(Except that I keep forgetting words and misspelling and just win the crosspost battle by a minute or two each time … but aw shucks, thanks, anyway.)
treis, it’s how we always choose. Governors don’t have foreign experience, but we choose them. Look at recent Presidents. Other than the fact that they had executive experience as governors (and not necessarily good ones) few had any of those things. Bush and Clinton’s military experience or foreign policy experiences? Hah. Clinton wasn’t electable because he was smart, but because he was smart and still came off as a good ole boy at heart. And Bush? Nuff said. Reagan? It was the fact that he communicate a vision of America and sold it well. Carter. Well he was very intelligent, was a governor with executive experience and had extensive military experience, experience that also gave him some foreign policy creds … so I guess he was more qualified than the others and a better President … right? Oh except for George H Bush who had it all. Best yet, right? So much for qualifications.
Hey I don’t knock GWBush for stupidity or lack of military or foreign policy experience. He surrounded himself with intelligent people with experience who shared his vision of a future America. I knock him for the fact that that vision was such a wrongheaded one and that those advisors were smart but eeevil.
Actually, at the time Bill Clinton annouced his candidacy, there were a HOST of better liked, better qualified, more famous Democrats that everyone expected to seek the nomination. Among them: Lloyd Bentsen, Sam Nunn, Mario Cuomo, Al Gore, Bill Bradley, Dick Gephardt. But none of those guys chose to run,m because in 1991, in the aftermath of the Gulf War, George H.W. Bush had something like 90% approval ratings, and the leading Democrats thought he was invulnerable. SO, they all said, “Forget it- I’ll run against Dan Quayle in 4 years,” leaving only three candiodates: Bill CLinton, former Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas, and Governor Moonbeam (Jerry Brown).
It LOOKED like a mighty weak field, and Bill Clinton looked like just the least worst candidate. It just shows you how things can change!
Bill Clinton’s success lay in this: unlike the other Democrats, he had the smarts to see an opportunity, and the balls to give it a try!
For all those who dismiss one-term Senators like Obama and Edwards as being too inexperienced–how many terms has Hillary Clinton served, again?
Of course, Hillary is a bit of a special case, but in terms of personal political experience she just has a few years on Obama, and if Edwards had run for re-election instead of VP he’d have two years on her.
Obama has no chance of being president ever. The race relations in this country would not permit it. You cannot win without the South. Obman was helped by a huge scandal, he was having a hard time till his Republican opponent was exposed. Obama has a dismal record on things like gay rights and women’s issues. He has constantly changed stands on them to whatever mood or voting blocked he needed
As a liberal Democrat I wouldn’t vote for him because he is so wishy washy. With all the hype because he is “supposedly cute,” and Oprah going “Rah Rah Rah,” people are not looking at him in depth.
Reserach him and you will see his record on changing his mind is so bad and so wishy washy any opponent could eat him alive. I can say Hillary stands a better chance. This guy wouldn’t make it to the nomination, if anyone actually checked his record.
IMO, we need young and inexperienced president. Look at what we’ve had, a bunch of old rich white guys that have been looking out for themselves and their party demands regardless of what the people really want. That needs to change. I’m up for anybody, except old rich white guys. No offense to ORWG’s, but you’ve had your chance, and you’ve really sucked at it.
Of course I’m being a little silly here. I realize electing someone of a difference race or gender isn’t going to guarantee better success over ORWG’s, but damn do we seriously need to change the status quo in the office of President in this regard.
He is truly one of the gifted speakers of this generation. I’d put him in the Martin Luther King class of orators. He also seems to be quite intelligent and charismatic. Those of course are good things.
The bad news is that a segment of the electorate is not ready to vote for a black person for president. Over time that segment has decreased, but still I believe it to be enough to make a victory for a black candidate very much harder than for a white one.
Being from the north also is a negative. Since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, only one northern Democrat has won a single electoral vote from the old Confederacy (HHH carried Texas). Sure, you can win without the south, but it is difficult, as McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry can attest.
Having the name Obama is unfortunate in its similarity to Osama. Most people are going to look past that, but some won’t be able to.
Lastly, being a Senator is a recipe for defeat. Senators vote on legislation. Some of those bills contain provisions to raise a fee or make a tax of some sort. No matter how small or obscure that part of the bill is, opponents will use it in screaming capitals that Senator So and So VOTED TO RAISE TAXES.
So other than being a northern black senator named Obama, he’d be a strong candidate. Not to say he wouldn’t make a fine president because I’m sure he would make an incredible president. It’s just a lot harder for him than other Dems.
(I know, Bush isn’t exactly young anymore, but he still comes across that way. And even after six years in office, he’s still inexperienced, since experience seems to wash off him like water off a duck’s back.)
I think Obama can do at least as well in the South as any currently viable Dem, including Edwards. Why? Because people hear him talk about faith and politics, and his faith comes across as the real thing.
The real problem with Obama right now is that he’s still figuring out just who he is as a politician, and where he stands and why. He’s still evolving faster than you’d like in someone who you might pick to be President for the next 4-8 years.
The Dems will have a surfeit of new blood next decade at the Presidential-contender level. Gov. Schweitzer of Montana would be ready for a Presidential run in 2012 or 2016, and by 2016, some members of the Congressional cohort of January 2007 will surely be ready for prime time, too.
He’s got that liberal+black thing going. That’s going to be a problem no matter how old and experienced he becomes, I’m afraid, unless things change radically in the next decade or so.
Age and experience (to a point; you can’t be 80 and not expect objections over being too aged and experienced) would certainly be simple bone of contention for a nice white Christian boy, but for Obama I’d be wary of the argument, as it’s likely to be a legitimate concern for some, and an easy excuse to conceal the real problem for others.
Obama was one of the few Democrats who voted for the anti-flag burning amendment, which would make it hard for me to fill the bubble for him. I don’t know how many in the liberal base feel the same way, but it’s almost a deal breaker for me.
Regarding Governors vs Senators: I think charisma plays a large role in someone winning an executive office, but not so much in winning a legislative position. Therefore, someone who is a governor or former governor probably is very charismatic, and has a shot at winning the Presidency. JFK was a Senator, but he was also very charismatic. Dukasis was a Governor, despite seeming pretty stiff, and Bush slaughtered him in the presidential elections.
Is that a joke? His father’s Kenyan. His mother’s from Kansas, and a caucasian, I believe. He is identified as an “African American” whenever his ethnicity comes up, so far as I know.