I dont think he will...

But I hope he does, I am happy for everything to turn out peaceful and peachy.

So... Im saying I dont know

I don't think that he will live up to the expectations, they are just too high. Newswriters are calling him the next JFK or FDR, and he hasn't even been sworn in yet. But that's okay. (I guess you know how I voted now.)

I think he will improve things on the most important issues, but not solve them completely.  So I voted "yes, mostly."

This poll is a little biased.. there are 3 positive choices and one semi-negative choice..

He will improve, but he isn't going to meet expectations because, as D said, they're just too high.

FDR he is not, because he won't have to face a major war.

JFK he is not, because... he's nothing like JFK. No war experience, no Cold War to handle, JFK didn't have to deal with a major financical crisis... (It bothers me that reporters unintelligently make connections that don't exist.)

Honestly, Obama will probably look the most like an early Nixon. Why?

1. Leaving Iraq/Vietnam
2. Links to China
3. More normalization (hopefully) with Russia

Differences will be in some economic policies, but as far as foreign relations go, they are quite alike.

Domestically he will be like a combination of FDR and Clinton I think, erring towards Clinton.

I don't see how "No" is semi-negative, but honestly I can't think of any other negative answers, and the question requires more nuance than a simple Yes/No vote.

In related news, 16% of Americans think the country is headed in the right direction; 75% think Obama will be a good president; 76% disapprove of President Bush. (source)

Well President Bush once had a 92% approval rating... so there is plenty of space to go down...

I don't quite understand that 16 % think we are going in the right direction and 75% think Obama will be a good president. If the people think he will be a good president, aren't we moving in the right direction?

Not really praising Bush but Truman had an atrocious approval rating as well when he left office.  He's now known as one of our greater presidents. I don't really think it will happen with Bush but then again, no thought it would with Truman at the time.

That confused me too, actually, and made me wonder whether the 16% who answered "yes" were confused as well.  I don't really have an answer. 

Here's a related poll: 62% of Americans view Democrats "favorably" compared to 38% for Republicans.

That is because Bush has tainted the Republican name to the point where any moderate grimaces in response.  One of the reasons why I am conservative is that the constitution is just a piece of paper and it is up to Americans to uphold and believe in it.  It only works because we put faith it in.  The more we tamper with it generally, the less important it becomes.  If it is continually side stepped or ignored then nothing holds us back from moving to a communist or fascist society.  There is a reason why it is an incredibly long process to amend it.

I disagree. I believe that the Founding Fathers made it difficult to amend the constitution, but I believe that they knew that it would have to be changed in the future. Progress is a good thing. I mean slavery was allowed in the Constitution. It would be terrible if slavery wasn't abolished because the Constitution shouldn't be changed. To me, many things in the Constitution are simply outdated. The first example I can think of the the 2nd ammendment: the right to bear arms. It says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I don't think we have a militia anymore, so, to me, the right to bear arms should be adapted to today's society.

I don't think we're on the same page...it is difficult to amend like I said because it rarely should be done. And for the most part, it isn't.

Strict originalism vs. loose constructionalism... it's the same approach that separates evangelists from scientists, hence the "religious right"...  there are valid arguments on both sides, but I believe the Constitution was envisioned as a "living document" in more senses than the possibility that it can literally change.

It should be avoided except in the most necesary, pressing situations

Even the strictest originalists don't take it 100% literally.  The question is to what extent you are willing to take liberties with interpretation.  So to say "avoid when possible" doesn't really mean anything.  I personally am willing to give the government broad liberties to the extent that they don't impinge upon my own liberties as I broadly interpret them.

My experience with strict originalists has been that their minds quickly change when they encounter something they don't like; they're not willing to sacrifice a belief for the sanctity of the document.  That's not true of everyone, obviously, but there is a lot of hypocrisy involved.  Religion and abortion are two examples of issues where this commonly arises.