It's an interesting sign of the times as Democrats turn to the completely inexperienced Obama as one of the few people "qualified" to best lead America.
2007-01-03 05:48:38 · 15 answers · asked by junglejoe 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
I agree with you. It shows a bit of desperation, in my opinion.
While he may be a great member of Congress (which has yet to be determined, really), it is way too soon to tell what his leadership potential and level of ability is.
2007-01-03 05:51:25 · answer #1 · answered by ItsJustMe 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Well, I'd say first that they haven't fixed in on Sen Obama as a candidate. And I'd say second that he's not 100% inexperienced... he's a Senator right now, and a well-respected one to boot. Not by just the Democratic party, but by conservatives as well.
He's got a shot at the "electoral math" that is required to be elected President. It's not out of the question. He's also "new" enough that a lot of people haven't formed opinions on him or his policies, so that can play to his favor rather than against him (like it is with Senator Clinton).
Also, look at the horrible, horrible luck the Democratic party had with Senator Kerry and Vice-President Gore. Both were experienced, and yet both lost (albiet closely) to current President Bush.
It does not suprise me at all that the Democratic Party is exploring a different strategy.
2007-01-03 06:36:43 · answer #2 · answered by Paul McDonald 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
OK, first off you are jumping the gun in the very same way you are trying to claim the Dems are doing.
They have NOT selected him to be their candidate. Any moron can throw his hat in the ring and run....it by no way means they are the official candidate. I would expect you would already know this. So I kinda see this as a lame attempt to slam Obama or the Dems on your part.
Funny how the Republicans are the first to claim a Dem "doesn't have experience" because he's only been a Governor (Clinton) or "he/she is a hollywood actor, they should shut up, they aren't qualified to comment or run for office" (too many to list) yet both Reagan and King George were both Gov's, Reagan and Arnold were both Hollywood actors.
Oh but that's OK cuz they decided to put an "R" after their name huh?
Stick with bashing the more qualified Dems that are or may run for 2008...like the Rights favorite target, Hillary or how about Wes Clark?
2007-01-03 06:10:33 · answer #3 · answered by Tyrone Shoelaces 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
For some reason, the Dems are fascinated by him- for the time being. They will eventually tire of him and focus on a real candidate. I don't know if it's a sign of the times, remember, last presidential election, Dean was the biggie, only to be thrown aside later. If anything, maybe it shows what a short attention span we voters have.
2007-01-03 05:59:26 · answer #4 · answered by jeffpsd 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I guess I don't understand the fascination. Now, I understand that he's got a bright political future ahead of him, and it would be in the Dems best interests to groom him for future national office, but for 2008? His resume is a little weak right now.
He needs to get his "bones" [bona fides] in committee work and then perhaps a position in a Democrat administration or even better, be elected governor, for that crucial executive experience.
But 2008, nah. Bad idea.
2007-01-03 06:12:15 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
You're right, the Democrats will probably bring in an inexperienced candidate, just as the Republicans will. The only ones that we have who is experienced in the president's office is G.Bush senior, Carter, or Clinton. Bush jr is experienced but barred from running.
Take your pick. Which one would you like to see in the office ?
I can't loose points for not answering the question because you didn't ask one.
2007-01-03 06:05:57 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
As an Illinois resident, I am frankly astounded by the love-in the mainstream media seems to be having over Obama. He is a charismatic public speaker, that is true, but he only won his election due to some stupid moves by the state Republican party here in Illinois. Of course, with the new allegations about cocaine use popping up today in the Washington Post that love affair may be coming to a close.
And if you look into his voting record, it almost completely matches up with Dick Durbin's, one of the most liberal members of Congress, the same Dick Durbin that compared our soldiers working in Guantanemo to the SS and the Khmer Rouge. Gimme a break!
2007-01-03 05:55:52 · answer #7 · answered by krustykrabtrainee 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Does not have to be peace loving but must have the intellect to make a conscious rational decision for the good of the people. Not the good of the Bushies or their Daddy.
I do not think Obama is good. He is boring. I think they like him because he is black and they know he would pull the black vote close to 100%. Probably hispanic also.
2007-01-03 05:55:12 · answer #8 · answered by Lou 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
When you stand him up next to all the other democrats, suddenly he doesn't look so bad. It's a matter of comparing him with the company he keeps.
2007-01-03 06:24:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋
We have barely entered into the year 2007, and you are already predicting the outcome of the 2008 Democratic primaries?!
LOL!
That's rich!
2007-01-03 06:00:28 · answer #10 · answered by Jack C 5 · 0⤊ 4⤋