I don’t understand the harsh criticism here. Is it because she garbled the first two sentences… the meaning is unclear here although she goes on to make perfect sense. She doesn’t really answer the question although I don’t think it an appropriate question to answer as a potential VP.

Obama used to be criticized for speaking primarily in platitudes during the primaries (and especially early on). To me, this really stood out on the debate stage compared to the very wonky Hillary. But people spoke about his newness, his freshness, “change”, “hope” and that he would be different from the standard Washington insider. Sounds like someone we have recently been introduced to, Sarah Palin. Of course, Obama is a bit more wonky now – he’s had a lot of practice during this election, a lot of time to talk to advisors, study and he also learned a lot from Hillary during the debates. I imagine Palin will also become more wonky and detailed as she gains experience. I think Obama and Palin are both intelligent people.

I guess it depends on style. Does one relate to the Harvard degree or the state college degree? The college professor or the hockey mom? An east coast vibe or midwestern? The Democrat or the Republican? But as is, I see a double standard coming from Obama supporters. Oh, so now it’s about experience, wonkiness? And who did you support during the primaries?

“All she can offer is a platitude that has been repeated regularly for the last eight years.”

That is pretty much what Obama and Biden has offered us on a lot of issues. Take this very issue of Iran and nukes. Obama has offered us pretty much the same canned answer of working with our enemies (but now with preparation and at levels below the president).

This is nice but this is not a substantive answer. Then what? Then what will you do to actually stop them from acquiring nukes? Where is the leverage? This is important since Obama claims (now) that Iran with nukes is something we cannot allow to happen, where as before he told us that Iran is no threat to America, and that it’s a little country.

McCain is the only one who has offered a substantively new idea. To create a group of democratic countries that does not include countries who’s policies are to look the other way on Iran and nukes. That means China and Russia are out, and most of Europe is in. This group of democratic countries would institute much tougher economic sanctions on Iran (a country in dire economic shape).

Now you can certainly argue whether this would work, but its at least an idea that goes beyond the platitudes offered to the doves in this country, which history has shown us often does not work. And it’s a extended and stronger approach to what Bush has tried so far.

CR,

You are better than that – you don’t have to be so mean. I guess “identity” would have been a better word to use than “style”.

My vote for McCain is not out of spite (I guess you mean regarding Hillary). I just happen to think Obama is a very poor choice and McCain is the better choice. I am not passionate about McCain.

I would still love to hear from people why Obama is a great candidate.

I’m not trying to be mean, I just don’t understand how you can vote for McCain after wanting Hillary so desperately. It shouldn’t be about identity or style, it should be about ideology. If you have suddenly decided to embrace right-wing ideology because you believe a free market is the only solution to our problems and you somehow believe McCain and the Republicans stand for this, then that I could respect. But it seems the only reason you want to vote for McCain is because you don’t like Obama. And your reasons for not liking Obama are unconvincing.

As for reasons why people like Obama…

I, for one, have never pushed the whole experience argument. I wouldn’t care about Palin’s lack of experience if it weren’t for her lack of intellectual curiosity.

Obama’s worldview is fueled by a rapacious intellectual curiosity. His background is as diverse as they come and he has met and interacted with people of every conceivable background. From the very beginning he has been trying to understand what motivates people and how people’s economic and political circumstances affect their lives and their decision making abilities. And then, how these situations could be improved to better the people.

When confronted with racism, his immediate instinct was to understand the people who would hate him, not simply dismiss them as evil. His speech on race articulated this far better than I ever could. And that speech was the first speech I have heard in a very long time that treated its audience as thinking individuals. He had the choice of simply denouncing his pastor or trying to make people understand. The gamble he took in trusting people’s ability to think was unprecedented in this day and age and that was the moment I became passionate about him.

It inspired me to read his books and they made me believe in him even more. The very idea of having a president who talks about issues and problems in a truthful way; a way that actually makes sense. The idea of having a president so interested in the human condition, so compassionate and so intelligent was and remains incredibly alluring to me.

Next to him Hillary seemed more and more like an opportunist. This may be unfair, but as the primaries went on and her tactics got more and more underhand I lost respect for her. I don’t hate her, and if she had won I’d have voted for her, but my politics is based more on ideology than identity and as far as I am concerned the ideology of the Republican party has shown itself to be morally repugnant and utterly bankrupt. Palin is an embodiment of the very worst of it. An unthinking opportunistic liar. McCain, with his pandering to the evangelicals, his tacit support of torture after being tortured himself, his choice of Palin, his trigger-happy outlook and his very membership in the Republican party has totally discredited himself. When he stood next to Obama arrogantly shaking his head as if Obama was some dumb kid with a headful of flowers, I saw him for the bitter, broken down old fool he has become. He is not the person to lead this country out of its current mess.

Why, you may ask do experience and achievements mean so little to me. The bottom line is, no one is ever experienced at being president before they are president. The skill-set for this job is not learned. You need to be able to think on your feet, not panic, gain a diverse range of opinions from the very best advisors, and proceed with caution. Every decision you make affects millions of lives, so you need to be fully cognizant of all their ramifications, or at least as many variables as can be calculated.

Which leads to an opposite point. Chance dictates much of what faces a president. Events which are not predictable, and outcomes with you cannot anticipate. Experience can be useful in situations where the variables are set in stone. Geopolitics and Economics do not belong in these spheres. The 9/11 attack was not anticipated, and no amount of experience could have prevented it. I want a president who doesn’t think they can control destiny like Bush, I want a president who can realistically assess what can be achieved and also what might be prevented. McCain can point to his experiences in the 20th century, negotiating with the USSR or what he learned from Vietnam etc. Truth is, none of this predicts what lies in our future. Russia is no longer run by totalitarian ideologues, it is run by a mafia. The Iraq war is not Vietnam. What applied then does not apply now and thinking it does is potentially hazardous.

Another aspect of experience over intellect that interests is the idea that Obama does not understand the way Washington works. That he will be ineffectual because he cannot negotiate the machinations of the Washington machine. I predict that this is where we will benefit from a true quick-study. And if he has enough power to actually do it we will see some much needed change in how Washington works. I don’t want him to be experienced in a broken system. I want him to figure out to fix it.

One last point, and something that has a lot to do with identity and may make me sound like a very annoying white liberal. Obama said his favorite TV show is The Wire. A show about drug gangs in Baltimore. Admitting that this was his favorite show was probably unwise as it is easily twisted into – osama obama professes love of gangsta lifestyle – or some such nonsense. What he was telling those of us who watched and loved that show, however, was that he understands the problems of the inner cities in this country. He understands the corruption, the hopelessness, the racism, the institutional failures and most of all he sees the beauty and the humanity that lies in the individuals forced to exist in the mess this country has become. He is telling us that he knows and that he cares and I for one believe him.

I really do urge you to read ‘The Audacity of Hope.’ It is not cynical self-promotion as you said in a previous comment, it contains the thoughts of a deeply compassionate human being who is doing all he can to make this country a better place.

Here is why I’m voting for him, Ali . . . I agree with some of Cretin’s reasons as well, btw.

Although there has alwasy been corruption in government, there has often been one crucial element both to our patriotic spirit as a nation and our role as an inspiration to the rest of the world, and that is an inspiring leader.

In the time before chatrooms, and even before commenplace satellite tv, this was achieved largely by ignorance — JFK inspired people, Johnson less so. FDR inspired people, Truman less so. Would JFK have been remembered as such a great leader if a youtube video with him and Marilyn had been leaked? If FDR’s dalliances with his secretary (not to mention Eleanor’s with hers) had been attacked by Rush? Prolly not. Reagan probably had far less in the way of skeletons in his closet, but there was the whole Iran-Contra thing.

Regardless, these men were inspirational leaders that were in the right place at the right time, either to affect change or inspire us to take the great opportunites we had and do something with them.

I first heard about Barack Obama a few years ago but had never known much about him. I kept an eye on him in th enews – - nobody knew who either nominee would be of course, but I had voted against Kerry (which unfortunatly had me voting for Bush) in the last election and was feeling my conscience on me to really dig deep, so I planned to research all the candidates.

I then heard him speak . . . I don’t remember the speech or occasion, but I remember thinking something very interesting . . . I’d seen people react well to, say, Bush or Kerry speeches because they agreed with what Bush or Kerry was saying. While I probably disagreed with some of Obama’s points, I was inspired and involved because of his speaking style, perhaps (if I am honest) his youth, and his call to action. He was telling people what THEY could do, not what he would do for them. He was creating inspiration in others like a leader should, and it worked! He’s a junior senator without a long history of Washington insiders and he motivated his supporters to the point to where he defeated an arguably more experienced junior senator. Obama gets people excited. If you have not experienced it or biased yourself against listening to the man, you call those of us who have a “cult”, or “kool-aid drinkers”, and it’s really kind of sad. There are many, many true intellectuals and cynical Washington insiders who are supporting Obama — not the kind of people to be “taken in”, but the kind who recognize that here is something different, finally.

I was actually expecting to disagree with Obama on his platform when I researched it after that; as I’ve stated here before, I usually float in the middle, slightly to the right. But most of his ideas are simply reasonable to a fault, and those who say he runs on nothing but personality would be well-informed to know that he’s had his platform up for over a year now:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/

Will they all fly? No, nobody’s ever batted 1.000 in Washington . . . heck, nobody’s ever batted .500! But there are enough good ideas here to qualify as bringing something solid to the table. Something others might not agree with? Sure. But again, that’s par for the course.

I saw and see nothing from the other candidates, except for the over-excitable proposals from Ron Paul and Mike Gravel candidates, that represented really new, workable ideas. Hillary had some good ideas, but she played such an old-Washington smear game, crying sexism while her husband flirted with expressing racism, that I saw no reason to believe that she’d be nothing but an old-school Washington politician — regardless of her party. I honestly believe Barack Obama is something different, and less dangerous than following the path of the last eight years, which I don’t believe McCain will significantly change. He can cut spending in a million other places, but as long as he is committed to Iraq for 100 years, the biggest cause of our budget deficeit will stay in place.

This is just my opinion. You may all disagree with it, but rather than argue, please just tell me why you’re voting for McCain.

Palin’s hobby:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6T85cOGc8L0

For all you animal lovers out there.

Not sure why you posted this. I thought she sounded quite sensible, considering who she’s rooting for.

Dear Cretin,
The fact that you watch “The View” is an indication of your intellectual endeavors. One of it’s high points was when Whoopi vapidly asked if McCain was elected if she had to worry about becoming a slave again. Maybe she thinks Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat.

Your thinking that going to Harvard is a measure of more intelligence is ridiculous. Believe it or not, there are individuals who go to small state universities who may have higher intellects than Harvard grads. Check the tuition at Harvard that could be a deciding factor on whether a student goes to Harvard. Oh,and by the way, how did senator Obama pay the tuition?

It is interesting that whenever liberals take up their cause they rave on about how stupid the opposition is. Anyone taking an opposite view is immediately shouted down and written off as stupid.
The fact is that Sarah Palin is not stupid and has more experience than Obama. He may or may not be more intelligent but it is more than IQ that we need to consider- it’s judgment.

Other Harvard graduates are Theodore J. Kaczynski ’62, the Unabomber, Jeffrey K. Skilling, former CEO of Enron, and Eugene N. Plotkin ’00, a former Goldman Sachs employee indited for insider trading. I wouldn’t consider them over Sarah Palin.

Finally, I don’t know where you get your information about McCain. He is and always has been against torture and has repeatedly said war should be the last resort. Obama is the one speaking of bombing targets in Pakistan and Iran.

There were many great political speakers who were dangerous men.I think you look at the actions of a candidate throughout his life, you look at his associations and you look at his past judgment. In every case McCain is by far the clear choice of the best man to lead our country.

Norien, Cretin here, mind if I call you Morion?

Your arguement is thus: If you go to Harvard you are more stupid than if you don’t. I am stupid coz I watch the View, which is bad, but being intelligent is also bad, coz then you’ll be a terrorist, but Sarah Palin is intelligent, which is good, when it’s her, we should use judgment to decide anyway, so all the intelligence stuff doesn’t matter, even though mccain has shown very poor judgment (not least in choosing Palin). and finally, mccain is against torture, (which he voted in favor of).

It’s a good argument, i’ll grant you. I can’t imagine why liberals think republicans are a bit lacking in the brains department.

Facts aren’t my strong point I fear. McCain voted against stopping torture, which amounts to the same thing and is pretty shocking from a guy who was tortured himself:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/13/washington/13cnd-cong.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

The idea that Obama is an extremist is laughable to me. I come from England where extremists on the left are basically communists. Obama is a centrist and a pragmatist. Nothing about his policies his votes or his demeanor strikes me as extreme. He is a cautious cerebral man, who pays very close attention to his advisers. And he will have the very best advisers, as the best and the brightest are attracted to him. No one with any sense is going to want to work for McCain. (Though if he wins, I hope they do!)

I’m sort of immune to you at the moment CJ. Obama’s lead in the polls has taken the edge off your bating. I just read about half of that article and I’m not weeping yet. It tells me once again that Ayers was a bad man and Obama worked with him a bit. As did many other people.

Do you think evilness rubs off people like ink and leaves indelible stains in other peoples minds? Stains, that once exposed to power, overcome their hosts and turn them into raging ideologues?

Do you think Obama has no mind of his own and can only recycle the thoughts of the most radical people he’s met? Have you read his books or listened to a word he has said? Do you think everything he has done and said for the last 10 years has been a lie and he’s an evil genius ready to sell us out to the highest bidder?

I’d really like to know what you think and what put you in this mindset, but you are incapable of explaining. It’s just link after link after link to a load of insubstantial nonsense. I ask again for the millionth time, why did you stop being a Democrat? What happened to you?

Hmmm, you are sounding strangely reasonable and human in this post CJ.

They presented your argument on the PBS coverage after the debate last night and I agreed with the guy who said now was time for strong leadership. I think what you say has merit, but we need decisiveness. I don’t like the idea of every policy Obama puts forward being rejected by the house or the senate. How will anything get fixed if that is the situation? I know you think Obama is going to come up with a load of radical Marxist policies, but, well, you’re wrong.

I this Obama would work with Republicans, even if there was no need for him to do so. I take him at his word on this, and accept I may wrong. I don’t trust McCain to do the same. It seems to me he only started doing that after Bush fucked him over. I should expand on that, I don’t actually trust McCain on anything, and I think the main reason for this is his age. I know it is bad to judge someone on their age, but Christ, he is SO old. He doesn’t seem to be in full control of his faculties when he speaks. He acts like he knows he is right without a shadow of doubt on every issue and anyone who disagrees with him is naive, though his opinions are often demonstrably wrong.

The moment he chose Palin as his running mate his age became crucial. Like a lot of people in this election, I only became crazy partisan after McCain chose Palin. I admit, I would never have wanted him to win, but choosing that despicable woman instantly disqualified him. How any of you can still defend her or defend him after picking her is totally beyond me.

My guess is he picked her thinking she’ll get him elected, then he’ll keep her in a back room and pretend she doesn’t exist. This would be more understandable if he weren’t 72 and a cancer survivor. The fact his own potential demise never figured in his calculations shows him to be both delusional and irresponsible. Thus, as I keep saying, disqualifying him.