Is the "short term" enough?

My friend just posted an article on my Facebook wall regarding Obama's plans (short and long term) for alleviating the oil crisis while finding alternative energy sources. Check out the CNN article and see what you think.


http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/04/news/economy/obama_energy/index.htm?cnn=yes

Here's my wall post response:

"The short term sounds simple and relatively effective (off-shore drilling a big plus). The long term is (like the article says) ambiguous. I fear sweeping immediate changes without thought for the long term effect. It's easy to say "we've changed" but what is the reality of what is feasibly possible to sustain, you know? Already, Obama's platform is changing (the article sites that). While McCain's recent ads (comparing Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears) were childish and inane - I do not think the message was completely off base... there's an evident arrogance beginning to peak through the shiny Obama exterior. It's really unsettling. For all of our sakes - I hope he ISN'T all talk and no game."

My friend and I often butt heads about Obama. Not because I am pro-McCain - I'm pro-neither at this point to be honest - however, I question Obama's platform and, like many Americans, his experience.

More than anything, I am scared that Obama is a trend - like everything in our brand obsessed society - Obama has become the spokesperson for change. He is an idea more than anything. Europe loves him because he isn't the white, hegemonic male typically synonymous with American politics. He's the anti-politician, unscathed yet by the corruption of Washington. I fear that so many people are blinded by the idea of Obama that regardless of his qualifications or, if he IS the right choice for the next American President (which he very well may be), American voters will gladly cast their ballot in exchange for an Urban Outfitter tee donning his now-signature smile and a quippy response to the Republican epidemic.