Obama does not have experience as a leader - he's never had the power to affect change ever and nor does he know how to make the kind of decisions that will get him the desired result. His entire political career has been centered around ONE vote.

While he's a brilliant speaker and extremely charismatic, he is not a leader of men, but rather an idealist.

Clinton is Obama, but Bill Clinton was governor of Arkansas for 12 years, he knew how to get legislation he wanted passed, he knew how to handle a budget, he had to make executive decisions.

Obama's skillset doesn't fit the qualities of a successful President in many people's eyes. This why former Generals and Governors tend to beat out former legilslators - Generals and Governors make and execute policy. That's their job. The buck stops with them. Legislators debate and contribute a drop in a bucket vote and hope enough people vote the same way.

Have you not heard of the 'Clinton fundraising machine'?

And I agree with Night Phoenix. Knowing how to pass bills in Congress is not enough experience to be managing a country, especially when you've only been doing it for 2 years. I mean, comeon, the guy has to manage a budget that's somewhere in the neighbourhood of a couple trillion dollars; the least he can have is some experience managing a large company or a state.

Then why were you compelled to bring up GW?

And here's the answer to your silly question. It's important for the President to have good executive leadership skills. Being the chief executive of the US is a big job. Not something that you can just slide through with charm and good looks. In an interview I saw a long time ago, Ronald Reagan was talking about how the best place to look for future presidents is by looking at good state governors. You only get 2 cracks at being president, so it's good to have some experience in similar executive roles. Many American presidents have been governors of states prior to holding office: Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, Andrew Jackson, Martin Van Buren, William Henry Harrison, John Tyler, James K. Polk, Andrew Johnson, Rutherford B. Hayes, Grover Cleveland, William McKinley, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Calvin Coolidge, FDR, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and GW.

I'm in no way dismissing the idea that chrarisma and good people skills are invaluable to any leader. However, you can only slide so far on charm and good looks. Being the president takes more than a firm handshake and a warm smile. I'm curious as to why you'd actually come out and say, "fuck political experience."

At this point in his career, I think it's a little presumptuous of him to make a bid for the presidency. His race against Alan Keyes was a joke. If he'd been elected governor of Illinois instead (with some actual competition) I could see him taking the jump to the Presidency, but as is he's still too green (and too black).

I do have to agree with the experience argument as far as "Governors make good candidates" goes. We're seeing here in Australia more and more, local mayors running for the district election in the Federal Government elections. They have experience in the area and are well-known.

I wonder what US people (read: voters) away from Illinois think or know of the guy.


I guess the reason I support him, even though lack of experience, etc etc is that so far, he seems far better than Clinton, McCain et al.

And in that sense I agree with the 'charisma is important' argument. I mean, the US needs a President who won't turn people/nations off, who will play a different role in the international community. Obama is certainly a better diplomat than your Clintons and most Republican candidates I've seen.


Incidentally, who the hell's Mitt Romney? Only heard about him yesterday.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN...LEFEATURE_iran
Whee..


I mean, at least Obama sounds normal and not uberconservative- two steps forward from potential Republican candidates.
And you can bandy around and talk about 'experience' all you want- but it doesn't mean it was good experience, or that they're not a total asshole or crappy leader. Look at Australia's Prime Minister, eons of experience, worst leader we've ever had.

- Spike

Okay. I can accept those answers.

The main reason I view political experience as being an invalid point against him comes from something Obama himself said. To paraphrase, it was along the lines of "Yeah, I know I'm inexperienced with the way things work in Washington, but I know enough to know it's broken." The guy wants to do things differently - and if that's how he wants to play the game, then having prior experience in doing it just like everybody else isn't really going to matter.

Clearly the guy isn't going to change 220+ years worth of civic tradition. But if he's going to play the role of President in a different manner, then I say more power to him. (Of course, it remains to be seen how much of that is just idealistic rhetoric, and how much will actually carry over into office if he gets elected.)

Additional Spam:
Ex-Governor of the state of Massachusetts. From what I gather he wasn't too popular around here... but I don't really know too much about him other than that.

So the main reason why you overlook is lack of experience is the result of early campaign rhetoric?

"but I know enough to know it's broken."

Hmmm... eh, so what? I can tell you that my car's broken. But since I don't have any experience as a mechanic, I really don't have the first clue how to fix it. Perhaps if I use my charismatic powers, I can woo the problem away.

Early polls have put him at a distant third behind McCain and Guliani for Republican candidate. He's got a pretty good business record - as well as the things listed on the site you linked, he is also credited with eliminating a $3 billion deficit as governor of Massachusetts without raising taxes.

Actually, somewhat similar to Obama, he's attempting to characterize himself as an outsider who wants to change Washington:
"I don't believe Washington can get transformed by someone from the inside, by someone who has been part of politics throughout their entire life, who's made all the deals. To have government change and transform, to have innovation come into government, you've got to have somebody who spent their lifetime innovating and transforming."

His biggest hurdles so far will be his religion (which a fair amount of the religious right consider to be a non-Christian cult), and his flip-flopping on the issues of abortion and same-sex marriage (which is mostly what made him so unpopular in Massachusetts, as BurningRanger mentioned).

I'm not sure if you're familiar with them, but I wouldn't exactly call McCain and Guliani "uberconservative" by any means. They're both pretty moderate, especially Guliani.

At any rate, I think we can all be glad that this guy doesn't stand snowball's a chance in Hell. Man, just look at his website. He sure likes to advertise his book at the top of every page; apparently God really needs some cash.

From my perspective, should it become Obama vs. Guliani, Obama doesn't stand a real chance. Guliani is basically "the man who made New York City safe", while Obama is pretty much a blank page. At least when dealing with international media, I can't say how and what the coverage in the US is about.
As much as I'd like him to win, I don't think he will.
But on the other hand, I also don't see much of a chance for Hillary. Maybe more for her than for Obama, but she'd still loose.
It's true I think. The US is not ready for a "minority" president.
Another sad thing about Obama is how the political african americans see him as "not black enough". Not really that much of an important thing in this political environment, but still somewhat of a sad side note. Not because Obama is "oh so not-black" but because of how split up the "liberal" camp is.
What brings me to the question wether Hillary wouldn't be scrutinized by left/liberal womens groups for being, well, too much influenced by her husband or something in that vein... Or do they love her? How's her stance in the more liberal US media?

Fuckedy fuck, that guy's a nutjob! Sure that's not a satirical entry? :eye:

That is why they keep on comparing Obama to Lincoln, who is probably one of the greatest presidents ever.

They keep comparing him to Lincoln for ridiculous reasons.

1. They're both from Illinois. (Even though Obama was born in Hawaii and Lincoln in Kentucky.)
2. They both face a "nation divided." (Yet I think comparing high partisanship with the Civil War is a bit of a stretch.)
4. Obama's black, and Abe Lincoln freed the slaves! (Um yeah.)
5. They announced their bid for the presidency in the same place. (Along with many US Presidents, I once took a piss in the West Wing of the White House.)

I dont know that much about Lincoln myself, but I think they where also comparig him on level of experience, but agian I am out of bounds saying this becuase I know almost nothing about Lincoln.

Lincoln is the exception, not the rule.

I'd like to think that Obama would get it...I mean, the worst his opponents can come up with is that he smokes. Realistically, I think it's a tall order, especially for the 2008 election. In four, eight, or even twelve years, I think his chances would be greater. His best bet right now would be to forge ahead with a Senate career, get himself noticed and in a couple of terms time he could be seen as a 'natural choice' for the Democratic nomination.

I've read the political positions of both Clinton and Obama and, compared to my own views, Obama edges out in front (he doesn't have a noticable vendetta against violence in movies and video games, for example).

That said, as much as it'd be nice for a President to get in merely on ethics, others on this board are right, an important factor is the ability to raise enough funds to carry off a successful campaign. At the moment, I don't think Obama can command that kind of money.

A vote for Obama is a vote for Osama.

Nah. Obama isn't a terrorist, just a socialist.

YouTube Video

OH YEAH

All I can say is, I sure as hell don't want Hillary. I don't trust her to hold a position at all, especially the important ones. One of the big areas where I see her as taking a very dangerous position is the issue of censorship. Hint: the center shall not hold, Hill. It's not 1992 anymore.

I'm probably way out in left field, but the candidate who's views are closest to my own are, yet again, Dennis Kucinich, the former mayor of Cleveland. Not that he, you know, stands a chance.

Edit: Here are Kucinich's numbers from 2004. Notice how huge (comparatively) his turnout was in Hawaii. 'sup left side of the map.

I actually plan to vote for Kucinich, as well, Ramoth. I agree with him on a wide variety of issues, most notably aboloshing the death penalty, removing our forces from Iraq, and, of course, ending the War on Drugs.

Do you really believe that Kucinich can end the war on drugs? And what exactly is his plan for doing so?

No, I do not. Not yet, at least. Doesn't mean I shouldn't vote for people who are willing to fight for positions I support. Does anyone here really think any candidate is going to end the death penalty? Why vote for pro- or anti-capital punishment candidates then? Why make it an issue? Just because it's not happening immediately doesn't mean it shouldn't be an issue.

As for the second question, read this. His position makes a lot more sense than you might think.

I am not sure that I trust Obama being President. I don't know I just get this feeling he's not about the country. Also if President, he could be subject to a lot of assination attempts being black an all(seriously).

I actually agree with you on that point, Winter. Hell, I feel that both Hillary and Obama would be in severe danger if they took the Presidency (which is quickly appearing to be a considerable possibility).

Of course, you also have the "I ain't votin' for no sand-lot *racial epithet here*" crowd who may very well fuck over Obama no matter how much of an attractive choice he is.

I agree with you. I don't think that neither Hilary or Obama has a chance because A) she's a woman and B) he's african american. They would get wiped out so fast, and we would expect it to happen. I don't think that America is ready for such a radical change. Also, I think Obama should have tried smaller. I'm from Illinois and I think he should have maybe taken on Mayor Dayley (although I don't know how smart that would be considering that he's involved with the mob and probably would have Obama knocked off)
Even though I feel this way, I think I might still vote for either one of them, but thats a hard choice cause not only am I a woman, but I'm a black woman. It depends on their campaigns...

Why? Going from being a U.S. Senator to a mayor is quite a step down, and leaving the Senate would have cost him a lot of the national attention he gets. Besides, Obama's come off pretty well by not challenging Daley.

He's half black American. I don't understand how people with one white parent and one black parent, who were born in the US are considered African Americans. It's like when Halle Berry won an Oscar, and everybody made a big deal about how she was the "first African American woman" to win one. As far as I know, the first African American woman to win an Oscar was Charlize Theron because she's actually from South Africa.

Why should you being a woman, or a black woman make a difference at all? Why not just listen to all the candidates, and pick the person who you think will be best suited for the job?