Obama is also a polarizing candidate and if elected would easily be the most polarizing president we've ever had.

They are choosing based on perceived character, yes. And indeed, they are much alike in policies.

The main difference lies in something that is another rather important part of substance, though: time spent acquiring political experience and knowledge.

Hillary spent her time in the Senate buried to the neck in legislative issues - doing the work senators are supposed to do. Obama, on the other hand, spent his time in the Senate working on his public image, basically campaigning for an eventual presidential bid already.

You are right. People are choosing which person they like better. Just like many people did in the 2000 election.

No, it's not rocket science. I'd say it's quite a bit harder than rocket science. Rocket scientists, after all, tend to have extensive knowledge of a single subject. Presidents, on the other hand, have to be knowledgeable about economics, international relations, legislation, etc.

"It's not rocket science, he can probably handle it." Does that really sound like a good justification for making someone the single most powerful person in the whole world to you?

Lincoln is probably the most polarizing president we've ever had. He oversaw a bloody civil war.

Experience is only worthwhile if one learns from it. Bush has had plenty of political experience and where has it gotten the nation?

if they economy is in the toilet,he wont win.Also we keep forgetting the gunsights havent really been aimed at him yet.

That's what advisors are for. A President is not an island. The President's vision, beliefs, and judgement are what guides which policies and actions he is likely to take. He has credentialed people around him giving him the pros and cons of every decision, he weighs it, puts in his two cents worth, and goes with what is consistent with his beliefs. Regarding Obama in particular, his plans for the economy, international relations, and legislation are all available just like it is for every other candidate.

The single most powerful person is a double edged sword because that power has checks and balances and can be vetoed.

Bush was voted in based on the idea, among many, that he was a likable guy, that the job wasn't rocket science, and that he could probably handle it. Now where have I heard that before?

Obama has chosen not to spend his time in the Senate learning the boring, technical details of legislation, but rather building up his own popularity. That does not bode well for his desire and ability to learn.

I'm afraid Obama would give him some serious competition, if elected. :helpme

That's what advisers are for, indeed. And how is someone who has not taken the effort to get to know the murky, boring, technical details of the issues supposed to choose the right advisers, and choose the right advice?

Obama is surrounded by competent people, yes. Those competent people will often give him conflicting advice. He doesn't actually have two cents to put in, so choosing the right advice over the wrong advice is a matter of sheer luck.

Once again: Bush. Bush had advisers, but little knowledge of his own. And look how well that turned out.

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.

Anybody who has attended law school is familiar with murky, boring, technical details. Law school is nothing but technical laborious detail. Lawyers routinely come across conflicing advice and statements and it is their job to make sense of it and go with the 'right' decision. This wouldn't be something new for Obama.

its fun to watch the same people bat their heads against the wall over and over

Nice to see him throw his Grandmother who raised under the bus trying to get elected.

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.

Familiar with murky, boring, technical details? Yes. Familiar with the relevant murky, boring, technical details? No.

Being a senator was the perfect opportunity to learn about the relevant details. Instead, he chose to spend his time on other things.

Very good points Libertine. I guess we'll see what happens and cross our fingers for the best.

Thanks.

I'd like to add, though, that I would love to see him as president - 4 or 8 years from now, after he's gained more experience in the Senate, and has proven himself to be a competent legislator as well as an inspiring and charismatic personality.

The TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

The dems are giving it them by only putting up really weak candidates. I am not anti women or anti black but lets face it there are folks that are. Add in hilary's past and Obama's lack of one and crap, the republicans actually have a chance.

:disgust

I have always stated he should have waited 8 years. Now I wonder if his jumping the gun will have a negative effect 8 years from now.

not even close

wtf? Bush had experience? he was the friggin' governor of Texas, a state where the governor doesn't wield much power, if George Bush Sr. literally had a retarded son not one who's just a little slow he'd still have been able to get him the governorship of Texas.

comparing Dubya's achievements and Obama's prior to running for the presidency is a joke - Dubya bailed on the National Guard his daddy got him into to avoid the Vietnam War, was a cokehead overaged frat boy until he was 40, then handed an oil company that went bust under him, a baseball team that was a disaster on and off the field, then became governor of Texas.

haha - can you imagine Dubya being the editor of the Harvard Law Review?

with the economy teetering on the abyss though I'd be very concerned to elect a Democrat - the Republicans aren't much better fiscally now but a Democrat really could crash the country into a devastating long Depression.

so will another 10 years in Iraq and possibly another war with Iran...sorry I'll take my chances with the Dems this time around

Agreed.

I'd love for Obama to say that he'd have a ticket with Edwards. It may be premature, but I really think that would help. I think they would make an admirable team at least as far as knocking off the McCain/Bush machine. Edwards got shafted by all the 'change' hoopla but that may bite the Dems in the ass if they don't pick somebody like him back up and put him in the game with them.

Heck, even Hillary could do the same - say she'll have Edwards as VP.

Obama and Clinton won't take out troops for awhile even once elected. They haven't put a timetable up and said they'll stick to it because they can't and won't.

Looking at the last 20 years, I'd say the Democrats are actually looking better economically than the Republicans.

Investing in important institutions like health care and education tends to benefit the economy as a whole, while tax cuts for the richest of the rich tend to benefit mainly the richest of the rich.

The Democrats aren't the crazy, irresponsible, far-left socialists that Fox News makes them out to be. Both Clinton and Obama support moderate economic policies that seem likely to be a significant economic improvement over the policies of the Bush administration.

Economics, meanwhile, has never exactly been McCain's biggest strength.

nobody can complain unless the election is rigged - if you want Obama to win get involved and get out every last young voter and black voter to the polls. i'm sure this election will have a record voter turnout but still a good 40% won't even cast a vote.

60% turnout? When was the last time that ever happened?

The sad thing is that Obama's supporters honestly think he can change the US all by himself... They seem to forget that he needs the support of the congress and the senate to actually get anything done... How much support do they really think he's going to get from them?

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.

The way the races are shaping up, the Democrats will probably pick up 5 Senate seats and another 20-25 House seats. That would give them a fairly solid majority in Congress and a lot more power to change things than McCain would have with a Democratic congress.

That's not going to matter that much.. In order to truly change things, you need to go against all the power in washington which is big business and the lobbies... and those guys have their claws deep in congress and the senate... So you can promise change all you want but the reality is that it will be minimal even IF you're able to sway both houses. Right now, the vast majority of the voters are buying into his promise of change... But they're not looking beyond that to how he's actually going to get it done with the congress and senate.. That's what is really going to matter...

Alot more than Clinton would. She couldn't get health care passed in '93 with significant democratic majorities in both the house and the senate.

On another note, it would be nice if you could speak for what you think and believe and not presume to know what Obama supporters "think he can do all by himself"

Any president will have to work with congress to get things done, who do you think has the better chance of doing that, the candidate who wants to stop playing gotcha politics and stop demonizing people who don't share his views, or the one who constantly talks about the "republican attack machine" and "vast right wing conspiracies"?

He may be a good speaker, but he's still black.

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?

So what you're saying is that we should vote for the Washington hacks because the optimist who wants to clean up government won't be able to do it anyways?

What about the candidate who has actually been spending significant time working *in* congress over the past years?

Nobody is saying he would have made a mistake....they're saying that there would be votes that could be used against him.

The nature of legislative politics is that sometimes you have to vote for a bad bill....there are so many things attached to bills that have nothing to do with the original bill, that you're never voting for "everything" that is in a bill.

At some point someone would do something like attach a ban on partial birth abortion to a bill that funded veterans benefits.....now you either have to vote against veteran's benefits, or vote to ban partial birth abortion....what do you do?

With a long enough senate career you'll have dozens of situations like this that make great fodder for negative attack ads......there is a very good reason we haven't had a Senator get elected President since Kennedy.....and this is the reason.

I think it's quite ridiculous that you're trying to say that Obama went to the Senate just to set up a run for President and hasn't done anything other than run for President since he's been there.

Hillary is a carpet bagger who moved to New York specifically to run for Moynihan's seat so that she could set up her run for President.

She had absolutely no ties to the State of New York before this and had she not been married to the President while running, her candidacy would have been an absolute joke.

Had she run for the Senate in her home state of Illinois or her adopted state of Arkansas that would have made sense, but to run in New York just because there was a seat open there that would inevitably go to a democrat is nothing short of cold, calculated political ambition.

Obama on the other hand lived in Illinois for two decades....was a community organizer and civil rights attorney, then served as a state legislator for several years before running for the U.S. Senate, and has accomplished plenty in the years he's spent as a public servant TYVM.