Yes, I am aware he is running now. But he is obviously inexperienced.
I must admit, the man is promising. He is smart and he has fresh ideas, but putting him office right now just isn't realistic.
I wouldn't vote for him (I most likely won't be voting for any Democrats anytime soon unless Joe Lieberman runs) but he (speaking as a Conservative) is more refreshing then Edwards or Clinton or the others.
Or is a lack of experience a good thing? Look at what he had to say below:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20346455/
'Democrat Barack Obama on Sunday tried to parlay his relative lack of national experience into a positive attribute, chiding his rivals for adhering to "conventional thinking" that led the country to war and that has divided the country.'
What do you think? Would he stand a better chance and be more qualified to run this nation in another ten years?
2007-08-20
03:15:25
·
12 answers
·
asked by
Still Beautifully Conservative
5
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
In my opinion, he should wait. He is, though quite intelligent and well-spoken, still naive in political matters and would face a very difficult time in the general election, if nominated. I am not sure that ten years will make him more electable, but it will be interesting to see what happens.
2007-08-20 03:22:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by fangtaiyang 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
it would recommend that the republicans have been all mentally incompetent or they have been in simple terms attempting to get some use out of all those dressmaker clothing and footwear Palin offered with their credit card. If Obama does a competent pastime for us we can reelect him regardless of who runs against him in 4 years. I doubt that Obama's race had lots impact on voters because he won by skill of a landslide. I quite have a sturdy feeling that he will exceed our expectancies and no republican will want to run against him understanding they are going to lose. i'm valuable that's the reason McCain and Palin have been allowed to run this time. there became a narrow danger that yet another republican might get in place of work after Bush and a Jebb/Palin is a real danger.
2016-11-12 23:43:39
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
I think later down the road with more experience he would be tough competition. Right now his lack of experience is evident, which is scary since he and socialist Clinton are the top two. I don't want Hillary to have a chance and would rather see Obama as top dog.
2007-08-20 03:42:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by Jasmine 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Obama 2012
2007-08-20 03:19:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
No he should wait 8 years. As Hillary's Vice President he will gain the experience and insight into properly running the Oval Office and can then run when her second term is over. He will be experienced by then and will be elected for his own 2 terms. After he is done we can possibly elect a moderate Republican to help put on the brakes of progress as we will have had 16 years of rapid progress and will need a bit of a breather.
2007-08-20 03:23:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
He definitely needs more experience in the political arena.
Also, in all honesty, sometimes we need fresh, younger ideas. Ever hear kids say some of the smartest things?
I'm not saying it applies in this instance but he certainly does have very interesting ideas to say the least.
Edit; Also having less experience provides him with "less" corruption than other politicians(if it's possible). Since he's still green behind the ears he may not be tempted toward corruption as most others are. Does that make sense?
2007-08-20 03:19:57
·
answer #6
·
answered by Glen B 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
Why is that when W ran, conservatives pointed to the years he spent running businesses into the ground as relevant experience for the presidency, and yet when Barack Obama -- brilliant constitutional law professor and accomplished lawyer -- runs, only his time in the Senate is considered relevant?
2007-08-20 03:30:08
·
answer #7
·
answered by Josh 3
·
1⤊
1⤋
He needs to get out of politics for 10 years,visit the real world,run a business,join the military or work in a factory.
When,he's more than just a college punk,he can come back and tell us why to vote for him.
2007-08-20 03:24:05
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
A career politician has too many lobbists on their backs to any good.
Maybe a newbie that possesses some common sense would do better.
2007-08-20 03:39:45
·
answer #9
·
answered by Nurse Winchester 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
I think a certain amount of his appeal to some people is that lack of experience and dare I say it? lack of cynicism. He is not a career politician and that is refreshing to me.
Career politician=corrupt
2007-08-20 03:23:34
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋