Those who complain about Obama not having a lot of experience are the ones who had no problems voting for an idiot, liar and coward. Wow. It’s really really strange how picky people become about voting for a Democratic candidate, but when faced with candidates from the Republican party it’s all good.

I don’t know why independents call themselves independents, most of the time they seem to be closet Republicans (not referring to anybody here specific).

For a true independent, what difference does a previous selection make? Each of the party’s platforms has its positives and negatives. You simply have to determine the issues of most concern, listen to the positions of the candidates, and you pick your poison.

This is why many people detest politics. It reduces down to the “If you don’t agree with me, you’re a moron” mentality. If you believe Obama has the right stuff, vote your conscience. I simply believe many want a candidate that has more tread worn off his shoes, just like most people don’t want a doctor who’s just out of medical school.

That doesn’t make you gullible, just cautious.

Quid pro quo, I am a right-leaning independent, in the sense that I am a fiscal conservative, but a social moderate. I must also admit I am slightly pessimistic politically, but nothing that a big, fat government contract wouldn’t overcome.

That being said, I don’t consider myself any more brainwashed by the conservative movement that you imagine yourself indoctrinated by the liberals. I try to examine all angles on an issue, and be as fair-minded as my alcohol-marinated cerebrum will permit. The only time I’m gullible is when a pretty girl tells me how nice I look and I end up buying drinks and changing her flat tire.

I attempt to keep an open mind, but I am not required to consider every proposal floating in the ether to have equal merit. We tend to get ‘fooled’ when we let emotions override our power to reason. I am certain there are as many alternatives to the issues at hand as there are people on the internet. However, we must endeavor to put aside our passions and focus on those that represent realistic outcomes. The vast majority of anti-war rhetoric is not aimed at finding concrete solutions; it is simply GOP-bashing. The Right is equally as guilty when they impugn the patriotism of those who legitimately oppose the war. The two parties expend enormous quantities of time and energy simply slapping each other around. But if that means that we reach an tenative consensus on critical issues, its energy well spent. Sometimes the will of a majority is not the proper course of action, especially when their will is intertwined with personal agenda. Mistakes have been made on both sides of the aisle, but the continued expounding of such myopic and overzealous views regarding these complex issues does not serve the public good.

Without doubt, Obama appears to be very intelligent, and I’m sure he is a talented attorney. And this would mean what, exactly? Jimmy Carter has a degree in Nuclear Physics. The problem was neither the Iranian militants nor the members of OPEC bothered to read his resume. We carry on diplomatic communications with any number of regimes we wouldn’t exactly place on our Christmas card list, some of which could be considered downright hostile. But how long should we play the same waltz before crying ‘No Mas’? We had to go to Europe to fight Fascism, blockade Cuba and risk nuclear annihilation to get the Soviets to yank their nukes, put bombs on the ground in Bosnia to try and avoid genocide, conduct full scale military action in Kuwait to beat back Saddam, etc. etc. Even as I pen this, it’s being reported that the UN has passed its third sanction against Iran in an attempt to halt their production of fissionable nuclear material. This, by the way, is the same regime that recently stated that Israel would soon cease to be a nation.

In my last post, I exalted diplomacy as a great starting point. But if we continue to pretend that talking will bring these maniacs around, they’ll just wait until we put our heads in the sand, then they’ll come ‘round and bite us on the a**. Now is not the time to break open the social science kit and start experimenting with someone who’s foreign policy strategy is little more than teaching everyone the words to ‘Cum ba ya’.

Experience is a dual-edged blade. Too much may mean you’ve learned how to beat the system, too little may mean you don’t know enough to keep other from doing so. But a candidate needs enough to navigate the vast minefield that is our political system and then be able to lead others through. We live in a country that is split virtually down the middle in terms of political ideology. So it will be imperative for the next President to have enough ‘on-the-job’ experience to recognize the necessity of a more centrist approach. I see the indecision of the blue electorate as a sign that many of them suspect Obama’s positions are far too leftist to get a significant movement established, even within the moderates. And those on the Right will treat him like he just came down with a case of SARS.

I don’t believe I ever implied that Obama’s gift of oratory was a negative. Unfortunately though, most of us can rattle off person after person whose ability to sway and disarm an audience was matched only by their sheer ineptitude or gross malevolence after achieving power.

As to his judgment and his ‘Man above the Mud’ mantra, I seem to recall a recent episode involving the junior senator and his long-time fund raiser, a fine upstanding lad from Chicago named Mr. Antion Rezko. The real estate transaction that Obama conducted with this pillar of the community was during the time Mr. Rezko was under investigation for extortion and money laundering. Although Obama has said he regretted his dealings with Rezko (I believe he used the term ‘bone-headed’), he still refuses to disclose the amount of money Rezko helped raise on his behalf.

Is this what’s known as being ‘above the influence’? Does this not call into question his ability to make a proper assessment of a situation? Most likely it’s all smoke and no fire, but Obama had better hope that Rezko doesn’t turn into Mrs. O’Leary’s cow.

Here is why I think Obama’s ’style’ is significant. To begin with I should say that I am a left-leaning independent.. I voted for Ross Perot, Jesse Ventura and other independent party candidates in Minnesota, and Ralph Nader. One of the main things I evaluate in a candidate is how they campaign. I don’t vote for liars I don’t vote for candidates who won’t answer a question straight. I think candidates that ‘electioneer’ their way to office are fundamentally dishonest. They are not likely to be any different once in office. I expect pragmatic decisions to be made that serve the best interests of this country (or state for state government.) I don’t understand why this is so hard to achieve.

I know Obama will be unable to totally transform how every poltician in America thinks about governing and democracy. It’s enough for me to think that he ‘gets’ it. Democracy is not about lying to people. It’s not about slandering people to get yourself a job. It’s not about keeping secrets to make it easier to get your way. It’s not about bending (or breaking) the law. It’s the fact that he seems to be an honest politician who cares about and understands democracy AND he is an inspiring speaker with the ability to move people and *possibly* transform attitudes just a bit is what I think is exciting.

So is he missing ‘Brick and Mortar’. We will find out, but I doubt it. He is almost 50 years old. He’s obviously damned smart, he so far has run a much better campaign the the Clintons. I don’t believe that you need 30 years of experience in Washington to be President. I really think that this whole line of reasoning is just exploiting a fallacy in people’s thinking. Like thinking that someone can’t be smart and good looking. Because he is a good speaker and gifted communicator is just that. It’s an additional asset, not an indication that he lacks smarts or good judgement.

Now as far as the foreign policy thing goes, I think this line that you can’t talk to your enemies is just dumb, dumb, dumb. Granted there are a few that it’s not worth talking to, Al Qaeda being the main one, but very few exceptions outside of that. It’s silly and conceited to think that we ‘lend legitimacy’ to regimes we don’t like by talking to them. What do people think, that if we just cover our eyes and ears and wish them away the problems we have with them and their behaviors will just magically disappear? That’s far more naive than anything Obama has ever said.

Iraq is a tough problem, but just because we have enough troops in there to keep a relative lid on the chaos now, does not mean that the Iraqis will be able to learn to work together. The surge was supposed to be temporary and give the Iraqis the space to come to accords on the major decisions that country needs to take. Then it was supposed to be followed by a draw down. Our troops did their job, but if the Iraqis don’t want to be a nation together, how long do we stay? We need to continue to work diplomatically to keep Al Qaeda in Iraq isolated. We need to remain ready to strike at them if needed. But it’s time to try to disengage. We can’t force Iraq to be the country we want it to be. It will be the country they want it to be (or countries) or it will slide back into authoritarianism. By the end of Bush’s second term we will have had 3 years of stupidity and 2 years of decent strategy in our occupation policy. If the tactical successes of the surge have not translated into the necessary strategic successes of helping the Iraqis learn to live together as a democratic nation, then we need to move on and find new alternatives. Obama’s alternatives (and Democratic alternatives generally) should be tried. Withdrawal with air strikes and special forces activity as needed. Biden’s partition plan, whatever. We just can’t afford many more years of the same old same old.

I’m sorry you keep getting fooled by conservative propoganda into thinking that there are only two possible outcomes in Iraq, but it’s really not Obama’s fault that you are so gullible. But I can see how you would think that Obama is nothing but empty speeches if you are so locked into this false duality in Iraq that you can’t see that there are other intelligent options. I believe that Obama is an intelligent man who sees some of these other options and wants to try them. And what gives me even more hope is the fact that he is a good communicator who might be able to cut through some of this intellectual rubbish and open people’s eyes a bit

And just for the record, if the election was Clinton v McCain, I’d be voting for McCain despite his stubbornness in Iraq policy.

First, let me say that I am not picking a fight, because I find your writings on the topic of religion to be top-notch, and I respect your views accordingly. The only reason I commented on Obama was because I see many of the voters succumbing to the ‘Deer in Headlights’ syndrome. It appears to me that many of the electorate are so desperate to bring about upheaval in Washington that they will latch onto any candidate that doesn’t appear to have much of the government ‘patina’. I’m concerned that, while Obama appears all nice and shiny, he may have very little brick and mortar for foundation.

That being said, upon further review of the snippet you quoted in the original post, I still have not read nor heard anything from Sen. Obama that deviates from the rhetoric of the other candidates’, nor from the party line itself.

The most frightening aspect of Sen. Obama’s candidacy is his seemingly naive stance on foreign policy. I, for one, would love it if we could all join hands and buy the world a Coke and a Moon Pie. But a goodly part of the world would prefer to snatch my soda away and run me over with the delivery truck. Yes, diplomacy is an admirable course, and should be attempted at the outset of any difficult situation. But my experience has been that bullies, fanatics, and megalomaniacs don’t tend to negotiate, at least not on the level. Just ask Neville Chamberlain and Joseph Stalin about that one. High level meetings with foreign leaders who are just interested in spouting hatred and hearing their own voices will just lend legitimacy to their rants and credibility to their reign.

Obama has been adamant regarding his plans to remove the troops from Iraq (not Afghanistan, mind you). Yet recently, when asked if he would continue the fight against Al-Qaida in Iraq, he took the position that, as Commander-in-Chief, he “reserved the option to use whatever means deemed necessary to protect American interest”. So if I have it straight, here’s how this could play out:

1) In order to fulfill a (read “the”) major campaign promise, he rescinds the deployment orders to Iraq (regardless of the situation on the ground) and our brave soldiers come home.

2) Because the Iraqi government is unlikely able to muster a viable army and/or security force, factions from virtually every terrorist group in the known universe flood in to fill the void. Disney considers opening a theme park.

3) Then, despite the fact that a significant portion of the terror surveillance program has been curtailed, (another campaign promise), President Obama gets wind of a ‘threat’ to the US from ________ in Iraq (fill in the terrorist group de jour). He would then consider the option to re-deploy troops back to Iraq (the dangers being compounded, naturally), hopefully squelching said threat. Or maybe he sits down with the terrorist leaders over dinner and a couple of drinks (non-alcoholic of course) and talks them out of their dastardly plans, whichever comes first.

4) The whole world then lives happily ever after, or at least until December 2012, when we all die in a fiery cataclysm, as predicted by the Mayans. Or Nostradamus. Whatever.

Of course, there is what’s behind door #2…Obama discovers what many of the newly elected majority members of the House did after they were sworn in. That talk is just moving molecules of air over the vocal cords to make sound. The ideas they convey are only as valid as the information they are derived from. And making blanket statements before assessing all the facts and political repercussions is like marking your drop zone next to a minefield – everything’s good until the winds change.

Obama is not the Second Coming of FDR or JFK. These men were pragmatist. They wanted peace, but made it abundantly clear that they would not back down in the face of adversity. If change means that we forget these principles, then our position as peacekeepers of the world will continue to erode.

I think I’ll go spruce up the Y2K cabin, just in case.

Dr. X, that’s what the topic of this post was. I couldn’t care less about starry-eyed “change” rhetoric. What I want is to see a progressive politician who will stand up to sleazy attacks and fight back against their purveyors.