Well this is a loaded gun post, With no intent on starting a flaming dialogue, I will say this about Obama. He is extremely intelligent, charismatic, and comes off as solid and sincere. His description of the mess that ensued after 9-11 culminating with the invasion of Iraq is right on in my view. The problem with his being placed as a national candidate, if it is a problem, is that his lack of experience will lead some to conclude he is an idealist, with little practicle experience in the theater of foreign policy. His honest opinions, whether one agrees with them or not, are a refreshing change from the likes of Hilary, and some of the leading Republican candidates who constantly moderate their views to appeal to the largest possible base of voters.
His rise in polls on the eve of Iowa, and on the Republican side the sudden emergence of Huckabee make one thing certain, it is anyones game at this point.

I agree that it is anyone’s game. The problem I have is that it IS such a game. Obama has a serious lack of experience, as does Hillary, although she professes otherwise. On the Republican side, Giuliani has solid experience from 911, but he has his share of negatives as well. I believe the field is so wide open because there really isn’t one, fantastic, standout leader — something this country desperately needs going forward.

You know, I used to think that Barack’s main problem was his lack of experience too. But I did a little research and wrote this previous article, Barack Obama is Actually Pretty Impressive. It turns out that he’s got a lot more experience than most people think.

As far as foreign policy is concerned, I don’t think we could do any worse in that arena than we are doing now if we tried.

John

Tracy, although I have strong support for one candidate (more later) and dislike many quite strongly (on both sides), I’ve been saying one thing publicly: Vote for whoever you want, just please don’t vote for Rudy.

Rudy is a joke who has done a master job turning 99 negatives and 1 win into results of 100% success. 9/11 is one of those situations: There are so very many problems the issues leading up to it (poor fire radios due to questionable no bid deals, locating the emergency center inside the biggest target of terrorist aims in all of NYC, etc.), yet because he did a good job on TV in the aftermath, he’s a hero.

I was living in NYC on 9/11 and I’ll be honest – both Rudy’s daily reports were quite helpful. But that doesn’t get him out of the hot seat for the ongoing corruption issues, civil rights issues, ousting his police chief who cleaned up the city for getting more press than him, announcing his separation during a press conference, living with him wife and mistress in the same mayor’s mansion, etc. The guy is slime, pure and simple. Don’t let his finely crafted image get you so aflutter that you don’t do your research to see what’s behind that image. After all, this is the guy who ran around aimlessly trying to escape the falling towers because he was trying to get to his command center… which he located in the basement of the WTC, a location already once blown up. Genius.

Remember, Bush’s “The whole world can hear you” speeches was inspiring. That was a true moment of leadership…. which has been all but forgotten in the years and actions since that day. One moment does not a leader make. Despite what “24″ would have us believe, and there are very very few ticking time bombs in the world. Do you want to cast your vote based on the expectation that there will be constant, daily, ongoing threat of such near-mythical ticking time bomb situation? If you truly believe that such a threat is so imminent, then Rudy *may* be a decent choice, maybe. Nobody gives a press conference like he does….

OK, now onto who I’m supporting…. it’s Obama and here’s why: he’s a new kind of leader, an actual leader, for a new kind of world. We’re in a different world today than a generation ago (or less). He’s an actual leader, not a politician who has been elevated into a leadership role. People say he has no experience, but what is “experience”? The Bush Admin, and specifically the team that launched the Iraq War were career politicians with incredible resumes and long-time “experience”. Remind me how that worked out for us?…

Since I just posted about NYC, let’s talk about the turn around of crime in NYC. William Bratton, the NYPD police chief who lead the massive reduction of crime didn’t do so from brute force or even from traditional police tactics. Instead he brought computer stats, management, inspiration, and new tactics to bear. He focused on things that traditional logic and leadership would have considered “too unimportant”, yet they had a radically larger impact on overall crime. Without question, these things turned NYC around.

While Bratton was a career policeman, he wasn’t necessarily a “career police chief” (although he is now that he’s risen to that point).

What do we need today? Leadership and inspiration. We need a leader who can actually inspire the public to demand that fuel efficiency standards increase to a minimum of 35 mpg (thus reducing, eliminating our dependence on Saudi oil all together). We need a leader who understands that pride and inspiration are far more effective at “changing hearts and minds” than bombs and ultimatums. We need a leader who can move young people to connect with the world around them for good rather than commerce. Looking at Obama’s resume and having met him and heard him speak in person, he is, in my opinion, the ONLY candidate who can deliver on this need.

When I look at the rest of the field, I see career politicians more interested in their careers than in their results. I see changes of opinion and position based on polling. I see more of the same and it makes me sick.

I’m always curious about people who say Obama lacks the “experience” to be President… do they see this same experience in other candidates? If so, how so? I fear that Obama’s opponents have painted such a great message of non-experience that it really deflects their own lacking.

Tracy, you mean the same Gingrich who was cheating on his wife while conducting a crusade against Clinton for doing exactly that? Meh.

Tomato, buick… There’s a difference between cheating on your wife and cheating on your wife while leading a multiple million dollar, world encompassing crusade against the president of the United States for cheating on his wife as a political move.

To me, that’s more than just “personal issues”.

I think a poll is in order, how many posters actually watched both of John’s video posts on Obama before commenting?

Seems like Obama pulled a coup in Iowa this week. Hillary placing a third? Who would have thunk it? I am happy to see the established dems and republicans take a hit in Iowa. The process works.

I like Obama. I don’t think he’s brilliant, but he is definitely very charismatic. I woud much rather see him in Office than Hillary.

I will probably be voting for Ron Paul though, although I don’t agree with him on everything. We NEED a smaller government, and he is by far the most likely to make this happen.

Andrew DuVal

That’s really not fair =/

Personally, if you knock a person’s support for a candidate, why not call Obama fans Obamites or something? This is the first election I’ve ever participated in because it’s the first candidate who did more than talk about how he would change things. He’s the first candidate that’s made me feel I was voting for more than just the “best of the worst”.

If anything, the fact that more young voters are coming out of the woodwork to participate in the Democracy we constantly preach about, should be a boon to anyone, be they a Paul fan or Obama fan.

Be relegating all of us who support who we feel to be the best candidate to a stereotype hurts your cause in general.