Funny that you wrote this. I read an interesting op-ed by Maureen Dowd:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/op...=1&oref=slogin

Quien es Less Macho? Who is less macho?

Maybe his is smaller;)

JK!

I did say "any woman" to avoid the "But Hillary's a MAN Baby" jokes. Those cross a line, IMO, and appeal to people who think "strong woman" = bitch or lesbian or something.

Can't read the article because I don't register though but I get the gist.

Maybe, maybe not. That would depend on your frame of reference. I would love to see a survey of Obama supporters to see how many can actually provide detail on his plan for America. :)


If they only talk about the change rhetoric, yes.

Because Obama isn't the messiah and putting every egg in one basket based on rhetoric is dumb. Change should be on concerned-people's agenda whether Obama becomes president or not. If he doesn't win or if his presidency doesn't pan out the way his worshippers expected, concerned-people need to be able to further the change agenda rather than lose their minds because their messiah isn't a messiah..

But I don't think anyone thinks Obama is the messiah. And his speeches contain both rhetoric and policy. I disagree that many of his supporters are just going along for a ride on the change-mobile.

I saw an entertaining video on youtube that was by a "skeptic" who pokes at political campaigns and he went up to a college age kid asking him questions about Obama at an Obama event (outside in line I think). He was clearly expecting the kid to know nothing, as soon as the kid made it clear he knew the answer he asked another question, but the kid answers every question with a lot of thought and knowledge and the guy's tone turns out to be pleasantly surprised and impressed. Since it's the internet it could have been a setup, but it didn't look like it.

I believe in the message of hope, but I'm also listening to the whole message and that's why I support Obama the way I do now.

Some people do, actually, of course not saying "messiah" but the overall point. Saying things like "he is how this country is going to get better...change, change, change will happen because of him" is definitely missing the point of what change is really about. Obama supporters are doing the in-person and email thing that has become increasingly annoying to some people.

Hmmmm....

Again, this could be based on your frame of reference.

I posted that video and its follow-up in the Random Thread the other day.

Obama just got lucky that day.

That's personal. I'm not talking personal. ;)

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you. Reading your post made me think about this because I have heard this before;).

"Experience" is very objective depending on who you talk to. And even because you have "experience," it still does not make you the better candidate.

I wonder if George W. was considered an "experienced" candidate prior to his first election. Well, that was all shot to hell huh...so whether Obama is the SENATOR (D) of Illinois or the governer and Hillary is a former first-lady and Senator of New York....at the end of the day...it doesn't seem that "experience" really matters judging on what we as a country has "experienced" for almost eight years with the same President.

McCain...I would just hope that if he is elected he would live through his term...he is too old to me...that probably shouldn't matter very much but...hey...oh well...

This is just my opinion on this concern of "experience." Oh well, time to go to the library...

I don't dislike Bush, but....
 

George W. was considered George Sr.'s son, JEBBY JEB Bush's brother, a Yale graduate, and Skull and Bones member. :p He knew the "Conservative Right and Republican ideals" and took it from there. The "nation of prayer" emphasis got him a lot of support from those who were not initially impressed with his political and social platforms.

If Obama had a lackluster political experience but came from a line of politicians or had some other networks that his criticizers appreciated, law degree and Harvard Law Review are not enough networks, they'd be able to give him more of the benefit of doubt.

This may've been said in this thread already:

Honestly, Obama's experience is going to be partially based on his age (among possibly other factors that I won't get into). He was born in 1961 and that makes him the youngest candidate and president in a very long time. The other candidates and presidents were born in the 1940s and before.

Soooooo yes it makes sense for his State and U.S. Senate run to be relatively short, factoring in his law school, Harvard Law Review, civil rights attorney, and constitutional law professor stints.

But what he worked on during his political career had an impact. Of course, this impact will be lost on people who expect more time and impact from a candidate. This impact will also be lost on people who don't think programs like helping working class Americans and the education of all children are important.

I see what you are saying, but for me---at least as "W" is concerned---those things show me very little about his ability to be the President---on his own terms...but apparently those things mattered to a lot of people:p...lol

I really want to believe that but even if he came from a family of respected politicians and had other networks his criticizers appreciated (which I think he does but critics will be just that in my opinion no matter what you do), I still don't think he would be given the benefit of the doubt for a number of reasons I won't even get into.

But, we will see what happens...

Exactly. :)


He may be given more of a benefit of the doubt by some but we agree that it would be something else that comes up. They would have a harder time veiling their criticisms of Obama under "experience and networks," though.

His brother's name is JEB. (lol Nittanyalum!) I should know, he was the sh*tty governer of my state for some time...and both of his kids had drug and law issues. And for some reason the media was obsessed with the fact that his wife was Mexican...

Anyways-I was looking at McCain (even as a Dem.) because I will not vote for Obama come hell or high water. But I couldn't bring myself to go to the "dark side" because I enjoy certain rights that they don't endorse. So if Obama wins the candidacy, I will be looking elsewhere (Nader), because I'm not one to stay home on an election day (whether they're counting ballots or not) because there is nothing I enjoy more than my right to vote! I know that a lot of people are groaning, but I can't stand Obama and if that's my party's choice...well whatever. :D

I think that Bush's lack of international experience would have hurt him had he been running for the first time under the same conditions as the present candidates.

But I think most of us were more concerned about domestic issues back then, and remember at that time , he ran against Gore, who let's be honest, probably couldn't have won the nomination against present day Obama, especially if we think pre-canonization as a Global Warming Saint, Gore, as he was then.

All the retroactive comparisons are hard to pull off because so much of the reason any particular candidate was electable had to do with when they ran and who they ran against. Don't you think that B. Obama, or bizarrely even McCain, could have beaten Bush in 2004, had either found himself running in the general election against Bush*? But instead, Bush got to run against Kerry, probably the only person that three million voters could reliably like less than Bush.

* I realize that this wouldn't work in reality; my point is just that we've had people win nominations and elections that they couldn't have won had they run in a different year.

Nope:p.

But, I feel where you are coming from though.

Can I just say (for the record), I Hate George W. Bush more than I hated his father?