Friends in High Places

I hope endorsements count as much as you are stating. I want Senator Obama to win. I believe the country will be making another major mistake if it elects Ms Clinton. Besides the reckleness of the firs Clinton White House, Ms Clinton lacks vision. Her extensive experience that she likes to tout has only led her to the wrong decision when it counted.

I don't think Finemen is reffering to all voters as idiots, just the uneducated ones like dontvotedemo

Endorsement brings more attention to a candidate but I want someone to set the record straight on what exactly makes a candidate ???experienced??? to be President. I hear general statements of inexperience versus experience of candidates but I have seen no specifics other than some time spent here or there. For example, Why exactly is Hillary more experienced than Obama? What about the experience of the other candidates? Is there a place somewhere to compare the experience of each candidate side by side? This inquiring mind want to know.

Obama may be a very good speeker but come on there is speeking about the issues, change and history to be made and then on the other hand there is actually discussing a plan or an outline on how these things are going to be addressed. which Obama hasn't yet given us. And all this talk about endorsments from the Ted and Carolyne Kennedy. These are not the only Kennedys giving endorsments. Have you know Robert Kennedy Jr endorsed Hillery. Also to say, if endorsments is whats going to be the deciding factor I think that is a real shame. The issues and who is more qualified to do the job that is what should really matter the other stuff like gender, race,endorsments ect.. . is not going to get us out of this mess.

About this whole "inexperience" issue, let me just first say that use would a cabinet be if the President was perfect, and he knew everything? Obama lacks a lot of experience in foreign policy, but Bill Clinton did as well. He listened to his advisors who actually knew something about foreign policy, and made good decisions. Bush, on the other hand, played "lone ranger" and wound up *** everything up to peices.

hillaryforpresident:

Before you post your misinformed comments, make sure that you know the facts. If this were a test, you would fail because you did not do your homework, you simply made an uneducated guess based on your opinion. Provide one shred of evidence that Barack took "just as much money from Corporate America". You have none. Barack has a lot of money because people like me donate to his campaign.

Have you seen Ameriquest's "Don't Judge Too Quickly" commercials? These commercials are a funny take on someone who sees only a small part of a whole scenario and has the opportunity to either (A) make a hasty, false judgment about that small part or (B) make a rational well thought out take on what actually happened and with all the facts.

As it turns out, the media clip reporting a handshake snub by Obama towards Hillary is such a "Don't Judge Too Quickly" scenario that should be evaluated with critical thinking. The media is supposed to play an unbiased role in reporting a matter yet it has decided in this instance to sensationalize a very trivial incident thereby interjecting an implied false judgment of its own. Shame on the media for hyping up an incident for ratings sake and to perpetuate their own opinion on who should be president. I hope Americans are able to see through the hype to make a rational, logical selection for president rather than through biased sensationalized media opinion.

How do you know Crist and Martinez's endorsements were the driving force behind McCain's win?! I think they realized his was poised to win and jumped in at the right time in order to be with the winning guy. Did you ever think that the people of Florida may have seen through Slippery Mitt's rhetoric and voted for a guy that even a moderate or Democrat like me could vote for because he's a real person, and not a "player" like Romney.

And one other thing, Bill Clinton didn't drive away the black vote in South Carolina. Blacks people voted for Obama because he is black--pure and simple. If I were black, I probably would too!

This whole "who has more experience" thing really troubles me. Point of fact: Barack Obama has held elected public office longer (since 1997) than Hillary Clinton (since 2001). Granted, Mrs. Clinton has held federal government office longer (2001 vs. 2005), but if we really want to talk experience in service to our country, few have more burnished credentials than John McCain. Compared to McCain, both Obama and Clinton are relative neophytes. So, enough of this experience thing already! If we're talking national elections and electibility, if all they can do is point to their experience, the democratic candidate, whoever it is loses to McCain hands down.

Given the catastrophic failure of the current administration over the past 7 years, our country is as ready as it ever has been to reject experienced pols and the status quo. Rather than highlighting their experience in a broken system, the winning candidate will be the one that makes us believe they have the freshest approach to fixing the system. In that regard, "experience" is not necessarily a good thing.

There's not so much discussion on here about the probability of McCain winning the Republican nomination and I can understand why. That is exactly what the Democrats were afraid of, and they should be. He polls well against either Obama or Clinton in the presidential race.
There are many conservative Republicans that don't like him but that can be a good thing. This country has been and most likely will always be moderate, either moderately conservative or moderately liberal. John McCain is far more of a moderate than the other candidates if you look at his voting record and even though I don't agree with some of his positions, he votes his conscience and not to please either party.
Some people may not like him but they overwhelmingly respect him on both sides, how can you not, he is an American hero and a strong leader. If he chooses a running mate that would appeal more to evangelical right, which is a far stronger force in this country than the liberal left, I don't think he can be stopped.

Obama is fond of claiming Hillary carries a lot of negative baggage. Whoop it up over Ted's endorsement is silly. Ted has higher negative ratings than Hillary and more enemies. Obama already had the liberal left sown up. So now he gets all Ted's negatives and Ted's many enemies.

Should Obama get the nomination the GOP is going to hand Ted around his neck like a millstone.

As for Carolyn comparing Obama to her father -- how could she. She was well under 10 when her father was killed. "Johnny, I hardly knew yee."

Fineman is the typical paternalistic liberal. Obama is just too weak to get by with out us.

Comment: O.K. Dems run Obama and you lose my vote for sure. This guy has no experience in Foreign Policy, Economics, and an atrocious voting record to boot. Totally non-committal on issues that matter. Rides the middle of the road. Lastly "the Kennedy clan" endorses Obama.....this is as good as no endorsement. Who in their right mind wants to be endorsed by the Kennedys?

Finman wrote, "Voters are too busy, distracted and ideologically confused to make fateful political decisions on their own. They are looking for guidance."

That is quite condescending.

Richard B

Fineman says, "Voters are too busy, distracted and ideologically confused to make fateful political decisions on their own. They are looking for guidance."

That is quite condescending.

Richard B