Quote:
Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo
I thought that too. But I think the longer you're in Congress, the more dirt they can dig up. The more votes they can bury you with. In a general election, Obama can target McCain on the Keating 5, the Iraq War, and a slew of other votes over his tenure. McCain can only call him inexperienced. Hillary had to resort to trying to bash him on his Illinois Senate record, but it didn't really work.
Plus it's hard to tell if the buzz around him will remain. Will he still garner the same passion from voters after they've heard the same speeches for another 8 years? Seen him become entrenched with lobbyists and other schemes all Congressman do. I think as a political advisor, I'd rather run the campaign of someone who is popular and unexperienced vs someone with a lot of experience but a lot of baggage too. Over the month before the election, I can tear about that baggage, but I can only say he's inexperienced so many times.
|
While you make good points, what you are saying also indicates the big danger of voting for Obama. Had Obama been a senator for longer, what mistakes would he have made? What kind of track record would he have set?
It appears to me as if many people are willfully ignoring the very real risk that Obama will not turn out the way they are expecting. After all, there is no good indication right now of how he will function, beyond mere words.
Think of choosing a president as choosing a marriage partner. What would be the better choice, someone whom you've known for a long time, and of whom you know both the qualities and the flaws? Or someone you've only been on a single date with, and about whom you only know that they are attractive and a good conversationalist?