those are all good points tx, i guess obama is still sponsored by the elite, just a different kind... whether its george clooney or the CEO of lockheed, money is money. The only difference i can see really, is that the hollywood elite seem to endorse policies that don't necessarily affect them. For instance, most of hollywood are liberal, despite the fact that the high taxes clearly disadvantage them. Contrastingly, the vast majority of high level executives make conservative contributions because the low corporate taxes and low taxes for the upper class suit their personal interest. Its definitely fair to call them both "elites", but thats where i draw the distinction.
when i meant catering to the elite, i was referring mostly to his tax cuts for the wealthy. the merits of these are debatable, what with the aptly named laffer curve and all, but i still consider this to be elitist policy. there's also the issue of the military targeting low income individuals (not necessarily bush's fault but a problem none the less), so many including myself consider the war in iraq to be a rich man's war faught by the poor for the rich man's benefit.
obama ran his campaign on a largely populist platform, his average donation size was i believe in the region of $65 dollars, and he focused extensively on the working class, a group which the democrats have taken for granted far too often.
of course, obama is not the first person to run on such a platform, but i'm willing to retain my idealism until he gives me convincing reason to lose it.
on the issue of Bush and Africa, he committed more money to the problem because the problem skyrocketed in his time. while i still think the amount of money he spent was commendable, i don't necessarily believe this speaks to his consideration of the less fortunate.
i'll agree with you on the US being bigger than the president for sure though, and money's corrupting temptation is no match for the larger american spirit.
