months witha cooperative Congress and all this goodwill from the rest of the world, well, then clearly he's even worse. Right?

No, but if the next 4 years are as bad as the last 8, then he will be worse.

If Obama doesn't have it all fixed in nine months witha cooperative Congress and all this goodwill from the rest of the world, well, then clearly he's even worse. Right?

FEAR NOT!!!... fans of limited gov't, the fillibuster will still be in play. (Funny how so many Republicans are once again fond of "limited gov't)(and no, I do not speak of anybody here)

And as Charles notes so eloquently above, nobody can survive the perfect storm that is our present economic situation.

Seriously tho, things have moved back to the center, that is all. Obama has no "leftist" mandate, and as long as he doesn't overplay his hand, all will be OK. If he does overplay his hand... One term. (and I suspect, one term no matter what,.. things are too f'd up)

If Obama doesn't have it all fixed in nine months witha cooperative Congress and all this goodwill from the rest of the world, well, then clearly he's even worse. Right?

No, the last eight years has sucked from my point of view. The main reason I even found McCain even mildly acceptable is that he would check a Democratic Congress.

Having said that, things can get worse and tonight has not made me more optimistic.

Indeed. I suspect we are in for a few surprises over the next four years, very few of them pleasant.

So, more pleasant than the last eight then?

Indeed. I suspect we are in for a few surprises over the next four years, very few of them pleasant.

is is all most disappointing for people who favor smaller government.

True, but more importantly this is even more disappointing for those who favor limited government and enumerated powers. They're not the same.

The US Constitution. It's alive!