I have heard a lot of people say he doesn't have the expierence, but I truely believe the longer you spend in politics the more corrupt you become. Should we elect him before he loses the freshness and integrity he has?
2007-02-10 04:24:39 · 15 answers · asked by snowball45830 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I think a few people are confused he isn’t trying to play the “race card” and his “lack of experience” can be a good thing.
At this point having a lot of experience hasn’t helped the U.S. very much. Correct me if I’m wrong but the current president, his family and past presidents have had the experience but that didn’t always lead us into good positions. I’d much rather have someone with a fresh face new thinking that wasn’t born with a silver spoon in their mouth someone that can relate to normal everyday people. Honestly I think someone of his caliber might very well appeal to the 18 to 35 or 40 crowds. His points on the war alone appeal to those say 18 to 25 since those are the ages that have the likelihood of joining the military and going to war. Whether he wins or not he will no doubt be a force to reckon with.
2007-02-10 04:55:56 · answer #1 · answered by s a 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
This is the current "buzz" on Obama from competing Democratic factions and conservatives who are truly scarred by an Obama challenge.
It's important to note that Barack Obama will be older than Bill Clinton was when he was elected to office, so the Hillary faction would be hypocritical to say he isn't qualified.
McCain, on the other hand, will be 72 in 2008, which is older than Reagan was. I love McCain, but for all of us who saw him sleeping during the President's State of the Union address, I think we know that he won't have the energy for the job. My father is his age, and I know he wouldn't. He's enjoying his retirement.
On the Republican side, let's remember how ignorant Bush was going into the 2000 presidential race. He was a C student who had a drinking problem until he was 40 and had had only Daddy-hand-me-down jobs until he gotten into politics. He had bankrupted two companies. When reporters asked him the capital of Afghanistan, he didn't know, much less the religious landscape between Sunni and Shia in the Middle East.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, was raise by a single mother, got himself into Columbia, and then went on to graduate magna *** laude from Harvard Law. On top of that, he has an international experience that the U.S. needs right now.
You may like Bush, or you may like Clinton, but I bet most people will agree with me that the true problem is the LACK OF CHOICE in American politics. With only two political parties, I have more choice in telephone companies. The problem with the last two elections is that we had to pick between Bush and Kerry and Bush and Gore.
In The Audacity of Hope, Obama talks a great deal about changing the rules of politics to discourage two dimensional thinking and make politics more competitive by eliminating gerrymandering and campaign finance rules that encourage incumbency. Right now, we have a 90% incumbency in Congress, which is hurting us all. Obama could change that.
Right now, I value raw intelligence more than Washington insider experience. Obama is smart enough to hire all those people. What's different about him and the other candidates is that he is smart enough to ask them the right questions as he does his job.
So, to the buzz that Obama doesn't have experience, I suggest we look at where it's coming from. My guess is that they should look at the splinter in their own eye.
2007-02-10 05:08:49 · answer #2 · answered by Joseph Cartaphilus 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Ready for what? To be a tool for white-guilt liberals who need him to help feel good about themselves? Then yes, he's ready, like Kevin Federline, he's ready.
If you think a black guy with a muslim sounding name is going to get elected, you are crazier than the craziest muslim in Iraq. The only characteristics he is missing to make him an even worse candidate is: a vagina, a lisp, and having a gay lover......but there is still time for that........
2007-02-10 04:56:40 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What quantifies the experience necessary to be president of the U.S.?
We've thus far managed to re-elect a mediocre business student with a long list of failed oil ventures, no foreign policy credentials whatsoever - besides personal relationships with the House of Saud - with little to no regard to constitutional integrity.
It's difficult not to do better. Barack would do fine.
2007-02-10 04:29:54 · answer #4 · answered by buzzfeedbrenny 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Maybe, I want to see how he reacts to the repuglican hate machine, led by Rush Limbaugh, I know I will be watching the interview on 60 minutes tommorow night with interest, the more I know about him the easier it may be for me to vote for him. He is awfully young and experience is the best teacher.
2007-02-10 04:31:50 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Republicans voted for Bush twice. They would vote for him again if they could. That just proves my point that it's not about the person or the persons lack of experience. Bush was a failure at everything he did, Voters knew that and still voted Republican twice.
2007-02-10 04:40:37 · answer #6 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Bush was definitely not ready to be President and probably never would have been. Barrack Obama is ready right now, he has skills.
2007-02-10 04:30:39 · answer #7 · answered by Timothy M 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
yes he should be elected.......with only being 2 years in the Senate he has not yet been influenced by special interest groups compared with all the other candidates and in my book thats a BIG PLUS!!!!
2007-02-10 04:43:53 · answer #8 · answered by fox mulder 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, probably, but Hillary will get the nomination. That's already a wrap.
2007-02-10 04:37:19 · answer #9 · answered by igotbanned1 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Although he is relativly young, he brings a fresh new perspective to the field which is what this country needs.
2007-02-10 04:35:44 · answer #10 · answered by Dr. Richards 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋