<p>Hogwash.
Ask most any presidential historian who knows what he/she’s talking about how much “experience” counts for an incoming President and he/she will say “minimal.”</p>
<p>Could this man be elected today? I know you wouldn’t vote for him: he’s too
“inexperienced” and “unqualified.” </p>
<p>Poppycock.</p>
<p>Note: I’m not comparing Obama to Lincoln, but I think my point is well made to anyone who chooses to listen.</p>
<p>You remind me of my mother and sister. They don’t like Obama, either. When I press them for why, they say this or they say that. After I rebut their arguments, I can tell their “reasons” are not really their “reasons.” I just think they’re not going to vote for him because he’s A/A. </p>
<p>I’m not saying you’re racist, but I doubt Obama’s “inexperience” and his being “unqualified” are the real reasons you’re not going to vote for him.</p>
<p>Can you say “President McCain?” Sure you can. Thanks in part to all the ObamaHaters.</p>
<p>Anyone watch the faith forum tonight? How come most of the pundits were criticizing Obama for giving thoughtful answers and praising McCain for being a “straight talker.”</p>
<p>Pastor: What should we do about evil in the world?
McCain: Defeat it.</p>
<p>I’m not worried about the election anymore. Sadly, short men don’t get elected by the public to positions of power.</p>
<p>We haven’t elected a president that short since Mckinley in 1900, and that was before the era of television and just after McCain was born.<<</p>
<p>I may be mistaken, but I think in all probability it was the other guy who was assassinated in office, James Garfield (1881) of which you’re speaking. I’ve done the math and that would only make McCain 108 or so.</p>
<p>Haha, glad you felt the same way too. That pastor was pretty good in stalling. McCain’s answer were so short and unsophisticated that the discussion was almost over after a mere 15 or 20 minutes.</p>
<p>Honestly, I am a bit disappointed though that John McCain hardly talked about who he is as a person and instead treated the forum as more of a campaign rally. It seemed as though he completely ignored the pastor and was disinterested in having an actual conversation. Instead he was focused on getting a reaction out of the audience.</p>
<p>Did you watch the same interviews I watched? I think McCain did very well. </p>
<p>I liked McCain’s answer about giving poor people a chance to escape bad schools in their neighborhoods (more money wont solve the problem). Like he said (I am paraphrasing here); you can’t get opportunities by attending failing schools.</p>
<p>McCain was successful in addressing some of the concerns that some members of the Republican base had about him; however, I am not sure whether he convinced progressives and independents to move over to his camp. </p>
<p>I actually think that he probably pushed better educated voters away. These voters would be able to see through his answer to the Supreme Court Justices question–he voted for all of the ones he said he wouldn’t nominate; his answer to the question about an amendment to ban same-sex marriage–he said he is in favor of allowing states to decide yet he said he would support a constitutional ban if Arizona legalized same-sex marriage; his answer to the question about merit pay for teachers–McCain wants this to be awarded at the discretion of the school principal; his answer about what we should do about evil–sounded to much like GWB on this one; his answer or lack thereof to the question of who is considered rich–he said he wishes everyone was rich… who isn’t for that?; etc.</p>
<p>I must have been watching a different set of interviews. I saw Obama with his head tilted at an awkward angle the entire time, stuttering and stammering, trying to appear thoughtful while really just searching for words that would play to many factions of the audience. He is way too pompous for my taste and this interview showed he is not a great impromptu speaker. </p>
<p>Obama actually tried to address the questions that were posed to him. McCain did not; he used them as a hook to repeat his stump speech–and seems to have gotten them ahead of time, too! Or maybe the cone of silence wasn’t working?<br>
Yes, he came across as more confident. He should. He had his answers well worked out in advance and was playing to a friendly audience.</p>
<p>But beyond the style, let’s think of the substance:</p>
<p>How is McCain proposing to fund everything he says he wants to fund but still lower our taxes? How many wars does he think we should be involved in? I’m assuming he’s not going to be pursuing Bin Laden to the gates of hell all by himself on his white charger? Where is the money for vouchers going to come from? He’s proposing to support exploring alternative forms of energy. Is he going to leave it to the free market or will it require some government subsidies? Where would the money come from?
Human rights from the time of conception? Something to really think about.
“Evil? You defeat it.” By the time he leaves office? Wow!<br>
If anybody pandered, it was McCain.</p>
<p>That’s because Obama treated the event more like a talk show while McCain treated it like a campaign rally.</p>
<p>As for stuttering, I think that’s a bit of a stretch. Obama was making sure that he thoroughly and thoughtfully answered each question. He had to do this because the audience was expecting him to deliver substance, so he actually had to think through his answers. However, McCain was expected merely to hit on all of the evangelical talking points.</p>
<p>Marite, I absolutely agree! Obama was thoughtful, introspective, and articulate. McCain’s responses were pre-programmed, hair-trigger blurt-outs, showing no real depth of thought as far as I was concerned. I agree as well that he pandered shamelessly to the conservative audience on hand. … Why is it that some Americans seem to prefer angry, swaggering, aggressive candidates to those who are calm and intellectually gifted?</p>
<p>That’s OK. It’s precisely that kind of arrogance by Democrats that have some of us planning to vote against the Democratic candidates, top to bottom in November. The more arrogant, the better.</p>
<p>This would be the same Andrew Sullivan who suggested on national TV that Senator Clinton should speak with a really deep voice to sound like a man.</p>
<p>And you want to hold this mysogynistic lout up as a political source? Typical Democratic Party nonsense. Talk the talk, but when it comes time to walk the walk, endorse the neanderthals in the media.</p>
<p>What arrogance? Why is it less about the issues than anything else? </p>
<p>Race… Arrogance… When was the last time a president was voted in because he had the potential to lead and ameliorate our nation? </p>
<p>I don’t think he meant to say he was racist. I think the issue was more so, What are you basing your votes on? Experience cannot be that great of an issue because Bush has all the experience, background and advisors in the world and look at our economy now? I think the argument is moreso raising the issues, Whats the reason? NO sugarcoating like we’ve done in the past… </p>
<p>We’ll see how the election plays out…</p>
<p>Either Obama wins… Or I have lost ALL HOPE in America…</p>