I fully expect to get over my opposition to Obama

[metalluk]

if and when he seeks a position for which he has a reasonable level of experience and preparedness. After all, the man is intelligent, principled, determined, has great people skills, and is an exceptionally talented speaker. And, since race and gender are non-issues for me, I see no obstacle on those accounts. For that matter, religious affiliation and ethnicity are irrelevant for me, unless one or the other relates demonstrably to the person's political views or policies. In my opinion, anyone who bases either their support for or opposition to a candidate primarily on race is acting in a racist manner. Anyone who bases either their support for or opposition to a candidate primarily on gender is acting in a sexist manner. (I reserve the terms "racist" or "sexist" for people who exhibit a pattern of such tendencies.) It's disturbing to see 90% of Mormons voting for Romney or Greek-Americans rallying to Dukakis or Irish-Americans disproportionately lining up behind JFK or Italian-Americans reflexively supporting Geraldine Ferraro or the countless other examples of such biases in American voting patterns. Women who back Hillary merely because she's a woman and African-Americans who back Barack merely because he's black are both giving into bigotry. So too are men who refuse to vote for Hillary because she's female or those who refuse to vote for Barack because he's mixed race or because of skin color.

Certainly, people in any demographic group have every right to experience pride in their heritage from the prominence of a person of similar background, but, if they care about the nation more than their own personal identity and interests, they'll set aside such shallow, superficial considerations and try to determine which candidate will do the best job for the country. If that turns out to be the candidate with whom they share some point of identity, so much the better; otherwise a person of integrity will suck it up and vote for best qualified person, despite differences in race, gender, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or what-have-you.

Good liberal values, experience, and political acumen – those are the key considerations, I believe. Barack Obama already has one of those three qualities and, with more experience under his belt, could acquire the other two. In the meanwhile, I'll back one or another of the candidates with the kind of experience I believe to be required for the presidency.

[tabatha]

1. He has better judgment than Hillary.

That counts more than the experience racked up by people like McCain, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.

[metalluk]

15. He has faulty judgment.

He ran a campaign in the manner of a motivational speaker or used-car salesman. His advisors twice openly acknowledged a disconnect between his campaign positioning and his actual views. He is addicted to tobacco. He antagonizes establishment interests rather than showing how he would work with those interests while pulling the nation toward more liberal values. He has exhibited weaknesses of understanding in relation to Pakistan and Iraq. He chose to seek a position for which he is underqualified rather than methodically acquiring the kind of qualifications first that would make his success as a president probable rather than merely a wild gamble.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

2. So should we support McCain over Clinton? He's cleary the more experienced one. nt

[metalluk]

12. Probably,

depending on what he has to say during the campaign and what kinds of concrete indications of moderation he provides. I'll be watching closely who he picks as a running mate, what kinds of advisors he gathers around him, etc. I'm not certain, at this point, whether I could vote for McCain. I am certain that I will not vote for Obama.

[stillcool]

25. Pledge allegiance to McCain...

..and leave DU alone.

[islandmkl]

3. make it easy on yourself and work backwards...

just pick one of the others and don't even bother delineating their 'qualifications' to earn your vote...

[JimGinPA]

4. If You Plan On Voting Democratic In Nov. I'm Afraid He'll Be Your Only Choice

:eyes:

[metalluk]

17. I don't plan

to vote Democrat in any election. I always plan to vote for the best candidates, which usually means voting Democrat. If Obama is the Democratic nominee, it will mean voting for someone else.

[Hippo_Tron]

27. "Democrat" is a noun, "Democratic" is an adjective

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rucky]

9. Ya think?

no way.

Ya think?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

19. Didja see his response #12?

[democrattotheend]

6. I don't want him to get "more experienced" in Washington

I live and work in Washington and from what I have seen, the fewer years someone spends in Congress, the better. I think demeanor and approach are important qualifications to be president, as well as the ability to be a visionary leader who inspires. So I think he has the qualifications, but I respect what you are saying.

[metalluk]

20. We sort of agree.

I don't want him to get more experienced via on-the-job training as President, in Washington D.C.

[davidinalameda]

7. so who else in the race has "good liberal values"

McCain?

nope

Nader

only if self-service is a good liberal value

whomever the lizardtarians put up

how about the Constitution Party nominee

[Bake]

26. Nader may be an ego-drive POS, but you can't say he's not liberal.

He's far more populist, and anti-corporate, than either of the Dems still in the running, to say nothing of McCain.

I loathe Nader. But I'm not going to LIE about him, either. He IS quite likely to be the most liberal candidate on the ballot.

Bake

[scheming daemons]

8. Neither Hillary nor Obama has the experience of McCain.....

...but only Obama can make the argument that he has better judgement than McCain.


Hillary can't.

[grantcart]

10. I beieve that the other candidates should quit their plushy jobs in Washington

and spend a couple of years organizing working class communities.

Who would have thought that actually going and working with poor folks in their neighborhoods would have been better experience that sitting in a room with a bunch of other rich folks talking about it.

Oh and that thick resume that you 'say' your waiting for him to build up? He could have had it easier than any of the candidates -

and could have made a lot more money - fortunately for us he had the wisdom to see that it was better to go back into the cities and

actually live and work in those cities that would give you a better preparation to lead our country.

[MethuenProgressive]

11. Not me.

I'll still oppose his getting in bed with the Hate Wing of his church. But I'll Hope he can be Cured. If we don't snap out of it and he gets the nomination, I'll also hope he keeps up his successful hypersensitivity act and negative campaign tactics. If he can Swiftboat McCain on some issue as successfully as he Swiftboated the Clintons on race, I'll be delighted. We need to win back the Whitehouse, and if we can't run Richardson or Clinton to do it honestly, I'll take dirty Chicago-style politics if that's what it takes. We need to win this thing.

[Uben]

13. I'm sorry, your over-qualified

Judging by your writing, you have too much intelligence to vote for Obama. Please refrain from making perfectly logical sense, it only serves to confuse people around here. In the future, just say, "Fired up and ready to go!". They seem to understand that mentality.

[ellacott]

18. Wow

[Indenturedebtor]

21. Wow this is rich

Two HRC supporters in one relatively short thread using her meme to support McCain!

WTG Hillary! Mission Accomplished!

Both of you can find others like you at www.freerepublic.com

Cheers!

[Drachasor]

14. Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Franklin Roosevelt weren't ready either I guess

They had a comparable amount or less experience than Obama. Too bad they were such "horrible" Presidents, eh?

Buchanan and Hoover, on the other hand, were great Presidents, I am sure. Stupid historians probably just wrongly blame Buchanan for failing to do anything to stop the South from arming itself or leaving the Union, or Hoover for being in bed with big business to an absurd degree.

"Experience" of the kind you and Hillary talk about is not all it is cracked up to be by any stretch of the imagination.

[metalluk]

23. Neither was

Hitler. I wouldn't compare Obama to Hitler or to Lincoln. As for JFK, his experience level was indeed limited and the result was the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

I think that the most realistic comparison for Obama among modern presidents would be Jimmy Carter -- a man with strong liberal values, a sense of right and wrong, a dedication to humanity (which he has proven many times as an ex-President), but also a President who was unable to get anything done because of a lack of experience with Washington politics. Carter had a good deal more political experience than Obama, having been the Chief Executive (i.e., Governor) of his state, but was nevertheless inexperienced in some key respect. In some respects, Carter was my personal favorite president, but even I have to admit that he was unable to work effectively with Congress or to act decisively as Commander-in-Chief, when the Iran crisis of the day erupted during his administration.

Charismatic leaders can be dangerous because they invite the populace to follow their emotions rather than thoughtful analysis.

[Drachasor]

24. Why do you ignore Lincoln, who hardly had any experience? Possibly our least experienced President.

Don't ignore examples just because you don't like them. You also ignore FDR. The thrust of my argument is that experience is overplayed as something of value. Some (perhaps most) of our greatest Presidents had little experience. Some of our worst Presidents had a lot of experience.

Overall, judgment IS a better indicator for leadership (for instance Hitler showed a lot of bad judgment and questionable psychology before he became a leader, whereas Lincoln showed a lot of good judgment).

[Bethany Rockafella]

16. Very good post. Welcome!

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[C_U_L8R]

28. Y'know what... just give a little listen

and have an open mind about it. You may like him, you may not.
We should all be listening to the candidates very intently and studiously.
All this passion is great but lets zero in on the real ideas.
All the candidates got em. Lets discuss em.
It's your choice and don't let anyone tell you how to vote.
Cool.

[Voice for Peace]

29. I am curious to know if supporters of Hillary would feel any less confident in her

experience and readiness if she were on her own, ie, if Bill were not going to be there in the White House with her.

I can understand people feeling more confident in her with Bill being there, ie, thinking it sort of as a 'team presidency.'

So I genuinely want to know, have supporters of Hillary considered this, and how they might answer. Thanks!