I think that he will try to bring about all that he has promised, but will simply fall short.  A lot of people place unmerited faith in him. I saw a women on the news being interviewed right after an Obama rally and she breathlessly told the interview that "Obama is going to pay my gas, send my kids to college, and pay off my mortage!" Doubtful. I do think it is going to revitalize the Republican party.  They will realize the mistakes of the campaign and of their nomination(s). 

The Republican party is not coming back in force anytime soon.  Obama will almost certainly be reelected in 2012.

For all of our sakes, let's hope Palin doesn't run then.

Also Obama won't fix everything but he will get to the most important things in his first term and that will be enough to get him reelected so he can look at the less pressing issues.

Eh, he'll make some important progress.  He's very serious about it and fully capable of doing so, both in terms of intellect, political power, and advisory support.  He's also respected internationally at this point.

What do you think he'll do next in terms of policy?  That is, what will be his first move in the White House?

I'm really curious whether Obama can handle the economic crisis.  We'll just have to wait and see I guess whether bottom-up, regulated economics will work.  Or it may be that, as I think IceCreamYou said somewhere, that the invisible hand will cause the economy to just fix itself.  It's happened before...

I just have some doubts about whether we can spend ourselves out of the crisis.  Actually, I'm not even sure if that's part of Obama's plan.  But if it is, it sounds counter-intuitive.

Can't say anything about domestic policy, but as far as IR goes...

1. Address Russia. Medvedev and Putin have been using more and more strong rhetoric ever since Tuesday.
2. Surge in Afghanistan.
3. Strengthen ties with China.
4. Stabilize relations with S. America.
5. Pull out of Iraq.

I think that'll be the rough plan of action. I'm really curious about his Sec of State/Defense picks.

Here's a question: will the Dept of Homeland Sec. stay around? The President can, to my knowledge, lower the number of Cabinet offices, and Homeland was, in my opinion, mostly a Bush ploy to make us feel safer.

I think it'll stay, although one day we may see a president with "remove the DHS" on the platform.

I think his policy will come in this order:

1. Economy
2. Iraq --> Afghanistan
   
3. Energy
4. Healthcare, social security, etc.
5. E.U.
6. China
7. South America
8. Education
   
9. Russia
   

Russia will come earlier because of Medvedev's planned installation of missile sites in Kaliningrad, to counter our system in Poland. Very pressing issue.

Economy will come very early, but I don't think the issue will be publicly addressed immediately, the way FDR handled the situation. I think it will take longer.

What do you mean by "Energy"?

Education might come before healthcare/social security/etc. Prior to the economic crisis, it was the number one issue among voters.

What will he address concerning the E.U.?

Russia is not as important as you seem to believe.  No one really cares about them, nor has anyone really cared about them throughout their history except under the Alexanders and during the Cold War.  Obviously they're a threat, and obviously that threat needs to be dealt with on an ongoing basis; but in terms of actual policy and political action, Russia doesn't need specific and immediate attention.

Obama has already said he will deal with the economy early and publicly, so that one's definite.

By energy I mean a transition from foreign oil and gas to renewable energy on a large scale.

I think healthcare and social security will come before education because they are closely related to economic concerns.

The E.U. needs to be reassured that the U.S. is not mavericky.  A lot of antipathy has built up during the Bush administration and that needs to be removed for a constructive relationship to exist.  The issue is less about government, which is already U.S.-aligned if not U.S.-dependent, and more about reestablishing global trust.  All in all, probably not really something that needed to be included on that list.

Apparently someone else finds them relevant and pertinent at this point in history:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20081001faessay87602/stephen-sestanovich/w...

I haven't had time to make it all the way through the essay, but still, obviously it is important for foreign relations. Granted, it was written before the election was decided, but still, IR experts are talking about it.

Here is the Times' article on Obama's rough plan of action:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/politics/09promises.html?pagewanted...

According to this, you are mostly correct. Of course, we were both rather shortsighted when overlooking immigration. That definitely needs to be near the top.

Agreed on the EU, but that won't take much work - they already love Obama. He's a liberal just like the vast majority of them, unlike GWB. Their ideas are going to align more, and they are going to get along better, to put it simply. That translates to better relations. I doubt that very much will actually be done. It will just happen.

Energy will be addressed, but not solved for at least four years. It is relatively simple to develop the technology, but to logistically implement it in a short amount of time is going to be nearly impossible.

Sean Hannity had a 30 minute liberal gloat session shortly after the election. The call went something like this:

Caller:Republicans need to stop being so bitter about the election and unite behind President Elect Obama!

Hannity: Ah, much like the democrats have stood behind and worked with Bush for the last 8 years.

Caller: No it's...different

It was pretty funny and brings up a good point.  Sore losers? Al Gore anyone? I do think that we should stand by the president.  Granted, Bush did some bad things but constant ragging on him does not acomplish anything.  Anyway, I guess its only important to unite when the Democrats are in power.

@greenhattedamigo: Okay, fair enough.  On immigration - I knew there was an issue I missed, darn it.  On the EU - yeah, I admitted in my last comment that it didn't really deserve to be on my agenda.  On energy - I think the policy will be implemented in Obama's first year in office, but we won't see the results for awhile afterwards.

@Sunshine: it's a little different.  Before we knew what Bush would be like, there wasn't as much whining.  But apparently 70% of Americans are optimistic about the Obama presidency, which is impressive.  And in general I agree with you anyway: it is a civic responsibility to stand up against the government if you don't like how it's being run.  As long as you're doing it for the right reasons, and as long as you can accept compromise, resistance makes you no less patriotic.

When injustice becomes law, rebellion becomes duty right?

"The tree of liberty must from time to time be renewed with the shed blood of patriots and tyrants."

   - T. Jefferson

Yes - and Jefferson of course, like Madison and the rest of his fellow revolutionaries, was influenced by Locke and, to a lesser extent, Rousseau.

And we all know how much I like Rousseau.

And Jefferson as well. (The most intelligent man to ever hold the office of President)

Have you ever been to Monticello? It's fascinating, its crammed with all of his inventions which cover pretty much every topic. I enjoyed it a lot even though I had been visting my brother at UVA the night before if you catch my drift.

Haha, I got it man. Nice.

I've never been, but when I go to DC sometime soon (hopefully in December, if I get accepted to G-town) I'm going to try to visit there.

I really do like Jefferson a lot.

Good point! Differing views with those in power is no reason to constantly be complaining about them. You can oppose their positions, people should just try to do so with constructive, rather than destructive, criticism.  We can't change it now i suppose, but i hope the American people learn a better way to work together.