We need to face the tough issues, trade agreements and corporate policies should not be written solely in favor of special interest at the detriment of the nation , Just look at the huge trade deficit with china, More safety scrutiny need to be applied on their imports to this great nation.
Obama stand by your convictions, That's what leadership is all about, you don't need to be 60 yrs to impact a change.

Do you folks realize that Obama has more elected legislative experience than Clinton and Edwards, more than Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Romney? Look it up! So enough of this Obama doesn't have any experience. And enough of this "he's a bunch ofempty rhetoric" crap. Go to his Web site and see for yourself the significant policy shifts he wants to make as president. It is about HOPE. CHANGE. ACTION. But he backs it up with all sorts of experience. Obama '08. The clear choice.

Ross Perot with a tan.

If experience were the foremost consideration in the campaign, Biden would be the front-runner.

Obviously, experience is not the only (or even the most important) quality in supporting a candidate.

What is important is integrity and consistency. And that's what the American people see in Barack Obama.

If you talk about experience, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell, Rice had the best resumes you can find in Washington. See with your own eyes what the mountains of experience produced for us. A HUGE MESS for US, both inside US and in the world. JFK was a first term senator. Lincoln was a first term congressman. But see how profound impact they have on next generations. If you talk about judgment the exercise of which leads to experience, look at Obama's position on Iraq war. When so call experienced Clinton and Edwards din't even care to read NIE report before jumping to support Iraq war, Obama stood against that irresponsible act.
He did it knowing that might very well end his political career. Now that's called leadership. Wake up America! What you call experience and toughness are simply outdated and percieved as plain arrogance in the world. Think out of the washington box and support Obama. He is the MAN!

GO OBAMA!!!

just wanted to point out that whoever types out the stories on cnn.com CANNOT SPELL and it's not just in this article.

To Joe and others who say that Obama doesn't have experience, why don't you go out and read the Audacity of Hope and then you will know that in actuality he IS experienced– well experienced. I bet you didn't know either that in Obama's last session in the Illinois legislature he sponsored more than 780 bills in that session alone! The reason he has support is because he is a progressive candidate. He's stands firm with his beliefs, (unlike Clinton) and he knows what he is talking about! Enough of this "lack of experience" statement.

you should read the new york times article on barack obama's state experience. he had faced the same doubts about his ability to lead in the illinois state legislature as a rookie politician, but in the end, he was able to win them over with his shrewd judgment and sincerity.

obama IS experienced enough to lead and the nay-sayers are only feeding into this media-spun controversy.

Joe from San Diego is absolutely correct. Jennifer is absolutely NAIVE. Bush actually won for the same reason Obama is doing so well. Neither had a lot of experience or sucess to point to. Bush won because the press served as his media arm and convinced the American people that he was just a regular guy. Likeable who would bring about a change in Washing (boy has he ever). Sound familiar? Sounds like what they are saying about obama now. I don't want someone just like me. I don't want some I can have a latte or beer with. I want someone strong, experienced, and wise. In other words I want ABO (Anyone But Obama)

If Bush got the job because of his experience, and this is where we now stand in the world and within our own country, I am willing to vote for Obama anyday and I plan on it 2008!

WE NEED CHANGE FOR THE BETTER!

La'Goro you said
"All Senate votes he has participated in have been over obvious, less complicated issues and have generally been supported by majority mermbers of the US Senate - he was been flowing with everyone else and never stood a significantly shaky decision on his own or led any."

Well, do you have something to back that up? Who do you think led the passage of several ETHIC bills both in the State Senate & the US Senate? Obama did!! And he did it by working together with Republican senator Coburn. He worked together with Democratic senator Feingold. All of this he accomplished in, like you said, just a little over 2 years at Washington.

Nobody else were willing to touch ETHIC reform in Washington, but OBAMA did! With Washington (The White House & Congress) not having a clue how to spend taxpayer dollars, having been more than just knee deep in corruptions & being bought by lobbyists & special interests, Obama is the only one who stood up and said "Enough of this!" & actually DID something about it.

He's been a champion in fighting for our veteran's rights, children's rights, teacher's rights, our constitution's rights, if you open your mind you shall find.

"Never Led Anything"? You might want to check the facts before you yack.

Laughable that he, with NO experience, has so much support. It makes me understand how naive we are in America. Can you imagine Obama running the US? Laughable.

Hopefully people will change the channel.

Cindy,
All you have to do is go to Obama's senate website & he posted all his earmark requests.
I even provide you with the link:
http://obama.senate.gov/press/070621-obama_announces_3/

It's all over the news back in June. Good luck in finding other candidates doing the same.

Obama quick rise is in part due to a political strategy not to stay long in any one position as to generate controversial political decision. He didn't stay long an Illinois state senator because doing so would expose him to controversial and complicated votes. In the same manner, he disregards experience in the US Senate and wishes not to involve in Senate votes that will damage his reputation. Obama desparately wants to win the Presidency now or never because he wants to avoid exposure to major Senate votes which may compromise his voting record. All Senate votes he has participated in have been over obvious, less complicated issues and have generally been supported by majority mermbers of the US Senate - he was been flowing with everyone else and never stood a significantly shaky decision on his own or led any. If he continues a second term in the US Senate you can be assured that voting records on complex issues will stain Obama and that is what he is trying to avoid by gunning straight and fast for the Presidency without leaving a voting record in the Seante that will jearpardize his future chances when referred to.

Obama quick rise is in part due to a political strategy not to stay long in any one position as to generate controversial political decision. He didn't stay long an Illinois state senator because doing so would expose him to controversial and complicated votes. In the same manner, he disregards experience in the US Senate and wishes not to involve in Senate votes that will damage his reputation. Obama desparately wants to win the Presidency now or never because he wants to avoid exposure to major Senate votes which may compromise his voting record. All Senate votes he has participated in have been over obvious, less complicated issues and have generally been supported by majority mermbers of the US Senate - he was been flowing with everyone else and never stood a significantly shaky decision on his own or led any. If he continues a second term in the US Senate you can be assured that voting records on complex issues will stain Obama and that is what he is trying to avoid by gunning straight and fast for the Presidency without leaving a voting record in the Seante that will jearpardize his future chances when referred to.

Hi Ernie. Can you tell us what Obama's earmark requests were?? Thx!

I think someone should change the quote to read "stop us from addressing things THAT matter" instead of "TAT matter"

While Obama does stand out as being a fresh face with a new approach in this election cycle, he comes to the table with no experience and has yet to state any specific policy changes he would make if elected. This political sex appeal without substance is a scary combination given that Bush got in under the same guise. I know he means well, but once bitten, twice shy.

And the other side isn't much better with Mitt Romney mugging up to the public with his perfect makeup job and a history of changing with the wind. Is there anyone we can depend on to fix this train wreck?

Signed,
Disillusioned

Also, Obama has disclosed his "earmark" requests for the year. Most of the others, including Clinton, have not. Wonder why?

Monday's "DesMoines Register" ran an article in which a political science professor suggested that Obama being on the attack somehow undermines the Senator's campaign. This is in line with Vilsack and Edwards calling Obama's debate with Clinton petty. I think Senator Obama needs to tell his critics outright that he holds nothing against his opponents personally, but Americans object to other candidates' ideas concerning policy, and Obama is voicing those objections.