Firstly, I’m Canadian.
But if I could vote in the USA, I don’t think I could get past Gitmo — promise #1.
“I DON’T want to be ambiguous about this. We are going to close Guantánamo.” So said Barack Obama in January 2009, giving himself a year to do it.
Economist – How to close Guantánamo
… Despite promises to close Guantánamo and reverse the illegal policies of the Bush administration, President Obama has attempted to legitimize them. He has signed an executive order formalizing indefinite detentions at Guantánamo, resumed illegitimate military commissions, and refused to hold U.S. officials accountable for torture. …
Read Lakhdar Boumediene’s story and tell me YOU wouldn’t have freed him long ago, regardless of the political consequences.
I don’t care if the President didn’t have the power to close Gitmo. If you can’t deliver, don’t promise.
I’m reading Game Change, the story of what happened exactly 4yrs ago in the American election.
(via Kottke)
Rick McCharles 
Underpromise, over deliver. Yeah, in American politics, sure. Quagmire down here – but look at the GOP candidates…scary.
Well, the problem is that voting or not voting for someone (or a party) based strictly on one promise seems a bit short sighted.
I agree with your comments about Obama and gitmo but…what would you do…not vote?? Surely the Republican candidate will be more than happy to keep gitmo open (albeit in the guise of “national security” or some other form of dress up) not to mention that the current fiscal problems in the U.S. revolve largely around “deregulation” of banking; mostly a Republican agenda (and also an ongoing agenda of the Conservatives in Canada).
Certainly I’d vote Obama over NEWT.
But I might take a chance on Romney.
In any case, I’m reconsidering Obama’s good qualities after this …