I don't want to beat a dead horse, but...

Lets take away the race, age and even military record issues. What we should be looking at is experience. With any job wouldn't you want the job applicant to have as much experience as possible?

I just don't think a Junior US senator who has "realistically" about 2 years experience (Last 12-18 months on the campaign trail) is ready to lead the United States of America.

Mr. Obama was in the State Legislature for 6 years, which is good experience on the state level. But it's like telling someone, "You've done a good job as Director of our Illinois Branch (insert company name of your choice here), now we want you to come and be the CEO of our Fortune 500 Company". What company in their right mind would do that?

In my humble opinion, Mr. Obama has great potential and could be a great president...in time. I just do not think his time is now.

On the other hand, Mr. McCain has tons of experience, at the Federal Level. But do I personally think he would be a good president? Not so much. I think he is going to take the hand-off from President Bush and keep going in the same direction.

So what's the answer? Roll the dice with inexperience, or go with the same game plan but a new team captain?

I just hope Mr. Obama (should he win) can fill his cabinet with the best, bright minds he can find. I just don't think he can do it on his own...not yet.

__________________
Mary

While I understand your point and think it's well-taken, regardless of experience, people are apt to vote based on ideology. Michael Moore has a lot more filmmaking experience than my local mayor, but Michael Moore isn't the person I'd choose to create a documentary about abortion because he doesn't share my ideology. I think my local mayor does, so I'd go with him despite his lack of experience. Why? Because MM would paint a picture on the opposite end of the spectrum from that which I'd be hoping to accomplish.

Ideology being equal, I'd go with experience.

I think that is one of the reasons Obama picked Biden is because he brought years of experience with him. But who knows how much a president will listen to the ones around him.

Will who McCain picks as vice president sway some voters? Given the Democrats like to use his age against him. A vice president pick could be very important.

Experience is only useful if it's good experience. McCain's experience consists of toeing the Bush line for at least the past 8 years, engaging in questionable ethical practices, cheating on his wife, covering up for his wife, warmongering, voting against the troops, supporting torture, and lying about the other side's political positions. Given that kind of experience, I'll take the new guy any day of the week.

ETA: It doesn't come down just to experience, anyway, IMO, because the policy differences between McCain and Obama are vast. Oceans apart. And McCain, on nearly every single issue, IMO, is dead wrong.

Other than serving as vice president, I don't know that there is any experience that you could say would qualify for the job of president. It would be a huge adjustment for either candidate. Frankly, when I look at the campaigns each candidate is running, Obama wins hands down in his ability to organize and manage a campaign.

McCain is indeed very fond of war.

Are they so different on foreign policy?
I remember that Obama months ago did say he would set down with all leaders even countries on the terrorist list. But he has since changed his approach on that.

Even if I say, yes, they're identical on foreign policy -- which they're not -- so what? They are vastly different on things that are just as important to me.

I believe your second statement is wrong. Can you provide some support for it?

__________________

Yes We Did.

I will look for something more exactbut here is part of it.
Political Radar: Obama: Clinton Would Continue "Bush Doctrine"

"Clinton has sharply criticized Obama for committing to meetings with the leaders of countries that are often hostile to U.S. interests, saying on Tuesday that such statements were "irresponsible and frankly naive" because such a stance could lead to a president being used for "propaganda" purposes.

The exchange at the debate centered on a question about whether the candidates for president would be willing to meet, within their first year in office, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.

Obama quickly said yes, while Clinton said no, arguing that the president should only meet with world leaders who are hostile to the US after lower-level diplomatic contacts are conducted. Obama has said in the aftermath of the debate that he never meant to suggest that he would meet with foreign leaders without first having aides make sure such such meetings would be worthwhile."


Of course foregin policy may not be as important to you. I was trying to point out that some of McCain and Obama's policy views are simliar..not quite the same but close.
Here is a link that talks about Obama's foreign policy speech this year.
Obama's foreign policy speech serves notice on Pakistan - Alternatives

To some people foregin policy is not something that they consider very much. I think it is important because of the safety of our country, money issues, etc.

Yes, the candidates platform is VERY important. But with experience, he would have more knowledge in how to implement his plans. Having an experienced VP is certainly a plus, but how much input does a VP really have?

It just concerns me that he is going to (possibly) run the most powerful government in the world (arguably) with 2 years experience in the Federal processes.

I'm not saying Mr. Obama can not do it. I'm saying he will need #1 a great support system (cabinet members and advisers) and #2 a Fast learning curve.

__________________
Mary

How is that a change in position? It's not.

I don't know where you got the notion that foreign policy isn't important to me. I didn't say that, not even close.

I'm familiar with their foreign policy views. That's why I support Obama and not the warmonger, pro-torture McCain.

I will look for a better link for you .. Obama at first said he would meet with ANY country leaders no pre-conditions then changed his approach to meeting only after certain conditions are meet.

I hope you understand that even with Obama you will have US troops fighting in wars .(not Iraq) but other places. Georgia and Afghanistan are good bets no matter which one is the President.

Provide it, because I don't believe that's what he said. He said no pre-conditions, but not without preparation. Preparation is not the same as pre-conditions.

As for understanding, I hope you can understand that I am very well informed on foreign policy and do not need your help to understand what's going on in the world, however well-intentioned you might be. I see no reason why we will be fighting in Georgia unless we're cursed with a President McCain. He's the belligerent bully that is itching to go to war over there. His "we are all Georgians" comment was beyond presumptuous.

Afghanistan is where we should have been fighting for the past 7 years. Obama has said that himself. Of course, if we'd taken it seriously 7 years ago, we might be long home by now.

__________________

Yes We Did.

McCain's plans are to further deregulate business, make abortion illegal, deny women equal pay, put everybody into the open market for insurance, privatize social security, attack Iran and Syria, send troops to Georgia, stop talking to Russia, provide massive tax cuts for the rich and a little tax cuts for the bulk of us, and, oh yes, he says we'll probably need to start up the draft again. All this from a man who came in 5th. from the bottom in his class. Because he has stated that there will be no investigation into the Bush administration, we can be assured that he will ignore the constitution just as Bush has done and wield the powers of a dictator. But, I am sure that he can goose step with the party line as well as Bush. He's well known for "losing it", but, if you're comfortable with having someone with an uncontrollable temper having his finger on the button, by all means, vote for McCain.

Whether he'll be able to accomplish anything with the way the congressional races are trending is highly unlikely.

YouTube - Obama / Clinton about meeting Chavez and other leaders

I do love your use of playing on words.
A link:
"They have also drawn a distinction between “preconditions” and “preparations” for such talks. In saying he would not impose preconditions on discussions, Mr. Obama said "
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/us...=1&oref=slogin


Ok so, now Obama sounds like the warmonger. Lets go after Afghanistan. Cheerleaders waving.
And Obama and Biden have made their statement on condeming Russia about Georgia.
War is war and the US taxpayers pays for it.

I tune out entirely when someone's academic record from 50 years ago is trotted out as proof that they aren't fit to fill a role today. I know people who graduated top of their class that I wouldn't put in charge of making pancakes.

We've all met people who are considered smart but don't have a lick of common sense. What the academic record indicates is that if McCain isn't stupid, then he's incredibly lazy. He freely admits to being clueless on the economy and has made gaffe after gaffe on where and who our enemies are. He doesn't even know how many homes he has.

Did you know he takes Ambien? If the phone rings at 3 a.m., they wouldn't be able to wake him up.

Okay, these statements have no credibility with me and certainly do nothing to help Obama.

I don't think many people on either side of the aisle who get where McCain and Obama are right now are lazy.

That academic record was from 50 years ago. FIFTY years. I certainly would hate to be judged today on my school habits from 21 years ago, much less 50. I'd be open for a lot of criticism. I've apparently 'wasted' my degree because I'm in a completely different field, etc.

Regarding the homes, I believe he didn't want to mis-speak. There are homes that are just in his wife's name, some that she's purchased, some that she's inherited, and some that they purcahsed that bear both of their names. I believe he didn't want to say one thing only to realize later that the deed to a house was different than he presumed, off the cuff.

And wave goodbye to your credibility -- you say I twist things? Nice try, but I know -- and understand -- what I hear.


Warmonger for going after the country that harbored/harbors bin Laden? Are you serious?

And what is your experience w/ Ambien? I've taken it--I woke up when needed. Woke up in a fully functioning frame of mind. So, your statement is a load of horse ****.

__________________
"In life it is so hard to know which bridges to cross and which bridges to burn....."

There is nothing wrong about going after bin Laden and his "group". A warmonger is going after an entire country.
I guess we will see soon enough.
I did not twist nothing Obama has stated that he wants to send more troops into a foreign country (Afghanistan). That will certainly be seen as an act of war to that country.

Edited to add: I have post ideas of what Obama MIGHT do on the foreign aspect. What do you think he will do?
Other than his withdrawal of some troops in Iraq.

Did you have lousy grades? If so, you were lucky to get into college. How do you explain McCain's gaffes? His stated lack of knowledge on economic issues? We had a better academic record from the current occupant of the White House and his record was indicative of his ignorance.

BTW, none of the McCain houses have John McCain's name on them. They all belong to Cindy. Everything belongs to Cindy.