Obama sucks as a candidate to be president-the why

[billcoe]

I'd like to pitch this to all you many Obama ass kissers on this site. Kevbones poll is running @77% for Obama, 23% McCain. (It doesn't reflect those like me who don't want either.) I can't vote for the man. No way. I feel that one of my biggest points of opposition to him hasn't been covered except minimally in the media, this is something I want you fanatic Obama lovers to consider.

 

If you were to hire a person to be President. You would look at the job criteria and then look for a person who had done jobs with the kinds of skills you were looking for. A person with a successful history and track record of actually doing that kind of work.

 

When Jimmy Carter was against Ronald Reagan, both of those fellows had long track records of running states as governors. Furthermore, Carter had deep and extensive comparable experince that transferred over well. He had been a commander on a nuclear sub under Chester Nimitz (known as the man who modernized the Navy and who had impeccable organizational skills), AND Carter ran a relatively large family farm that reflected skills that bordered on being the CEO of a big business. Both men had ACTUAL experience doing a smaller version of the job they were "interviewing" for.

 

Obama doesn't have anything close to this. AT ALL! I suspect that many of you are like me. You don't like McCain, and see Obama as a better choice. This may be true, but is a terrible reason to hire a person. When McCain was 5 points up, I offered to bet that Obama would win the election. I found some folks who liked the odds and bet on McCain. I'll do well $ that way if Obama gets elected. However, I have a very very deep suspicion that we, that's you and me my countrymen, are so fucked once he gets in. We can all "HOPE" that the CHANGE he talks incessantly of offering will be positive, but it is like "believing" in the tooth ferry and Santa Claus. It's a "belief" you can have, which has no basis in truth and reality. Think of this, George Bush had significantly BETTER credentials AND a strong track record of being able to collaboratively move a state forward, of being able to hire strong and intelligent people to key posts and taking advice from experts coming in as president: key skills which Barak glaringly lacks ever exhibiting. That's right, I'm saying it here, Bush's track record was SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER coming in! Where did that get us? Bushes approval rating is 14% now.

 

What this lack of ever doing any of this kind of work may very well mean is that Barak just sucks at it, and cannot do it, which is why he never has done it and has no track record of ever even trying this kind of thing. Being a community organizer and a senator for 2 years doesn't qualify him, even after 8 years a s a state senator. John Kerrys MANY years AND being the head-cheese on a Swift Boat did. You (the 77% on this site who love Barak so) just don't know this yet, but appear to want to find out by trial and error on the job training in what may be a Dante Inferno version of bad choice good faith guessing. Someone I'd relayed this too explained their support of Obama this way: "Obama is like and internet stock, you might be on the ride of your life to the moon, or you might crash and burn hard". God I hope I'm wrong about this, but cannot shake the feeling or ditch the thought that it's about to turn real bad, real soon.

 

We are so fucked. Read it and weep my brothers.

[joblo7]

accurate on most counts.that, is american politics:offer no choice.divide. conquer.

if no one votes we get real changes.if one choses to vote then better to vote obama.

 

obama wins= things get 3% better at home and abroad

mcain wins= things get 3% worse at home and abroad.

 

 

(margin of error=5%)

[Skeezix]

While executive experience is certainly relevant, that quality we call "leadership" is less tangible and includes vision, judgement, intelligence, and ability to communicate. The president enjoys signficant resources in terms of administrative support to help with the management part of the job. Therefore, I don't agree that Obama sucks as a candidate.

[joblo7]

the president only manifests the power that others wield mostly.

 

more and more ceremonial position .

[olyclimber]

i don't think there is anything wrong with embracing a sideshow such as Ron Paul or Ralph Nader. It allows you take an ideological high ground, and there is no chance you'll actually have to defend such a choice, as that candidate will never get elected. you can call that a failing of our country's chosen political apparatus, and perhaps that is what it is. the cool thing though is that by voting for one of those guys in the general election: no matter who wins you can just say you voted for Paul/Nader and you have a license to bitch. seems guaranteed that no matter WHO is elected (even if you opened the field to anyone in the world) that things are going to get a lot worse before they get better.

 

[Fairweather]

I'd like to pitch this to all you many Obama ass kissers on this site. Kevbones poll is running @77% for Obama, 23% McCain. (It doesn't reflect those like me who don't want either.) I can't vote for the man. No way. I feel that one of my biggest points of opposition to him hasn't been covered except minimally in the media, this is something I want you fanatic Obama lovers to consider.

 

If you were to hire a person to be President. You would look at the job criteria and then look for a person who had done jobs with the kinds of skills you were looking for. A person with a successful history and track record of actually doing that kind of work.

 

When Jimmy Carter was against Ronald Reagan, both of those fellows had long track records of running states as governors. Furthermore, Carter had deep and extensive comparable experince that transferred over well. He had been a commander on a nuclear sub under Chester Nimitz (know as the man who modernized the Navy and who had impeccable organizational skills), AND Carter ran a relatively large family farm that reflected skills that bordered on being the CEO of a big business. Both men had ACTUAL experience doing a smaller version of the job they were "interviewing" for.

 

Obama doesn't have anything close to this. AT ALL! I suspect that many of you are like me. You don't like McCain, and see Obama as a better choice. This may be true, but is a terrible reason to hire a person. When McCain was 5 points up, I offered to bet that Obama would win the election. I found some folks who liked the odds and bet on McCain. I'll do well $ that way if Obama gets elected. However, I have a very very deep suspicion that we, that's you and me my countrymen, are so fucked once he gets in. We can all "HOPE" that the CHANGE he talks incessantly of offering will be positive, but it is like "believing" in the tooth ferry and Santa Claus. It's a "belief" you can have, which has no basis in truth and reality. Think of this, George Bush had significantly BETTER credentials AND a strong track record of being able to collaboratively move a state forward, of being able to hire strong and intelligent people to key posts and taking advice from experts coming in as president: key skills which Barak glaringly lacks ever exhibiting. That's right, I'm saying it here, Bush's track record was SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER coming in! Where did that get us? Bushes approval rating is 14% now.

 

What this lack of ever doing any of this kind of work may very well mean is that Barak just sucks at it, and cannot do it, which is why he never has done it and has no track record of ever even trying this kind of thing. Being a community organizer and a senator for 2 years doesn't qualify him. John Kerrys MANY years AND being the head-cheese on a Swift Boat did. You (the 77% on this site who love Barak so) just don't know this yet, but appear to want to find out by trial and error on the job training in what may be a Dante Inferno version of bad choice good faith guessing. Someone I'd relayed this too explained their support of Obama this way: "Obama is like and internet stock, you might be on the ride of your life to the moon, or you might crash and burn hard". God I hope I'm wrong about this, but cannot shake the feeling or ditch the thought that it's about to turn real bad, real soon.

 

We are so fucked. Read it and weep my brothers.

 

Good post, Bill. Hang on to your guns and your free media. They're going to be under assault for at least the next 2 years if Obama wins. It's also important to note Obama's comments regarding trade with Colombia during the last debate. FARC and their prime benefactor, Chavez, are going to be partying in the jungle on inauguration night and the good people of Colombia will get to look forward to another 70,000 dead in the name of "justice". The thing that should scare our lib friends here the most is the cult of personality that surrounds Obama. History has demonstrated that there are few leaders who have been able to stay on the constitutional path even while they are held up as demigods. Chavez and Putin come to mind as current examples of this human failing. George Washington comes to mind as one of the few who resisted it. I'm still holding out hope for McCain because there is little doubt he'll move toward the center--just as there is little doubt Obama will move away from it. I'll be the first to salute the man if I'm wrong. In any event, Bill, I suspect you and I are voting for the same man and it is neither of these.

[el jefe]

billcoe, the fact that "George Bush had significantly BETTER credentials" and nevertheless did an absolutely terrible job as president seems to argue that your concern re: obama's resume is essentially irrelevant. in fact, based on your bush analogy, we would in fact be wiser to choose the guy with the slimmer resume.

 

as for me, i'm voting obama because i believe mccain would be a continuation of the bush disaster, especially if he dies in office and leaves dimwit sarah in charge. also, ron paul isn't an option because i find his libertarian views simpleminded and naive.

[bradleym]

I'd like to pitch this to all you many Obama ass kissers on this site. Kevbones poll is running @77% for Obama, 23% McCain. (It doesn't reflect those like me who don't want either.) I can't vote for the man. No way. I feel that one of my biggest points of opposition to him hasn't been covered except minimally in the media, this is something I want you fanatic Obama lovers to consider.

 

If you were to hire a person to be President. You would look at the job criteria and then look for a person who had done jobs with the kinds of skills you were looking for. A person with a successful history and track record of actually doing that kind of work.

 

When Jimmy Carter was against Ronald Reagan, both of those fellows had long track records of running states as governors. Furthermore, Carter had deep and extensive comparable experince that transferred over well. He had been a commander on a nuclear sub under Chester Nimitz (know as the man who modernized the Navy and who had impeccable organizational skills), AND Carter ran a relatively large family farm that reflected skills that bordered on being the CEO of a big business. Both men had ACTUAL experience doing a smaller version of the job they were "interviewing" for.

 

Obama doesn't have anything close to this. AT ALL! I suspect that many of you are like me. You don't like McCain, and see Obama as a better choice. This may be true, but is a terrible reason to hire a person. When McCain was 5 points up, I offered to bet that Obama would win the election. I found some folks who liked the odds and bet on McCain. I'll do well $ that way if Obama gets elected. However, I have a very very deep suspicion that we, that's you and me my countrymen, are so fucked once he gets in. We can all "HOPE" that the CHANGE he talks incessantly of offering will be positive, but it is like "believing" in the tooth ferry and Santa Claus. It's a "belief" you can have, which has no basis in truth and reality. Think of this, George Bush had significantly BETTER credentials AND a strong track record of being able to collaboratively move a state forward, of being able to hire strong and intelligent people to key posts and taking advice from experts coming in as president: key skills which Barak glaringly lacks ever exhibiting. That's right, I'm saying it here, Bush's track record was SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER coming in! Where did that get us? Bushes approval rating is 14% now.

 

What this lack of ever doing any of this kind of work may very well mean is that Barak just sucks at it, and cannot do it, which is why he never has done it and has no track record of ever even trying this kind of thing. Being a community organizer and a senator for 2 years doesn't qualify him. John Kerrys MANY years AND being the head-cheese on a Swift Boat did. You (the 77% on this site who love Barak so) just don't know this yet, but appear to want to find out by trial and error on the job training in what may be a Dante Inferno version of bad choice good faith guessing. Someone I'd relayed this too explained their support of Obama this way: "Obama is like and internet stock, you might be on the ride of your life to the moon, or you might crash and burn hard". God I hope I'm wrong about this, but cannot shake the feeling or ditch the thought that it's about to turn real bad, real soon.

 

We are so fucked. Read it and weep my brothers.

 

This post is so fucked! To retreat into a position where you can claim later that you were right no matter what negative events should come to pass is hardly a positive contribution.

 

I agree that it would be nice to have more 'real' choices, and my vote for Obama hardly qualifies me as an 'Obama lover'. I remain skeptical too, and will adopt a 'show me' stance as a Democratic president and a Democratic congress get to work. I'll be just as critical of their missteps as I am of anyone else.

 

In spite of his lack of relevant experience, which I maintain is irrelevant because there is no relevant experience to prepare one for the presidency, Obama has shown all along, and continues to demonstrate, an appreciation for the subtleties and grey areas inherent in the challenges we face as a nation and a world. He is open to a full range of approaches to addressing those challenges, unlike his opponents, who prattle on about the dangers of socialism. In short, Obama represents an intelligence and a grasp of the problems we face that belie his supposed lack of experience. I actually prefer a candidate who can change his mind and shift strategies and policies.

 

And lest we fall into the trap of supposing that the president is all-powerful, there remain substantial checks on presidential authority in spite of 8 years of darth vader.

 

30-odd years of deregulation and 'market-only' have helped us get to where we are today, and it is long past time to redress that. It is time to give up on the fantasy of 'small government' which hasn't existed in a long time and doesn't exist today. We are all interdependent, and we are a society of social beings, so a little 'socialism' might not be a bad thing. Why not take an approach that accepts and harnesses the benefits of markets, but also recognizes their dangers?

 

So as you contemplate your vote for Ron Paul, think about that vote for Nader 8 years ago that assisted greatly in installing the current guy with all his 'experience' but the brainpower of a gnat, and then think about your college-age children and their eventual children, and what kind of world you want to leave to them.

 

Voting for Obama is risky, but his demonstrated openness and intelligence and focus on the real issues show that voting 'no' or worse, voting for the republicans again, is even riskier.

[kevbone]

While executive experience is certainly relevant, that quality we call "leadership" is less tangible and includes vision, judgement, intelligence, and ability to communicate. The president enjoys signficant resources in terms of administrative support to help with the management part of the job. Therefore, I don't agree that Obama sucks as a candidate.

:tup:

[kevbone]

Hang on to your guns and your free media.

 

 

"free media".....hahahahahahahaha

 

OH my FW....you are funny.....I needed that...

[Fairweather]

We are all interdependent, and we are a society of social beings, so a little 'socialism' might not be a bad thing.

 

So as you contemplate your vote for Ron Paul, think about that vote for Nader 8 years ago that assisted greatly in installing the current guy with all his 'experience' but the brainpower of a gnat, and then think about your college-age children and their eventual children, and what kind of world you want to leave to them.

 

 

Remember, Bill! It's for the children!! And this bradleym guy seems way smarter than you and me, so maybe "Ron Paul" ( ) just isn't the correct vote after all. That settles it, I'm voting for the youth of America. After all, they had it right back in '68!

 

Try again, Bradley. Ron Paul? You do realize he's not on the ballot. Right?

[ashw_justin]

I'm still holding out hope for McCain because there is little doubt he'll move toward the center--just as there is little doubt Obama will move away from it. I'll be the first to salute the man if I'm wrong.

I want to agree with you on the first point, even though I don't think that I can take McCain seriously given certain concessions he has made to his party's base in order to get elected. McCain, like other candidates that I have found interesting, would have made a good independent, that is if we could figure out how to escape the bipartisan monopoly.

 

However, I don't think that Obama, if elected, would be stupid or reckless enough to move too far the left, or at least, no further than the voting public asks for in the coming elections. What are the threats to the free press and rightful gun ownership, specifically? What parts of the constitution is Obama hovering over with his scalpel? Is a professor of constitutional law going to want to (or even be allowed to) turn around and shred principles that have endured far more ambitious reformers?

[Doug]

I'm with you on this one. I had given McCain serious consideration given his record. However, I believe he sold too much of his independant soul for his parties nomination. I could see him moving (further) to the center in an effort to improve his chances. However, there seems to be a dim-bulb right wing extremeist on the ticket that would continue to negate that.

 

As far as Obama goes; he took on the Democratic Party establishment and beat them. He may be just like all politicians in that what we are hearing will be different than what we see, but after this last eight years I'm just ready for a change in scenery. Hell to that end, I may be voting for Rossi or abstaining in the Washington Gubenatorial race.

[bradleym]

We are all interdependent, and we are a society of social beings, so a little 'socialism' might not be a bad thing.

 

So as you contemplate your vote for Ron Paul, think about that vote for Nader 8 years ago that assisted greatly in installing the current guy with all his 'experience' but the brainpower of a gnat, and then think about your college-age children and their eventual children, and what kind of world you want to leave to them.

 

 

Remember, Bill! It's for the children!! And this bradleym guy seems way smarter than you and me, so maybe "Ron Paul" ( ) just isn't the correct vote after all. That settles it, I'm voting for the youth of America. After all, they had it right back in '68!

 

Try again, Bradley. Ron Paul? You do realize he's not on the ballot. Right?

 

I'm not smarter than you, but I am apparently more widely read than you are. On another thread, Mr Coe stated that he was going to write in Ron Paul. Thus while you are correct that Mr. Paul is not on the ballot, and I do realize that, Mr. Coe is going to vote for him anyway. Sorry. Hope you didn't roll your eyes so far that they got stuck.

[tvashtarkatena]

Since you'll be taking yourself out of the political process this election, Bill, we really don't give a flying fuck what you have to say about either viable candidate.

 

Ron Paul? Zero cred, brah. Zero.

[hafilax]

McCain choosing Palin as VP erased whatever credibility he had left. Imagine a cabinet made up of similar ill thought out placements. It's often joked about but there is a good chance that Palin could end up as president given McCain's age and health. How many 70 year olds can still work a high stress 40 hour week let alone what should be a 24 hour a day job like being President.

 

Experience gives evidence of past performance, good or bad, but it's not the whole story. It makes for a shorter learning curve IF all of that experience directly applies to the current position. Many companies will choose a less experienced person based on their personality and apparent aptitude for the job. This is a bigger risk but the pay off can be huge. I don't think it's actually much of a gamble.

 

At this point I trust the Democrat machine more than that of the Republicans.

 

[rob]

Lincoln didn't have a lot of experience, either, Bill.

[Doug]

Yea, but Lincoln was a Republican so he didn't need experience. He believed in God and was patriotic and stuff.

[STP]

This is getting to resemble the emotional act of rooting for your favorite sports team. Sure, you can rationalize it but do you really know what outcome to expect given that both candidates have shown a tendency to change their positions in favor of political expediency. Not that I see altering your beliefs as a bad thing but for what reasons?

 

The way I see it, there's a lot of uncertainty today, economically as evidenced by the stock market gyrations and despite signs to the contrary the political arena is also uncertain. Everything could change in an instant. Whomever wins I would hope that he would have the wisdom and foresight to guide the nation through crisis, a situation that appears to be deflationary but could transition into inflation.

 

In any event, it appears we are in recession. Reagan once said, "Recession is when a neighbour loses his job. Depression is when you lose yours." Let's hope it doesn't turn into a depression.

 

 

 

[kevbone]

McCain choosing Palin as VP erased whatever credibility he had left.

 

 

Well said.

[dmuja]

 

billcoe,

 

Obama has the natural skill, the intelligence, the open mindedness, and the innate ability to inspire that are the true requirements of the job - at this point in history whether that is enough remains to be seen, but what more could you realistically ask for to replace someone like George W Bush?

 

Contrasted with "that one" guy McCain (who is entrenched in traditional right wing politics, prone to reactionary dramatic risk taking and bad decision making re "Palin") this is a no brainier. You think experience is the important requirement for the job? Or is it perhaps the smart decision making ability to surround yourself with experienced and intelligent advisers that supersedes the "experience" factor?

 

The guy with the most "history and track record of actually doing that kind of work" at the moment is ironically George W Bush - albeit not to successfully. Now when the question of "experience" comes up it should become clear that experience might not count for much unless you believe that George W Bush (were he eligible) would be the best choice for the job - is that what you think?

 

Arguably, Sarah Palin has more "experience" than Barack Obama does in executive positions - would you really choose Palin as president over Obama? Also, this whole "none of the above" thing is just plain nonsense. And a bit worse than saying "Im not going to watch the super bowl because my team isn't in it".

 

These two candidates are who they are and they are the 2 we get to (realistically and meaningfully) vote on. The election process has been going on for almost 2 years now and these candidates are who is left. If you don't like the so called "2 party system" then work on behalf of a third party and build the grass roots support needed to be viable in the next election process. But wasting your vote (by abstaining) in a presidential election that WILL BE decided between just 2 viable candidates means only that you'll have no say in the outcome - good luck chasing windmills.

 

Bill I think that you are over thinking this or looking for a justification (like many republicans btw) for not voting for Obama.

 

Being that THIS election is NOT about what I think of as "my perfect candidate", what I want to see in the next president is clearly right there in Obama and NOT in McCain.

 

Job Opening - President of the United States

Must have the following skills:

 

A superior and open minded intellect

Sound decision making abilities

Global respect or admiration

An ability to lead and inspire others

A tendency to be proactive in problem solving

Fairness - largely non-ideological & unbeholden to special interstests

Concern for the planet and well being of others

An ability to adapt and overcome divisiveness

An ability to communicate clearly most of the time

 

So rather than crying about Obama not quite living up to the electorial process hyperbole (though he clearly has it over McCain in all the above categories) or believing the republican BS about Obama being "too risky for America" (as if he wernt even American) I think I'll choose to be part of the solution.

[Fairweather]

Lincoln didn't have a lot of experience, either, Bill.

 

Right. And look what happened.

[Hugh Conway]

Lincoln didn't have a lot of experience, either, Bill.

 

Right. And look what happened.

 

The niggers were freed?

[Doug]

Uh, ok other than the unfortunate end to Lincoln's Presidency, can you tell me "what happened"?

[Doug]

why don't you edit that post Hugh.