<p>
</p>
<p>And Obama has * how much * comapred to McCain??</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lost his s*** so much that he recoiled and someone had to “rescue” him. Based on McCain’s verbal abuse (on Youtube) of another reporter over another basic question, it is clear this is a pattern of behavior.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Vastly more judgement, in terms of the Iraq War and Afghanistan. In terms of the economy, Obama understands it, which is more than McCain himself has said. And that’s a pretty stark statement for someone who’s been in the Senate for so long dealing with economic issues as part of his normal job description.</p>
<p>I think it’s fair to say that Obama and McCain are temperamentally pretty different. All other things being equal, that might be a reason to be drawn to one or the other. But all other things are so unequal that it’s hard to see how this could be the major factor in choosing between them.</p>
<p>Leading a nation with 300 million people and a $15 trillion economy is not a job for a septuagenarian. Call me a skeptic, but I serious doubt the ability of a 72-76 year old man to cope with even a fraction of the load required. I am a neutral here, belonging to neither party. Maybe McCain supporters can explain how they think a man in his mid 70s can lead the largest developed country on Earth when men (and women) at that age are incapable of even leading companies, let alone entire countries.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alan Greenspan had far more important role to play than Bush when it comes to the economy, and he was much older than McCain. Warren Buffet? Charlie Munger? Carl Icahn? These people are running their corporations better than all the younger folks in the game.</p>
<p>I will choose Buffet over all the other younger guys combined.</p>
<p>People tend to forget that presidents appoint capable (hopefully) people to run the different branches and he makes decisions based on the advice provided.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it’s impossible to do it. My fear is that McCain becomes a complete and utter figurehead because he won’t have the energy to do anything else. It is a hugely punishing job. So we’d have the country run by whoever is working behind the scenes. I know that one can say that this is the way it’s done, but it would be exacerbated here.</p>
<p>The other thing, what if he starts to lose his marbles during this time? That would be a wrenching process to go through. I don’t mean to be disrespectful, but his body has already endured a whole lot of abuse from his time as a POW. The guy obviously is physically tough, but long-term damage happens to people who have to endure the kinds of things he did.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And they all do/did jobs that they had been doing for many years. There’s absolutely no analogy in that. McCain’s never been president, and it would be a much more punishing experience for him to do.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>His economic policies are bad, and since he is depending on his economic advisors to help him (he does not know enough economics for him to know that these policies are bad), I am afraid to say that his advisors might not be competent. At least, with McCain, even if he does not understand economics, his advisors are competent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>What has Obama done his entire life that has adequately prepared him to handle the economy better than McCain?</p>
<p>Why would it be a punishing experience for him?</p>
<p>What makes you absolutely sure that it wont be a punishing experience for Obama? This guy has never managed anything in his ENTIRE life.</p>
<p>His candidacy reminds me so much of a worker who starts at a fortune 500 company, and within 1 year he is being considered as the new CEO. This person does not even understand how the different branches of the company works.</p>
<p>Obama has done absolutely nothing in his ENTIRE life to indicate that he can run the country.</p>
<p>“What has Obama done his entire life that has adequately prepared him to handle the economy better than McCain?”</p>
<p>Paid attention in school?</p>
<p>Tega, all those men you mentioned were at the top of their game in their 50s or 60s. Alan Greenspan became Chariman of the Fed at the age of 60 or 61.</p>
<p>Buffet became Chairman of BH at the age of 35 or 40. </p>
<p>Don’t get me started on Charles Munger. I love the dude. I met him at a speech he gave at OUR alma matter. He is a sharp cookie (he is a Wolverine after all)! But again, he has been vice-chairman of BH since he was in the mid 40s. </p>
<p>However, none of those men were made chairmen or CEOs are the age of 72. They ascended to their final position in their 40s, 50s or early 60s.</p>
<p>“This guy has never managed anything in his ENTIRE life.”</p>
<p>He’s been managing a nationwide corporation with a staff of several thousand individuals for the last 18 months now – so successfully that it went from nonexistent to market leader practically overnight and wiped out the well-established competition. It’s equivalent to a little start-up garage corporation putting Starbucks out of business inside of two years. I’m pretty impressed.</p>
<p>In this election, neither candidate really has experience that shows he can run the country. If ability to run the country is your main criterion, you’ll have to look at (1) native ability and (2) likelihood the candidate will choose advisors who know something about running countries. Think about a couple of failed presidencies in this regard. Carter was a smart guy who (reportedly) was a good governor. But he didn’t have very good team, using a lot of people from Georgia. Bush II (in my opinion) is not a very able person himself, but initially it appeared that he had surrounded himself with a lot of experienced, capable people like Rumsfeld and Cheney. Clearly, that didn’t work out so well.
In my opinion, Obama has more native ability and intelligence than McCain does. On the second criterion, I don’t know which has the edge. Both are Senators, and so they would probably use Washington insiders for most important posts, as opposed to people from their home states.</p>
<p>Don’t worry one bit about McCain’s age - his mom is in her mid-nineties and she’s extremely fit & energetic. Not too long ago she went to France & they wouldn’t rent her a car b/c of an age limit. So what did she do? She bought one and drove herself everywhere!</p>
<p>You can see McCain & his mom together here:
[McCain’s</a> Mother’s Day ad: His mom approved the message - On Politics - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/05/mccains-mothers.html]McCain’s”>http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/05/mccains-mothers.html)</p>
<p>Many of McCain’s much younger staffers have difficulty keeping up with him. He’s been on the campaign trail for a year or so now - do you know what those schedules are like??</p>
<p>Rest assured, he’s up for the job as POTUS - he’s made for it!</p>
<p>Reagan is actually the perfect example. He surrounded himself with people smarter than himself and actually listened to their counsel. I’m sure he didn’t always do what they advised but he listened. I’m hopeful whoever is elected they will do similar and build a fantastic cabinet and advisor trust.</p>
<p>bz2010 - Actually, it’s Cindy who’s made for the job as First Lady. So much so that she took her $100 million and began an extramarital affair with a married man until he abandoned his wife and young children to let her finance his political career. Both of them in the White House would be both a practical and ethical disaster IMO.</p>
<p>bz - sure his mom is still active, but it seems only fair to mention, then, that his father died at 70.</p>
<p>The economist has a pretty interesting and on point article regarding Obama’s chances and challenges. </p>
<p>[The</a> presidential election | White men can vote | Economist.com](<a href=“http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11670719]The”>White men can vote)</p>
<p>It ends with
</p>
<p>I understand that most of the pollsters are probably well-meaning, but if McCain does manage to win, it will likely be because of the reasons mentioned. I don’t believe most of the polls showing Obama ahead by the margins claimed. </p>
<p>Another pretty good article I saw recently talked about the importance of the south, and why it is not a given for Obama</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/opinion/01schaller.html?_r=1&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/01/opinion/01schaller.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>Here are some of the categories from the “people” section of the Obama site that the Economist article failed to mention:
- Labor
- People of Faith
- Veterans</p>
<p>Are we to believe that there are no white men among those groups? I guess that it serves the narrative of the Economist article to pretend that the Obama campaign was stupid enough to set up an elaborate, exclusive “gays, lefties & people of color” section – but the fact is there is plenty for white males to identify with there. There are also groups for students & young people… which presumably also include a few white guys.
See: [Barack</a> Obama | Change We Can Believe In | Home](<a href=“http://www.barackobama.com/people/]Barack”>http://www.barackobama.com/people/)</p>
<p>Can you imagine what critics would be saying if Obama had a section on his website for “white people?”</p>