2007-12-22 09:01:29 · 15 answers · asked by catchup 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
f u c k no
2007-12-22 09:03:15 · answer #1 · answered by Waffles 2 · 3⤊ 3⤋
Hillary criticized him for having the audacity to state outright that he would not drop nuclear bombs on Pakistan. In other words, Obama isn't sufficiently a hawk for Hillary's sensibilities.
Having said that, I think neither Obama, nor most of the other candidates really are committed to peace and normalized relations with the rest of the world. And yet, this is exactly what is needed right now.
Only a candidate committed to ending the war, and the foreign policy of interventionism, can possibly hold any hope for America and the world. There is such a candidate, and those who know of him know who I am talking about.
Obama isn't as bad as Hillary, but that doesn't make him qualified to be President of the United States.
2007-12-22 10:03:54 · answer #2 · answered by Search first before you ask it 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hillary (D), or McCain (R). They are more qualified for presidency with more experience in global affairs. Obama is just eloquent. In my opinion, our country will need a strong leader to correct all the damage done by such things like the war in Iraq, national security to prevent terrorist or illegal activities, the mortgage crisis, healthcare, etc. Obama's lack of experience may prove problematic, and it's better to be safe than sorry.
2007-12-22 09:15:21 · answer #3 · answered by somanyquestions 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That should be obvious. Obama, among other things is a flip flopper like J. Kerry. Obama should be made to wear a flashing yellow light on his back with the word "CAUTION"!
2007-12-22 09:11:32 · answer #4 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A few years as a Jr. Senator from Illinois qualifies him to lead the greatest nation on earth?
Think not, needs a few more years of seasoning. While he's at it, maybe get a name change along the way, especially his middle name.
2007-12-22 09:09:32 · answer #5 · answered by labdoctor 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Why- Is is young and charismatic. His record supports his promises of real change in DC politics. The fact that he has little experience in DC means he is not beholding to too many PACs.
Why not- He is a tax and spend politician. He has no foreign affairs experience. He has not authored or co-authored any bills in congress that supports his ideas.
2007-12-22 09:06:54 · answer #6 · answered by mymadsky 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I can't stand all of you people and your naive answers. You say he lacks experience, what does experience get you in politics? It gets you corrupt and in special interest pockets. At least he doesn't work for oil companies and drugs companies like the last idiot with experience you voted in. The only thing they get better at with experience is manipulating you and you love it!!
2007-12-22 09:38:36 · answer #7 · answered by adddictedtomonsterenergy 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes and no. Does he have enough experience for what this country needs right now? If he doesn't, is that a good thing b/c he doesn't have quite the corrupt record the other's do, and he will do the right things?
2007-12-22 09:06:37 · answer #8 · answered by MadLibs 6 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Yeah, probably...
He just understands that the war is wrong but you can't just pull out overnight like Ron Paul is suggesting.
He also wants to protect Religious Freedom without making you obey his personal views like Mike Huckabee wants.
2007-12-22 09:06:58 · answer #9 · answered by rabble rouser 6 · 0⤊ 4⤋
ron paul 2008
2007-12-22 09:06:09 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Yes. why? Just because!
2007-12-22 09:11:09 · answer #11 · answered by rmon 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋