During this campaign season, I've watched as McCain has confused locations, changed his positions, and looked basically inept and befuddled during interviews. No, I'm not a fan of John McCain's presidential bid. As someone who has tried the military, I respect the fact that he was a POW. There have been many. But, I am baffled as to the amount of arrogance that it would take to convince a man (darn near 80), that he is our country's best hope at success.
I'm not sold on Obama, either. But, I'd probably be closer to voting for him than McCain. The arrogance isn't McCain's alone. Consider Obama. Here is a young man, bright, intelligent, and ambitious. He's been on the political scene about a minute. Apparently, being a community organizer in Chicago has qualified him also to be president of the United States of America.
But, here's the kicker. Americans agreed. 1) First, politicians - we elected - looked over the broad field of prospects and thought, wow - these two are among the best (make no mistake, both of these men participated in a number of closed door meetings before THEY decided to run for their party's nomination). 2) As Americans, we carefully looked over the qualifications of each party's candidates, narrowed them down according to their expertise in dealing with our economy, healthcare issues, the war in Iraq, etc and decided that among these candidates - these two were far superior to all the others.
What the heck? Now, these are our two choices. What are my options? I could flip a coin. With McCain, I can watch my sons go to war with Iran. I have no doubt he can remember the name of the place long enough to drag us into war. With Obama, I can get judges that are deemed qualified by his party. (I'd like Obama a lot more if I thought he was his own man. I honestly don't think that will be the case. What a pity?)
My mother says I should vote for the lesser of two evils. Hmm, anybody on Gather (other than McCain and Obama) running for President? Well, at least if I vote for Obama. I'll have a chance to support the first black president. If I vote for McCain, I'll have the chance to support...I can't think of a thing.
Maybe the end of age discrimination.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 12
Btw, Lincoln had as much experience as Obama when he ran. Most people feel that he did an ok job.
Hard to argue with that...
Lincoln had as much experience as Obama when he ran??? This isn't exactly a winning endorsement, Clark. But, I do see your point.
i personally hate both mccain AND obama. and i dont think the presidency debate should come down to who is better "qualified". qualifications were important back in the day at the candidate nominations, but now we should be focused on policy differences, what they claim to do, etc.
another thing to keep in mind is that politicians don't do even half of the things they say they will do. BOTH obama and mccain. some/most things they may want to do could be blocked by Congress. or they can also have changes of opinion. i wouldnt be so quick to rule out the possibility that the president has access to classified information that the public is not savvy to that might influence his decision in a way the public couldn't comprehend. as you can tell, i'm not a big truster of large, controlling government.
the only reason i might throw in my two cents with mccain is for the moral issues i see at stake in the election. while mccain is still pretty moderate, i think that he is more LIKELY of standing against abortion, stem cell research, and the like than obama, who openly supports partial-birth abortion.
of course, thats what it really comes down to is which policies you prioritize.
That wasn't the point in my saying that. My point in saying it was the his youth and "inexperience" isn't a valid disqualifier or indicator of how he would perform in office. Cheney and Rumsfeld probably brought more experience than ever before to the white house, and look at the damage this administration has caused.
Actually, he has been there much longer than a minute. It isn't his fault people weren't paying attention. I think maybe that means he isn't as egotistical as some want to portray him.
Good point. I also think it's worth noting the amount of, and quality/importance of the legislation that he's created and co-created.
I think Obama is genuinely a good man. Me personally, I don't get those vibes with McCain. But, that's just me. I also think its a very good thing, not many people were paying attention to the "limited" time that he was on the political scene. I personally would prefer not to see any more Jeremiah's, liberal bombers, shaky real estate deals, etc. As far as I am concerned, let his past rest in peace.
2nd Disclaimer: You do NOT have to defend any of the items in my list. My list for McCain is even longer.
Clark & Sandy: Quality versus Quantity is a good point. But, what if additional quantity would have proven less quality later on?
Sorry, I'm voting both of these "fellas" are large on ego. But, I'm willing to admit that it may be that anyone who seeks this position would have to have quite a bit of ego to pursue it.
For instance, let's take McCain. McCain likes to remind all of us that his mother has lived to be XX years old. This is great. But, this simply reminds me that McCain himself is no spring chicken. He extols that he has ALWAYS placed his country before himself. That's what I've been hearing this week. So, am I to believe that a man that ALWAYS puts his country before himself seriously believes that there was not ONE younger man or woman as least as qualified as he to be President. Think about it. That takes ego.
I personally think he should have disqualified himself (for love of country and all).
As for Obama...well, the argument is similar (swap age for experience). I'm just saying it takes a lot of gall to run for this office, and it seems these two have more than most.
Perhaps that's what it takes to be a politician generally.
From Community Organizer to running for President. You skipped his 7 years as a state senator and 3 years in the US Senate. Also he knowledges and teaching constitutional law count for nothing? I don't understand why you make the jump from his first job to right now?
I guess that was the arrogance of Obama. One item. Anything else, since that is your title.
What about the arrogance of McCain? I am not saying there is nothing arrogant about these two. However, that was hardly discussed. All I've read is the list a pros and cons. Is having cons arrogance?
What if the opposite?
"He extols that he has ALWAYS placed his country before himself."
Some years ago, he admitted that he didn't even love his country until after he'd been a POW. That's not the type of comment that someone who's "always placed country before self" says.
"Perhaps that's what it takes to be a politician generally. "
Of course it does. First of all, these people are typically type A persons. The job requires, before anything else, the ability to network extensively and touch as many people as possible, in as short a time as possible. Anyone that's worked sales at all knows how hard this is to do, and also knows that only a small percentage of sales persons ever become truly successful at that work.
This is sales work, first and foremost. These people have to sell the public themselves, or else they fail.
These are two politicians who've clearly shown the ability to sell themselves to the public. They've certainly earned the right to have egos about that. The problem with that comes when/if a politician forgets who it is that he/she is working for, and abuses his position of power, such as our current president has been doing for the past 7-1/2 years.
From Community Organizer to running for President. You skipped his 7 years as a state senator and 3 years in the US Senate. Also he knowledges and teaching constitutional law count for nothing? I don't understand why you make the jump from his first job to right now?
Okay, so he spent seven years as a state senator and three years in the US Senate. So, he's a very experienced voter. As state senator he said, "yeah", "nay", and "present". Now, I'm sure he had many people spending many hours researching the nuances of these issues, but ultimately his job was to vote. He sponsored bills. I would have preferred someone who has run something. In my opinion, a governor would've been ideal. I already know the next comment. George Bush was a governor and look at the mess he got us into. I would still have liked someone who has that experience. A governor is someone who has managed. Governors have to make hard decisions on managing their economy, etc. This was my article. This is my opinion.
I guess that was the arrogance of Obama. One item. Anything else, since that is your title.
Tell me more about Obama that makes him such a wonderful choice. He's better than McCain. But, I would think any candidate would be.
What about the arrogance of McCain? I am not saying there is nothing arrogant about these two. However, that was hardly discussed. All I've read is the list a pros and cons. Is having cons arrogance?
McCain has been knocking around Washington for 30 years. In my opinion, he's had plenty of time to make any change he wants --or to at least have compiled a record that indicated the direction that he felt the country should go in -
I think its arrogant of him, at "darn" near 80 to suggest now that if he picks up another hat, he'll solve our problems. He's another experienced voter, though. If Obama's seven years as a state senator, and three as US senator is enough experience, then McCain's brimming over with it by your benchmark.
Is having cons arrogant?
No, having a limited amount of pros and asking us to overlook your cons as you reach for the highest office in the land is arrogant?