Inside Obama’s Dream Machine

As a Canadian who has lived in the United States for fifteen years, I am pleased to see that Americans have embraced Obama's run for his party's nomination. Why? He looks less like any of the other candidates of either party, yet he is one of us; he is articulate, and comes across as less-scripted than his opponents for the nomination; he does not bleat out the same, monotonous diatribe of a certain other candidate; he has intrigued the rest of the world. Take a *very* close look at him, and decide for yourself whether you can really justify considering any other person for the democratic nomination. I am soooo tired of the old political race I see here in the United States. People all over the world are waiting and yearning for change. You can make it happen here.

As a Canadian who has lived in the United States for fifteen years, I am pleased to see that Americans have embraced Obama's run for his party's nomination. Why? He looks less like any of the other candidates of either party, yet he is one of us; he is articulate, and comes across as less-scripted than his opponents for the nomination; he does not bleat out the same, monotonous diatribe of a certain other candidate; he has intrigued the rest of the world. Take a *very* close look at him, and decide for yourself whether you can really justify considering any other person for the democratic nomination. I am soooo tired of the old political race I see here in the United States. People all over the world are waiting and yearning for change. You can make it happen here.

I agree "just wondering". I too wonder if America would really vote for a "blacker" man or if white rural voters are more comfortable voting for a non-threatening half-white minority over Hillary Clinton who is seen as a threat to many men's masculinity.

Obama doesn't have "legs". He is just another Democrat flash-in-the-pan. The Republicans could run Cint Eastwood's sidekick "Clyde" and beat any of the Democratic candidates. This is the best they can do?

Why isn't Obama being vetted for his admitted past drug usage? I personally do not have a problem with this, but then again, I had no problem with John Kerry's Vietnam history, but enough Americans did that we ended up having four more years of Republican rule. We must know the country's reaction to Obama's drug past before he is handed the nomination. Democrats are naive to believe that the Republicans are not going to exploit this issue in a nasty, nasty way. Believe me, Obama's youthful expression 'I'm fired up' will take on a whole new meaing if he has the nomination. I can even envison him being linked to Marion Berry by the Republicans. Their question will be is the country really ready for someone who casually admits to using some 'blow' to be given the most powerful job is the history of mankind? Maybe it is, but why isn't this made an issue NOW so the we can find out before we waste the chance to retake the White House?

The man's message appeals to a broad audience. He's probably our best chance to get past the 51-49 stalemate. In the eighties we had Reagan Democrats... will this election bring the phrase "Obama Republicans?"

Obama's chair in New Hampshire is a pharmaceutical industry lobbyist. I may end up voting for him because of his unifying message and the chance that Democrats may win this time, but lets not put blinders on to avoid seeing the same old same old political machine he has. Yep, go look it up on The Page...he chair is a drug company lobbyist.

Comment: Change versus experience, which is more valuable? Let me make a point. Bill Gates was 17 when he dropped out of Harvard to establish a forerunner to now-monolith Microsoft. At a tender age of 20 something, he had the genius and wisdom to outflank IBM by offering his MS-DOs (which is software he bought for a mere $50 thousand from a dimwit-businessman but brilliant programmer) for free. But he refused to give outright ownership of DOS to IBM. It was the most astute business move in history. MS-DOS became Microsoft's flagship product and a cash cow that earned it billions and made it what it is today. The same type of success by young inexperienced geeks was repeated all over the infant computer industry at the time. They are responsible for creating an industry that has completely transformed global-socio-economic culture. My point is that talent, intelligence, wisdom, principles and intellect trump experience. Obama is superior to his opponents in these traits. He is an inspirational speaker to boot. He is his own man, as the article has clearly established. He was wise enough to decline the advice of seasoned pros who implored him to be "knee-cap" his opponents. It paid big in Iowa. That is wisdom and fortitude no one could have taught him. If elected, Obama will be the best president the US will ever have. If not, he will be the best president the US could have had.

So if Michelle Obama didn't have the grades to get into Princeton, per her own comments, how did she become a student there?

Change versus experience, which is more valuable? Let me make a point. Bill Gates was 17 when he dropped out of Harvard to establish a forerunner to now-monolith Microsoft. At a tender age of 20 something, he had the genius and wisedom to outflank IBM by offering his MS-DOs (which is a software he bought for a mere $50 thousand from a dimwit-businessman but brilliant programmer) for free. But he refused to give outright ownership of DOS to IBM. it was the most astute business move in history. MS-DOS became Microsoft's flagship product and a cash cow that earned it billions and made it what it is today. The same type of success by young inexperienced geeks was repeated all over the infant computer industry at the time. They are responsible for creating an industry that has completely transformed global-socio-economic culture. My point is that talent , intelligence, wisedom, principles and intellect trump experience. Obama is suprior to his opponents in these traits. He is an inspirational speaker to boot. He is his own man, as the article has clearly established. He was wise enough to decline the advice of seasoned pros who implored him to be "knee-cap" his opponents. It paid big in Iowa. That is wisedom and forttitude no one could have taught him. If elected, Obama will be the best president the US will ever have. If not, he will be the best president the US could have had.

Although I have not made my choice yet, I am very concerned that so many voters are getting on the Obama bandwagon. I have listened to his message of hope and do not hear or see any concrete plans. He seems to be a nice guy, but nice is not necessarily what we need. Many people voted for GWB because they thought that he was nice and someone with whom you could drink a beer. Change is good, but almost anything would be a change from our current situation. Clinton has experience and Edwards has some great ideas which are detailed in his campaign report of 80 pages. Richardson has great experience and good ideas and is being ignored for the most part. I caution the American voters to think for yourself and don't vote for someone just because they call themselves an agent of change. We must get it right this time.

It has nothing to do with Obama being black or white. Other than politics he has done nothing. No business job, no military experience, management experience. Living over seas as a child is not international experience. What has he done in his life to qualify himself for office other than give good speech and network well with other politicians.

Why does his talk not match his plan. Do all of these voters flocking to see him read ?

A lot of people have dubbed this the "change vs experience" election. However, it has been implied way too often that we have to choose between change and experience, while i think a good balance of both is necessary. Thatis why I will vote Clinton. Obama undoubtedly promises to bring the most change, but he brings nothing on the experience side. Clinton, on the other hand promises a fair amount of change - the first woman president, a Democrat following a Republican president, a renewed focus on health care and America's image abroad. But she also brings a lot on the experience side - she was working on impeaching Nixon before Obama had finished college. She has spent 7 years in the senate and army generals unanimously admit her superior national security knowledge, she brings with her a team of people that include a former President and a Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. So between a promise of plenty of change and no experience and one of moderate change and plenty of experience, I definitely choose the latter.

A lot of people have dubbed this the "change vs experience" election. However, it has been implied way too often that we have to choose between change and experience, while i think a good balance of both is necessary. Thatis why I will vote Clinton. Obama undoubtedly promises to bring the most change, but he brings nothing on the experience side. Clinton, on the other hand promises a fair amount of change - the first woman president, a Democrat following a Republican president, a renewed focus on health care and America's image abroad. But she also brings a lot on the experience side - she was working on impeaching Nixon before Obama had finished college. She has spent 7 years in the senate and army generals unanimously admit her superior national security knowledge, she brings with her a team of people that include a former President and a Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. So between a promise of plenty of change and no experience and one of moderate change and plenty of experience, I definitely choose the latter.

Republican,
I am a die hard republican and will vote that way. I love to watch Obama orate and am impressed with him. A presidential contest consisting of Obama and Huckaby would be an old time civics lesson for America. Two well spoken, polite, respectful statesmen running for the Presidency, not against each other.