ELEPHANT-DONKEY.com

edwards 08 said 11/16, 02:13 PM
Before, people started saying that Barack Obama was going to run for President, it was agreed that he would be much better off running in 2012. Despite his obvious charisma, he possesses little else as a viable platform for his campaign. His views on issues such as the war in Iraq are not widely known or broadcasted, and he most often makes his appearances by speeches at events, etc, an obvious advantage given his speaking ability. Though he is a great speaker, that does not mean he is a great intellectual or even an intelligent person, nor does it mean that he has the mettle for the lack of privacy of being president.

Obama has been a Senator for 4 years. 4 years is not nearly enough experience to be a good president. Our current president had 2 terms as governor of Texas, during which he did nothing notable and ran a few failed companies. Experience leads to better decisions. Decision-making is so important that we need the most experienced people possible to be president, and makes for a better America and a safer world.

The media has been always fawning on Barack Obama. Will he be able to stand it the first time they question him and critcize his decisions? I don't think so.

edwards 08 said 11/17, 11:48 PM
Obama, in his time before he bacame senator, still did not attain the experience that is necessary for a tumultuous presidential campaign. Although past presidents may have lacked experience, we are living in an ever more dangerous world, and exprience is more crucial, despite a few exceptions. Obama has also made some quesitonable voting decisions, and his lack of experience has shown:

11/15/05 Obama voted for continued war, again. Roll call 326 was the vote on the Defense Authorization Act (S1042) which also restricted the right of habeas corpus.

5/4/06 Obama, again, voted to adopt HR4939: emergency funding to Halliburton, Blackwater et al. Roll call 112.

6/22/06 Obama again voted for continued war by voting to pass the National Defense Authorization Act (S 2766) for continued war funding. Roll Call 186.

9/7/06 Obama voted again for war (HR 5631). Roll Call 239.

There is not one candidate out there who is not advocating bipartisanship. It is obvious that, because of the disasters of the Bush Administration, we will need bipartisanship in future administrations. Every candidate must be advocating bipartisanship simply to retain their credibility. That is not a distinction.

edwards 08 said 11/19, 11:56 PM
Despite Obama's obvious charisma, he still possesses little else as a viable platform for his campaign. Though he is a great speaker, nor does it mean that he has the mettle for the lack of privacy of being president. The media will eventually have to criticize Obama as they have done with every president. What will happen then? If Obama's public image is ever soiled slightly, his campaign will not be able to survive.

Obama still hasn't done much more than speak the obvious (bush is bad, iraq is bad, etc.) His charisma and speaking ability can take him only so far until people realize there is not much behind his mask.

Though Edwards may lack experience, he has accomplished more in his time in the Senate than Obama has and thus has more experience. It is not just years, it is what one makes of those years. Also, this election is not just Democrats. There are other options.

"We have a chance to bring the country together to fix the problems that Bush has done to our country..." says Sen. Obama, but what will Obama do? What will he do to fix Iran, Pakistan, besides say that he has a chance to fix it?