Robster Craw

I posted this in another thread, but I felt it was worth having it's own thread.

I’m still flabbergasted by Obama’s win last night.

It’s not that I don’t like him; I simply don’t think he’s qualified for the job.

Having watched all of the debates and reading beyond the media headlines, the only thing that really stood out about Obama for me is the fact that he’s African-American. His campaign approach, like Edwards', seemed focused mostly on one thing -- smearing Hillary.

Side by side, like many candidates on one side of the fence, Obama and Hillary’s platforms are not terribly dissimilar: they both oppose the war (though Hillary voted for it and approved further funding); they're both for environmental protection; they both have robust health care reform plans; they both represent the middle class and on and on and on. The details are different, sure, but not that different.

Where they most differ is in experience – she has it, he doesn’t. Why that’s a bad thing, I don’t know.

Call me an idealist, but I’ve always been disappointed that the Dems, Obama and Edwards especially, never seemed able to stop themselves from behaving like a pack of hyenas on the hunt for Hillary.

...

The results of the Iowa caucuses aroused many questions for me. One of which Chris Matthews posed to his guests last night, and which each of them (even a woman) dodged: What does Obama's win say about America's stance on putting a woman in the White House? Or rather, if race and gender affect voters' choices is Obama's win proof that race is winning the race?

In my view, race and gender discrimination are intertwined -- both are "hot" social issues steeped in discrimination. As a culture, we’re still learning how to evolve and overcome our prejudices, and our efforts are oftentimes clumsy. It’s obvious in our everyday lives that America and Americans are still fumbling with the guilt of its dirty racist past. There are only a few African-Americans that hold high positions in government. Denzel finally won a well-deserved Oscar, but for the wrong film. There’s still a huge disparity in the appearance of African-Americans versus Caucasians in advertising. And Southern culture, although slowly changing, is still predominantly and proudly racist.

So is Obama’s win a beacon of change?

Frankly, I'd been surprised that both Obama and Hillary haven't leaned on the race and gender bias more. But when Obama relied on the tried and true “I have a dream” rhetoric in his speech last night, he sent a message that stirred up historical guilt. That made me wonder what his continued expression of the need for change is actually confronting –- is it the experience of career politicians such as Hillary, or is it how Americans feel about race? If he’s challenging experience, why would a lifetime of public service be such a bad thing for a president? Can the political climate, both at home and abroad, withstand a period of experimental transition if we elect someone based on race rather than experience?

I understand what college kids and MySpacers see in Obama. He’s the “progressive” choice -– sort of a modern-day twist on the "Great White Hope." He's smart and accomplished. He's young, he's handsome. He has a successful wife and is a proud father of two little girls. His background and upbringing gives him an international cache. But his story isn’t much different from a stereotypical white guy who has a diplomat parent, has lived a charmed life around the world, has attended all the right schools and then goes on to cultivate a career in politics. But what about Obama is really representative of political change? Does the change that young people envision go beyond the colour of his skin? How much does this demographic really know about the issues and who might have the qualifications to handle them?

If you were to eliminate race, gender or any other social factor from our decision-making process, and purely study the issues at hand, who would you elect?

space700

I think Obama has good values and is also very good at defining them. Unlike many canidates he looks at the big picture.

Robster Craw

Define "the big picture". Do you hear where I'm coming from in my post?

SamInTheSouth

I think people are just tired of business as usual. Hillary represents the status quo in Washington and Edwards is just full of shit, so that pretty much leaves Obama. He is the "outsider" and that is attractive to people this election cycle.

__________________
Carolina Politics Online

Sam

Savingsnest

I haven't seen the big picture from Obama. The best person for the job left the race last night, Joe Biden.

To nominate Obama is like saying the Dems are looking for their version of George Bush in the White House. Can we afford another term of on the job training? Look at the mess this country is in today; we need someone qualified to get us out of these predicaments, not get us in deeper.

Hillary wouldn't have been my first choice, however, with the field that's left she is certainly the most qualified and as I see it the only real choice left.

What do any of us really know about Obama? Other than being a fairly decent speaker what are his qualifications
Hillary is right, she has been vetted, anything that could be thrown at her, you’ll have already heard.
In a general election what will you find out about Obama that you don’t want the dems to dig for? You can bet your last dime the republicans won’t care whether you want to know or not, and they will make it look worse than it probably will be. Do yourself a favor and do your own research, don’t be swayed by pretty speeches and marketing, hell read his book.

The worst part, in my humble opinion, is that he thinks that he deserves to be president with his limited resume, that’s arrogance. That’s not to say that he wouldn’t make a fine president someday, after a bit more seasoning.
By the way, race/gender plays no part for me, I voted for Harold Ford in TN, if he runs for Governor next term I’ll vote for him then also and if he ever decides to run for President I’ll support him there too.

space700

When I say the big picture I mean that Obama adresses all the more important issues America has. Edwards focuses too much on just education, and Hilary only talks about how good she would be as president because of her experience. Also, Hilary is too undecided about certain issues. She used to be for the Iraq war, now she is fighting it. Obama is the only Democrat who looks at the economy, war, education, healthcare, etc. and also has enough supporters to win the election.

Joe Biden was a great canidate, as were several others who dropped out. They just couldn't get enough publicity to become well- known and get a good group of supporters together.

SCFORHUCKABEE

That is becasue the left wing loving media won't give any moderate dems any air time or promotion. They want a left leaning nut bag like commrade clinton, tort lawyer edwards, or goofball obama in office. I am a registered republican but would be willing to vote for a moderate middle of the road democrat. The problem is they are few and far between and they get no press. I am sick of exteme politics to both the right and left. It scares me to death seeing how close this country is to giving the reigns of it over to someone like a Obama or Clinton.

Scucca

You sure? You might spontaneously combust then if you encountered candidates that were properly dispersed amongst the political spectrum.

The US system is consensus politics taken to its blandest

nerv14

i completely agree i am a liberal but the only democratic candidates that could be elected for the caucus are all too extreme in their Iraq policy of almost leaving immedietly and the expensive healthcare plan for people who don't work.

I originally supported Hillary a week ago because she is the most moderate for the economy and Iraq but she changes her mind too much and i would even consider her more criptic where she currently stands compared to the other democratic candidates.

I think Obama would be the best if the United States was in a vaccum because he inspires Americans the most and I truely think that he will fix domestic problems the best. the only problem is that he is too inexperenced in foreign affairs and because of that i think i support John Edwards.

Castleriggpekes

Of course, Bush is extremely unqualified for the job - that's why we're in the mess we're in. But only in America, it seems can the least qualified individual be hired for the toughest job in the world. And it may happen again...Experience seems to be equated with the status quo and lack of experience seems to be equated with hope and change. There'll be real change all right - when it takes four years for Obama to figure out how to do the job. As for myself, I prefer someone who can hit the ground running.