Does Obama have a chance?

I hope Obama does become the US's next president. Fuck political experience, he has charisma, and on the world stage what the US needs right now is someone likable enough to win us back some support.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by MetheGelfling

Yeah fuck experience, I'm voting for somebody likable and charismatic. How bout... Mickey Mouse?

Inform me, please: Experience means precisely what? GEORGE W BUSH has experience, and everybody on the goddamn planet prays night and day for his swift and sudden death, including:

A) Most of the world
B) Most of the country
C) Probably even most of his administration.

And it's not because he's not charismatic. It's because he's at the forefront of an administration that pretty much RUINED America and turned it into a nation which outwardly appears to be seeking to ruin the rest of the world.

Now I know what you're thinking - not everyone hates Dubya. It's true. I've heard of church services where they pray for Bush because he is a "warrior of God" or some bullshit like that. And I know he didn't single-handedly ruin America. No one is capable of that. But as President, he's given executive power to say "Fuck you" to motions that would ruin America, and by failing to do so he has done his part towards that end.

You know, it would've been easier to just copypasta the "YES I AM AN AMATEUR" rant from the 2003 Chris Rock movie Head of State (which was admittedly poorly-made, but still hilarious and sure did pack in a lot of poignant, accurate political commentary). Actually, I might still do that:

Spoiler:

Quote:

When it comes to creating so many enemies that we need billions of dollars to protect ourselves, I'm an amateur. When it comes to paying farmers not to grow food while people in this country starve every day, I'm an amateur. When it comes to creating a drug policy that makes crack and heroin cheaper than asthma and AIDS medicine, I'm an amateur. But there's nothing wrong with being an amateur. The people that started the Underground Railroad were amateurs. Martin Luther King was an amateur. Have you ever been to Amateur Night at the Apollo? Some of the world's best talent was there: James Brown, Luther Vandross, Rockwell, the Crown Heights Affair. Hall and Oates! The Fat Boys, Rob Base. But you wouldn't knownothing about that. Why? Because when it comes to judging talent and potential... you, my friend, are an amateur!

There's nowhere I can't reach.

That's not much of an answer to my question: Precisely what about being a President mandates previous political experience?

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

Similarly, you've not given much reason for why charisma is more important than experience in choosing a President.

Because the George W. Bush example cuts both ways.

That's true, I didn't really do that. But I don't understand what you mean with your cuts-both-ways comment...

Well, as I said. I believe - from an outside-looking-in standpoint - the United States needs someone charismatic enough to win back the support we've lost by having a total douchebag rule our country for 8 years. There's lots of poor stereotypes regarding Americans - that we are fat, imperialistic, ignorant snobs who drive around SUV's and go hunting purely for sport. I'm not going to go as far as to say this is entirely the fault of a President who happens to be most of those things - but it certainly doesn't help. Electing (i.e., proving that the majority of the United States supports his opinions) a man who pushes for things such as energy reform, ending the Iraq War, and fixing the education system for real, would go a long way towards reversing those stereotypes, and lessening the stigma that an American automatically gets upon stepping off a plane in, say, France. It won't end the stereotypes, but it will help. And it will certainly win back allies that the Bush administration lost through its belligerent shoot-first-ask-questions-later attitude.

With regard to the US itself? There are lots of things I agree with Obama on, but also a few that I disagree with him on. When I watch him speak, he sounds like the kind of guy I could talk to, say my piece, hear his side, and at the end come out with some sort of compromise that makes both sides happy. When Bush gives a State of the Union address, he'll say things like GOD HATES GAY PEOPLE or STEM CELL RESEARCH INFRINGES UPON THE DIGNITY OF LIFE and other similarly divisive statements. Yes, I know, he didn't actually say those things, but my point is that Bush comes off like a pompous ass, and he exudes an aura of disinterest in whatever it is you have to say. (THIS MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH WHY WE ARE AT WAR RIGHT NOW.) I feel like Obama's charisma and generally agreeable nature can bring about at least some progress, whereas Bush's negotiations brought about failures like No Children Left Behind and the Patriot Act.

These might not be majorly strong points, but they are valid. Now I ask - what about George W. Bush's political experience improved his performance as a President?

Night Phoenix, I understand the reasoning behind why experience is necessary in all those cases. But really - what experience is required to sign/veto a bill you agree or disagree with? How does a governor have the experience to be the commander-in-chief of the armed forces? What experience is necessary to negotiate with other national leaders? OH, RIGHT, CHARISMA.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Lord Styphon

By that same token, how does the charismatic junior Senator from Illinois have the experience to be commander-in-chief of the armed forces?

How is that question relevant if my point is that experience isn't necessarily a requirement for a successful presidency?

Quote:

Charisma?

Being an asshole might have been a viable method of getting your way back in the days of the Cold War, but the world is different now, and the US is hated enough as it is - having negotiators with reputations of stubbornness wouldn't help our cause one bit.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

WHEN THE FUCK HAS BUSH EVER SAID THIS?

Originally Posted by about 3 words after what you quoted

Yes, I know, he didn't actually say those things, but my point is that Bush comes off like a pompous ass, and he exudes an aura of disinterest in whatever it is you have to say.

You guys are, for some inexplicable reason, completely misinterpreting my point. My point is not Obama > Bush. What I'm trying to say boils down to:

Obama has something the US needs right now. Whether we needed it 50 years ago or not is irrelevant, we need it now.

Obama doesn't have executive experience, but the US doesn't necessarily need executive experience right now.

I've asked a few times for someone to explain, conclusively, why the next 4 years of the US federal administration hinge upon the election of someone who has had experience being the figurehead of a government. Yes, it's true, I'm not a fan of Bush. But before you accuse me of ranting purely for the sake of defaming him, could you please take a crack at answering my question?

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

My idea is not purely that he should get elected based entirely on his ability to get people to like him. I support him, at least initially, because I agree with most of the things that he's said.

Charisma alone isn't the only thing important in the selection of a President. But it is something we need now.

And you know what - if Christopher Walken got up on a podium and started talking about issues you care about, then what precisely is the problem with voting for him? Are you going to say we shouldn't vote actors into presidential office?

FELIPE NO

So what, again, was your reasoning for why a lack of experience hinders Obama (or a potential Walken candidacy) were he to get elected to the oval office? I really don't understand. What are you implying that he would be unable to do? What disadvantage is he immediately placed under, just because he didn't hold a state office for 6 years?

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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:

Originally Posted by Spikey

Incidentally, who the hell's Mitt Romney? Only heard about him yesterday.

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by darkrose16

I figure "African American" is better than saying black americans or colored americans.

Not if the "African American" in question is actually from Haiti, or Jamaica, or actually anywhere in the Caribbean, or South America, or is a black person from Europe.

There's nowhere I can't reach.