San Diego, CA. Sen. Barack Obama is on a roll, racking up eleven caucus and primary wins in a row over the past two weeks. Impressive indeed and with the winds of change blowing his way, momentum is on his side. In previous caucuses and primaries, his appeal was mostly with young people, intellectuals, and the rich. Lately as shown in Wisconsin, Hawaii, and Washington Barack’s appeal has breached the Clinton base support of women and middle class workers. Perhaps the handwriting on the wall is too obvious to ignore.

        Okay, if I were a betting man Obama is the man. And let us suppose that he too beats Sen. John McCain; what kind of presidency can we expect from him beyond his eloquence? Is he for real or are voters just getting carried away with his powerful speeches, charisma and promise of change? We don’t know for sure if he is for real but we can start paying attention to what he has said or is saying in the campaign stumps to give us some indication as to what his presidency will be like.

        We can begin with the two areas that resonate well with the voters in terms of significance: Iraq and the Economy.

        Undoubtedly comes Election Day, the Democratic Party will be united in its effort to pin responsibility for the Iraq war on the Republicans and the Bush administration. Most Americans are in favor of withdrawing the troops now and will likely support the Democrats in this regard. Can President Obama deliver? If one listens to what he is saying or not saying now, contrary and probably to the dismay of anti-war groups and young people’s expectations, Obama will not affect a withdrawal in the magnitude or timeline of his supporters’ expectation. Sen. Obama’s oft repeated line is what he did before - opposing the war that is – but has been muted as to what he will do once he is elected into office – for good reasons. An analysis of his position now clearly indicates that his is no different than McCain’s (and George Bush’s) - leaving the current force levels in Iraq and will not set a time table for withdrawal.

        McCain believes that political ends can and should be achieved in Iraq, and that the drawdown of forces should be keyed to achieving those ends. That is essentially the Bush policy. Obama (and Clinton) believes that the United States not only has failed to achieve its political goals but also, in fact, is not going to achieve them. Under this reasoning, the United States ought to be prepared to withdraw from Iraq on a timetable that is indifferent to the situation on the ground.

        But Obama’s emphasis, if not his outright position, has shifted as a political resolution in Iraq has appeared more achievable. He remains committed to a withdrawal from Iraq, but he is not clear on the timeline. He calls for having all U.S. combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months, but qualifies his statement by saying that if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq; he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes against the group. Since al Qaeda is in fact building a base within Iraq, Obama’s commitment to having troops in Iraq is open-ended.

        The shift in Obama’s emphasis - and this is the important point – means his position on Iraq is not really different from that of McCain, the most pro-Bush candidate. Events have bypassed the stance that the situation on the ground is hopeless, so even Obama’s position has tacked toward a phased withdrawal based on political evolutions.

        Assume that the situation in Iraq does not deteriorate dramatically (and I have no reason to believe otherwise), and assume a president is elected who would simply withdraw troops from Iraq. The withdrawal from Iraq obviously would increase Iranian power and presence in Iraq. That, in turn, would precipitate a crisis between Iran and Saudi Arabia, two powers with substantial differences dividing them. The United States would then face the question of whether to support the Saudis against Iran. Placing forces in Saudi Arabia is the last thing the Americans or the Saudis want. But there is one thing that the Americans want less: Iranian dominance of the Arabian Peninsula.

        Any president who simply withdrew forces from Iraq without a political settlement would find himself or herself in an enormously difficult position. Indeed, such a president would find himself or herself in a politically untenable position. The consequences of a withdrawal are as substantial as the consequences of remaining. The decline in violence and the emergence of some semblance of a political process tilts the politics of decision-making toward a phased withdrawal based on improvements on the ground (and that could mean 20-100 years as McCain has suggested) and away from a phased withdrawal based on the premise that the situation on the ground will not improve. Therefore, even assuming Obama wins the nomination and the presidency, the likelihood of a rapid, unilateral withdrawal is minimal. The political cost of the consequences would be too high, and he wouldn’t be able to afford it. His rhetoric about meeting face-to-face with the Iranian President to hammer out a solution in Iraq is just political noise.

        Foreign policy is one of the cornerstones of the presidency and for it to be effective; the country needs a strong military to project its power globally. Currently, military spending accounts for half of the overall U.S. (at $1,1449Billion which includes $200B for Iraq and Afghanistan) - and almost half of the world’s military budget.

        Last year, in his first major foreign policy address Obama has said that the U.S. military needs to remain active and strong and he called for an increase in the size of the active military by 60,000 soldiers and 30,000 Marines - go figure. His statements elicited howls from the more liberal party activists, many of whom also see the Iraq war as part of the larger war against Islamist militants - but view it as the wrong way to go about securing the country from attack. He also supports a unilateral strike on Pakistan - an ally - if that would mean going after the Al Qaeda leadership.

        Sen. Obama foreign policy statements has been mostly on Iraq and has not said anything about three other important events taking shape now that will most definitely impact his first 4 years in office: re-emergence of an assertive Russia, Chinese power growing beyond the economic realm and the future of the European Union.

        On the economy, by his own moral standards, Obama fails. He criticizes his opponents as typical politicians, part of the status quo in Washington and accuses them of making promises and proposes 10-point plans that do not solve the country’s economic stupor. His is better, says Obama because his economic plan of at least 12 points makes more sense. Among other things, his plan would: Provide a $1,000 tax cut for most two-earner families ($500 for singles); Create a $4,000 refundable tuition tax credit for every year of college; Expand the child-care tax credit for people earning less than $50,000 and “double spending on quality after-school programs;” and Enact an “energy plan” that would invest $150 billion in 10 years to create a “green energy sector.”

        There you have it, something for everyone. And he calls this change? Whatever you think of these ideas, they’re standard as in traditional feel-good politics. With existing budget deficits and the costs of Obama’s “universal health plan,” the odds of enacting his full economic package are slim. This is on top of his plan to increase military spending.

        On Social Security, Obama pledges not to raise the retirement age and to “protect Social Security benefits for current and future beneficiaries.” Meaning, he will maintain the status quo - no change there. He would also exempt all retirees making less than $50,000 annually from income tax. With current spending for retirees on Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid already nearly half the federal budget, how is he going to curb these rising costs if not to pass on the higher tax burden to younger workers? Remember, he will have to start paying for all George Bush’s debts for the Iraq War as well that is now in trillions of dollars.

        Why he is getting a pass from the media on his narrow agenda is indeed telling. Are many critical thinkers falling off the Obama wagon because of theirs and everyone’s disillusioned past with Bush Jr. – desperately projecting Obama’s constant invocation of “change” as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan? Beyond the metaphor of an Obama win, every voter must wake up to the reality that the United States faces real challenges in this century that could have devastating consequences for the future. Are you really that comfortable handing your future in his hands?