[I apologize at the start as my proofreader did not have a chance to catch my many errors before publication of this piece. I regret the strain my grammatical errors may cause to your eyes or your brains.]

The most frequent comparison made for Senator Obama as he sprints toward the Democratic Presidential Nomination is to the idolized, much lamented, and dully sainted John F. Kennedy. The similarity between the two are, superficially, striking. JFK was young, charismatic, relatively inexperienced and an excellent speaker. The same adjectives are easily applied to Senator Obama. Both were (are) Democrats and, therefore, by definition, were (are) liberals. Both were nominated by their parties in a stunning contradiction of long-standing taboos in American politics: Kennedy, as the first Roman Catholic President, Obama as the first black Presidential nominee. Kennedy had and Obama has an attractive, articulate spouse and lovely children. Both candidates ran as successors to two-term Republican Presidents who had their nation involved in unpopular wars (Eisenhower: Vietnam, George W. Bush: Afghanistan, Iraq) which tagged the opposition Republican Party candidate (Nixon, McCain), by association, persona non grata with the electorate. Both men were (are) youthful - Kennedy, 42, Obama, 46 - and their campaigns both project(ed) an image of "change" and energy to a nation that felt change was needed. Both candidates had the advantage of a national consciousness that felt threatened and under siege (Kennedy, "The Cold War", Obama, the "War on Terrorism"). To complete the comparisons to the level of absurdity, both are graduates of the Harvard University system.

It is not difficult to envision that Senator Obama will frequently be likened to John Kennedy, a linking that has the blessing of the Kennedy clan. In a January 28^th, 2008 Op-Ed column for the N.Y. Times provocatively titled: "A President Like My Father", Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of JFK, wrote these words:

"I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans."

Senator Ted Kennedy and his son, Representative Patrick Kennedy also endorsed Obama in January, 2008. One can easily imagine, at one time or the other at the Democratic Convention in August, a computerized morphing of the face or silhouette of JFK transitioning slowly (and with rising orchestral music) into the image of Senator Obama. The linkage is too evocative, too powerful and too appealing to ignore. There are a host of sentimental baby boomers who still revere Kennedy as "The Once and Future King" of an American Camelot to let the imagery fade, unused. Since Obama has the blessings of the Kennedy clan, it will not be objected to as offensive.

However, if one sets aside all these politically valuable (if, in reality, irrelevant) ties that Senator Obama shares with JFK, one can legitimately ask: "Is John Kennedy really the Democratic President that most closely resembles the campaign promises of Senator Obama?" For me, the answer is a resounding no. In my eyes, Senator Obama’s foreign policies, domestic promises and societal focus more closely resembles another President, as esteemed as Kennedy by an earlier generation, but far more liberal than even the dreams of Camelot. The Democratic President that, in my eyes, presents (for me) a disquieting specter of what an Obama Presidency might portend is Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

FDR, the closest thing America has had to a socialist monarchy, is hailed by most historians (and remains a consistent front runner in popular polls of the "Greatest American Presidents") for his leadership through the Depression and World War II. What is often forgotten is that his social policies have, over the years, thoroughly bankrupted America (and its taxpayers) and his "big government" expansion set the precedent for the massive footprint that the Fed has today. FDR was the legitimate father (Woodrow Wilson was the grandfather) of 75 years of unrelenting growth of central government that continues under both parties through to this day. In short, FDR was no friend to the American taxpayer and, I fear, neither will Senator Obama who, by my analysis, has a similar blueprint for our nation.

Again, if we look to circumstances, the connection between FDR and an Obama Presidency become more clear. First, and most obvious, both (let us assume that Obama will be, as pundits have projected, elected to the Presidency) faced a major economic crisis in American. Roosevelt succeeded Herbert Hoover and inherited a nation in the throes of the "Great Depression". After World War I, America embarked on the "Roaring 20s" when, not unlike today, excessive spending, gaudy lifestyles and carpe diem were the rule. A resounding crash of Wall Street brought the bubble economy to an end. What followed was record unemployment (up to 25 per cent) and a 30% fall in domestic product, the defaulting of financial institutions and, ultimately, the Great Depression with foreclosures, homelessness and bread lines throughout the country. The citizens lost faith in the capitalist system and the attractiveness of socialism/communism made dramatic inroads among the working class.

Obama (again working from the hypothesis that he will be elected) will inherit a full-fledged recession, which is not to say a depression, from the previous Republican administration. Coming off the "Good Times" of the 1980s and 1990s when the American consumer gave new meaning to Veblen’s "conspicuous consumption", hard times began to creep into the lives of the population. With overseas "outsourcing" of jobs, unprecedented oil costs, an expensive two-front foreign war and the expense of providing increased domestic security after 9/11, the federal budget deficit has grown and consumer confidence has precipitously fallen. Just as in 1932 (who says history does not repeat itself?), rising inflation, home foreclosures and bank failures have shaken the confidence of the citizens who, for the first time in over 60 years, are having unsettling thoughts that their savings (what little Americans have) are no longer safe and their futures are no longer secure.

How Obama will attack this multi-headed beast will, when all is said and done, determine whether he will be remembered as Kennedy-esque or Rooseveltian. If he is content to inspire Americans to seek new heights of greatness and, at the same time, be a (relatively) "hands-off" leader on the economy, he will be retracing the footsteps of Kennedy. If, on the other hand, he adopts the position that the federal government should and can solve the domestic economic crisis with sweeping socialism (a second "New Deal"), then he will be assuming the Rooseveltian legacy. In its simplest metaphor, Kennedy was a cheerleader, igniting the "can do" American spirit and uniting the nation in the pursuit of excellence. Roosevelt was a Geppetto: backed by a Democratic Congress (which Obama will clearly have) and a convert to new rage of Keynesian economics, he set out to build a new economy through increasingly-pervasive government intervention. In words that could easily be attributed to Lenin, Stalin or Mao, Roosevelt (in his first Inaugural Address) said:

"If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we can not merely take but we must give as well; that if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline, because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline, because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer, pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife... With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems." [Emphasis added]

If that, gentle reader, doesn’t sounds like socialism, then John Edwards is not a prima donna.

As we approach what is, clearly, the most important Presidential election in more than half a century, we should all pause to reflect on what we hope for in the next four years. Have we really reached a point where greater government intervention is our greatest hope for an economic recovery? Should we ignore the lessons of history (e.g. the U.S. Postal Service, V.A. hospitals, Amtrak, etc.) and convince ourselves that government-as-business can actually be cost efficient and profit making? Are we to believe that an increase in the power and regulatory control of federal agencies is the best answer to an economic downturn? Several hard questions cry out for answers:

1. How, exactly, is a federal initiative - in any shape or form - going to cut the cost of petroleum imports and, with it, gas and food prices to the consumer?

2. What form will the next "War of Poverty" take and how much will it cost the taxpayers?

3. What intervention (short of sterilization) will reduce the epidemic of unwed mothers and matriarchal households?

4. Can we afford to attack joblessness and the lack of employability of low-skilled workers by creating make-work federal job programs that are also paid for by taxpayers?

5. How are we to diminish unemployment in the face of wave after wave of immigration, legal and illegal?

6. What solutions will be offered for one of Senator Obama’s main social concerns - the high incarceration rate for black males 18-35 - and how much will they cost? Is increasing "opportunities" for convicted felons a legitimate or reasonable way to induce them to turn away from a life of crime?

As if anyone actually cares, here’s what I believe: I believe that the Democratic nominee for President will be elected on November 4, 2008. As I have stated previously, if the Republicans could resurrect their best - Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt - they could not overcome the general sense of displeasure that the majority of voters feel toward the GOP. I do not believe that Senator McCain, an able politician and genuine military hero, has the tools to overcome the ill-will that the majority of voters feel for the Republican Party in 2008. In the same vein, I believe the next President will have a Democratic majority in Congress that will rubber stamp, for the most part, whatever he sends before them.

For these reasons, I have an uneasy feeling that we - that is, those of us who pay taxes - are in for a rocky time over the next 4 years. Just how bumpy our road becomes will depend on how the presumptive President, Senator Obama, perceives himself and his mission. If he looks in the mirror and sees JFK and a new Camelot, so much the better. Americans could use a vigorous, inspiring and articulate head of state. But, if the junior Senator from Illinois sees himself as a new FDR, intent on expanding "government services" (the ultimate oxymoron) and building a larger federal bureaucracy, the little roads we drive, in pursuit of nothing more than happiness, security and to be left alone by government are going to develop some dangerous potholes.

In 1934, Henry Mencken described FDR’s "New Deal" as a "milk cow with 125,000,000 [the U.S. population in 1932] teats". I guess the question to be asked this fall is: "Can a cow really have 300 million teats?"

And, equally important, just how much does such a miraculous bovine cost?