Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike33
Bush was voted in because he had experience as Governor of Texas (I think he was pretty successful at it too), had experience in business, was the son of a former President, came from money and influence, and was likable enough to have a majority vote for him.
Obama and Bush are apples and oranges. Obama's entire life is one of a desire to learn and help. If it wasn't he never would have finished high let alone Harvard law school and then into politics. He's obviously ambitious (this could be good and bad), and I'm not saying he'd make a good President. All I'm saying is that I think his bid makes sense.
|
Pretty much everyone knew Gore was far more knowledgeable about the issues than Bush. In terms of knowledge and experience, Gore was far more suitable than Bush. Based on those things alone, Gore would have won without a problem. The conservative base, while very significant, would by itself not have been enough to deliver the victory to Bush.
The reason he won was likability. Moderates could identify more with the guy posing as a "regular Joe" than with a born bureaucrat like Gore.
As for Obama... his entire life is one of a very strong ambition. Ambition, coupled with intelligence and charisma, is more than enough to ensure success. No desire to help or learn is needed for that.
That is not to say that Obama does not have a desire to help. I'm sure he does. About his desire to learn, however, I'm less sure. More importantly, I am rather unsure about how good of an idea it is not to spend significant time learning the details of the trade before running for president, instead of planning to learn them after being voted in.
Like you, I am unsure whether he'd make a competent president. Looking at the current US economy, that worries me. When the economy is failing, taking large risks seems like a rather bad idea to me.