DaimenKain wrote:
Saying that Obama shouldn't be president because he has little experience doesn't make much sense. There's been presidents with gubanatorial/congressional experience that have failed miserably as president (like our current one?)
Go take a logic class. Then come back and read what you just wrote.
Some first rank draft picks in the NFL "fail". But if you had a choice between one of them and some unranked guy who showed up on the practice field looking for a shot who would you place odds on? It does, in fact, make perfect sense.
Quote:
While, I'm not so deluded that I think Obama is some shining light of purity, I actually prefer that he's only been a Senator for a few years. He's much less entrenched in the "Washington Game" and all that "Well I scratched your back, now you scratch mine" than McCain is. I'm not saying he's totally seperate from that, but at least less so than McCain.
Obama comes from the Chicago, one of the most corrupt and "backscratch" political environments in the country. And he rose *very* fast. The odds that he managed to do that without owing a whole batch of very very corrupt people is somewhere just barely above zero.
Let's remove the generalities here. We're talking about Obama vs McCain. One of them has a longstanding record as a very straight guy politically and ethically. The other has a short record filled mostly with constantly changing opinions, different stories depending on who he's talking to, a record that seems designed most to please a short list of very liberal and very powerful political groups, and a list of political connections that should make anyone cringe. Sorry. I'll take the long time Senator over the guy who attends a church run by a bigot because it helps his political career, sits on a board with a domestic terrorist for the same reason, writes a position on gun control that's popular in Chicago (for his career), then pretends he didn't write it when that's convenient for his political career, gets a perfect score from Planned Parenthood and is ranked as the most Liberal Senator, but claims he's a centrist, and otherwise has a pretty ridiculous list of positions he's swapped, adjusted, restated, or just plain not ever taken a stance on at all, all of which are designed to make it really hard to actually nail him down to a real position on anything.
Obama's greatest facet is that he lies so habitually that you can't tell when he's lying. You don't have any "truth" from him to compare it to. It's so rare to get a solid commitment from him on anything that it's laughable. He's a politician who apparently stands for nothing at all, but pretends he stands for whatever the people he's talking to at the moment care about.
Quote:
I have the feeling that since he's only been in Washington for a few years, Obama is much more in touch with the true needs and/or feelings of the people, rather than McCain, who for all intents and purposes is another out-of-touch career politician.
Why? More then a person who's name you randomly grabbed out of a phonebook?
That's a position that makes no sense. Look. I know this may be crazy, but I don't vote for president based on whether I feel like someone is "in touch" with the people (whatever the hell that means). I vote for president based on that person's positions on issues and (more importantly) his reasons why he holds those positions. This lets me know how he'll act with regard to the specific issues at hand, and gives me a clue as to how he'll respond to future issues that haven't been specifically talked about. It allows me to vote for the person who will make the decisions that I agree with.
That *should* be what you're looking for in a president. And for me, Obama doesn't match up at all. Maybe he does for you, but then again, maybe you're just planning on voting for him because he "feels right". I'm just suggesting that you make your choice based on an examination of the candidate, not just how you feel.