Obama says voters wanted a new vision: “It’s a spirit that says we are looking for something different
— we want something new.”   That sounds like what all politicians say.  When we look at his words and short record
we get a bit better idea.  Many are concerned that he has too little experience, seems too cocky on the stump (We
don't want another arrogant President.  That model's flaws are all too apparent after George ("I'm not a nation-builder")
Bush's Presidency.)  

                 Obama seeks to avoid use of word "mandate" or "require" in Health Care, Pollution
and Emissions and fuel efficiency of cars.  Instead, he seeks to manipulate the market with incentives and
allowing polluters to bid for the right to pollute.  

                His health care plan has two major weaknesses: it is neither universal, nor cheap.  It would cover only half of the number Clinton's plan would cover and it would cost $4,400 per newly insured person compared to $2,700 in Clinton's plan.

                  I wonder how many of his Green supporters know that Obama seems to consider nuclear energy a
clean energy source, a view which I personally consider abhorrent.  But then all the other candidates also would
give power companies incentives to build more nuclear plants to reduce green-houses gases... (I used to write
about economic, social and environmental topics for a New Mexico weekly.  There I studied closely the
dangers of low-level ionizing radiation.  The Federal Government, for example, and The Bureau of Mines
would not release epidemiological data showing how deadly uranium mining was to uranium miners in Grants, New Mexico and those down-wind, as far away as Albuquerque.    Now the truth is coming
          out.  See http://www.ratical.org/radiation/CNR/RIC/NEJM.html    .    
                        http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/About-Low-Level-Radiation.htm  
                        http://www.ccnr.org/nfb_uranium_biblio.html    
                        http://web.uccs.edu/amilton/student/waste.html    
                        http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2007/09/04_GofmanObit.shtml       

.  
                  At the center of Obama's message foe change are his claims that he is free of special lobbyist influence.
To the extent that his contributions are smaller and come from internet appeals, he is being truthful.  But he also gets
big campaign contributions from special  interests.  "In fact, he's received so much funding, an estimated $30 million per month, that his campaign appears to be backpedaling on a November pledge where he said if he was the Democratic nominee, he would aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election. A February 3, article by "The New York Times" reported that Exelon Corp, the nation's largest nuclear plant operator is one of Obama's largest campaign donors. According to the article, Exelon's support of Obama far exceeds money given to the other candidates.  The "Times" pointed out that Exelon chairman John W. Rowe has been an Obama donor and is also chairman of the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear power industry's largest lobbying group.

The article did not mention that Rowe, like several other powerful energy power players also sits on the influential, right wing and neo-conservative American Enterprise Institute's Board. 
                  ( http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2008/2/19/135659/423 )...

Trading One Devil for Another. In the effort to curb green-house gases from coal fired plants, McCain and Liberman have proposed legislation to subsidize the building of huge nuclear power plants. The nuclear power industry in the U.S. has been at a virtual standstill because of high construction costs, regulatory uncertainties and public apprehension after a 1979 accident at Pennsylvania’s Three Mile Island. A number of plants ordered before the accident went into operation. But many more were canceled after one of the Three Mile Island reactors suffered a partial meltdown and small amounts of radiation were released into the atmosphere.

                   I liked what Obama said about stopping America's march backwards towards the Social Darwinism of the
late 19th century, where the poor and weak were considered tools, canon fodder and utterly expendable.  The
Social Darwinist would say "The poor are weak and Nature must be allowed to weed them out".  Compare this
with the 19th century Calvinists, who would say, "Their poverty proves they do not have God's favor, while
the wealthy, by their good fortune, show that they are blessed with God's providence.   Either way, from what
I can see, the poor do not have to be poor.  It is a choice that political and economic leaders make for them.

                    He will try to change things that have caused so much out-souring of jobs, obscenely high executive
pay and unsafe imports.  He will try to, he says, move America away from unbridled selfishness at the top. "Instead of thinking about what's good for America or what's good for business, a mentality has crept into certain corners of
Washington and the business world that says, 'What's good enough for me is good enough,' ". Obama gives the subprime-mortgage crisis sweeping the country as a "prime" example.  "If we are honest, I think we must admit that
those who have benefited from the new global marketplace - and that includes almost everyone in this room - have not always concerned themselves with the losers in this new economy." 

               In the words of one of his consultants,  "Business would have a seat at the table, but business wouldn't be able to buy all the chairs."  Obama sponsored a bill to give shareholders a non-bonding proxy vote on executive pay. (My
complaint with Obama is that such limits on excessive CEO pay should be absolutely binding).   Obama voted for a free-trade pact with Peru that contained provisos to protect the Peruvian environment and Peruvian labor.  From
what I have read about Newmont Mining and Peru, I would say this is far-sighted and just!

              Obama seems open.  With banker, Rober Wolf, CEO of UBS Americas, he has exchanged views about the Senate-passed economic stimulus package and the role of the G-7 economic summit.  In between rallies on the campaign trail, Obama has also consulted on the economy with billionaire Warren Buffett.  Obama frequently cites Buffett's
support for rolling back the Bush tax.  Most surprising, Obama has also been in touch with Republican and former
Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, who has endorsed him.  "When I sat down with him, I found him to be
unbelievably refreshing and smart and thoughtful," says Wolf.  The UBS chief has gone on to raise more than $1 million (690,000 euros) for the Obama campaign.

                More details will have to be set out about his plan for a voluntary health care plan.  It is a disgrace that
every other industrialized nation on the planet has a universal and comprehensive health care system of insurance.. 
How is this to be paid for?   I suppose anything is better than nothing.   But this sounds like only a half step to me.
Paul Krugman in the New York Times agrees with me: "The difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far short... New estimates say
that a plan resembling Mrs. Clinton’s would cover almost twice as many of those now uninsured as a plan resembling
Mr. Obama’s — at only slightly higher cost."

                 Obama voted against the Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends and against repealing Estate
Tax cuts.  He called it  “billions of dollars to billionaire heirs and heiresses.”  Certainly, these cuts have made the rich
very rich, indeed.  But Wall Street will not like this.  And will probably show its displeasure and power by promptly
starting a bear market if Obama becomes President.

                Energy independence?  Obama voted against drilling more off-shore drilling and in the Alaska wilderness.
He has opposed lifting a $0.54 per gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol. “Ethanol imports are neither necessary nor a
practical response to current gasoline prices".

               Obama's approach to pollution controls is conservative and uses the market place. He would allow
industrial polluters, provided they pay for the right to pollute!  The money raised in his way would be used to
help develop and deploy clean, green energy.  $150 billion should be invested in R&D for "renewable, biofuels, efficiency, "clean coal," and other clean tech.".  He would subsidize US automakers by having the "Federal Government
help cover the health-care costs of retired US autoworkers.in exchange for domestic auto companies investing at least 50 percent of the savings into production of more fuel-efficient vehicles."