Webster definition of EXPERIENCE-direct observation of or participation in events as a basis of knowledge.

Both Clinton and Bush have had this direct observation of a presidency- but i've direct observation of houses being built. It doesn't mean that I can build you a house!

And,If i'm not mistaken, NEITHER dem. candidate have been president before!
So please STOP the with the lack of experience bit.

Also, take a look at where experience has gotten us! The only experience I've seen in political DC is their experience in lying to Americans about what is really going on; deceiving Americans by pretending to be interested in our views to get votes and then as soon as the votes are in gradually reneging on their promises; and making the rich richer.

The 'fresh' start that Obama is refering to is out with the old ways of running this nation (which we evidently need since we aren't too liked by Ooo… Nobody!). He promotes honesty, the tranformation of a extremely corrupt system, and Unity (which the country has been struggling with since it's birth).

Webster also defines evolution as a process of continuous CHANGE from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state.

My point??

There has to be some kind of change the takes place before anything can evolve or simply put be better. So why is change now being looked at negatively?

Obama For President 2008!

P.S.- As far as this war- sacrificing American lives to fuel a war solely for oil and the settling of a vedetta that Daddy Bush had is WRONG any way you slice it! I have a husband in Iraq now and the crazy part about it is- he, like most of the soldiers over there, don't even know why they are there!!

Ah, the international law argument. First, let me say I support this particular 'law' in spirit. It seems good and wise.

What bothers me is who creates international 'laws'. My international relations experience and my visions for the future cause me to hope for an increasingly unified planet. I would love nothing more than for borders to gradually become less important, and for the normal, hard-working people of the world to become more and more of a family. In principle, the UN is a fantastic idea… But as things currently stand, I think it is impossible for any rational, thinking person who believes in democracy to support giving the UN any sort of real power.

For those who don't know, and I'm thinking that would be most who frequent these boards… the UN is not a democratic institution. The representatives are NOT elected, they are SELECTED by the elites of each respective country! There is NO accountability to the people. While there are certainly admirable UN programs, the fact of the matter is that the UN decision makers are accountable not to the people of their countries, but to the elite and the leaders of their countries. It is not in their interests to serve the people.

Knowing that most governments in the world are not even FORMS of democracy, that most governments in the world have NO accountability to the people, and knowing that the GOVERNMENTS and the ELITE select the UN representatives… HOW in the WORLD could you feel comfortable allowing such a body to have power over you?

Living in a free democracy is MEANINGLESS if your country is subject to an arbitrary world governing body whose representatives are mostly relatives and friends of the world's most ambitious, short-sighted, bloodthirsty dictators.

Heck, even in America, when was the last time you voted for a UN representative? Granted, in America there is a degree of separation, but at least there is a small hint of accountability.

Again, while I agree with this particular 'law', I am worried by the fact that so many people in democratic countries are willing to blindly subjugate themselves to a governing body composed of the friends and relatives of the world's dictators.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that our freedom and democracy means nothing if our country is subject to the 'laws' of an illegitimate, unaccountable, unelected governing body.

This is not really the place to discuss this, I guess… but in actuality it's all connected.

I LOVE the concept of the UN, but it must necessarily become a democratic institution before people of democratic countries can accept it, lest our freedom and democracy be taken from us.

(this will unfortunately be difficult to accomplish since, at this point, the overwhelming majority of the world's countries are not the slightest bit democratic)

Dear IV, you said America needs judgement, not a experience. It depends on what kind of judgement and who is the guaranteed person to make right judgement. I don't think second grade child, second year employee, second year intern and second year Senator are able to make right judgement for curriculum, company management, final diagnosis of serious case and for the Country because there's no ground work. Obama needs to change his wife's big mouth first, he can't run his wife's mouth, certainly he can't run the White House. Obama denied his wife swipe Hillary, then Michelle pointed out it just for her husband.

Chad, Durham, NC

I agree that the experience debate is absurd because it is extremely clear that HRC has more experience than Obama. Those that argue that she doesn't have clearly not bothered to educate themselves or read objective material. Or they are sitting on the chauvinist side of the aisle where they want to argue she was "merely" the President's wife, when if fact HRC had more experience than Bill upon entering Yale. Don't forget that she was featured on the front of Time magazine in the heat of Vietnam for her anti-war comments during her commencement speach at Wellesley, was the President of the student body at Wellesley, was accepted into both Harvard and Yale, was extremely political at Yale, edited the liberal law review that began while she was there, interned in Washington D.C., worked on the Nixon impeachment trial, worked for the Children's Defense Fund, has worked on numerous campaigns throughout her entire life, headed numerous committees, authored numerous legal papers, edited papers and books, worked as a lawyer while serving as first lady of Arkansas and heading up committees her husband asked her to work on (specifically in regard to children and education), advocated and worked toward healthcare, was first lady of the United States and represented the U.S. worldwide, was elected Senator twice, has been a professor (in Arkansas), and all of this while a Mother. Now, tell me again what was it that Obama did - Community Organizer, Professor (oh, just like Clinton?), State Senator (and that compares to Clinton's international and public experience how?), 1 term Federal senator (not at Clinton's level yet), oh, and he's and ivy league graduate - so is Clinton, and he's a Father. This man was not nearly as politically active as Clinton while in school. Do the research. Do not tell me that he has more experience than Clinton. To say so is ridiculous. And yes, experience is important - look at the situation our country is in internationally. It is going to take experience to get us out of that. Whether Obama is liked by many people in the U.S. The Clinton's are liked and respected internationally and that is what we need right now.

This war IS illegal according to International Law. Even Bush knew he should influence the UN towards war. When he couldn't influence them, he went ahead and took us to war. Then proceeded to make us believe the countries that didn't agree with his misguided mission were unfriendly towards the US.

The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII).

Soldier that's been there,

I agree with you on couple issues.
1. The Media being bad
2. That we're doing something good

The question you need to ask yourself is, Is it worth all the American lives that are being sacrificed here in Iraq trying to stop their civil war?

These people have been fighting since Old Testament. What makes you think that we can impose our 200 yrs. old democratic style of government in thier country?

While young American lives are being sacrifice in the name of Freedom trying to police Iraq civil war, KBR and other contractors are LITARERALY STEALING BILLIONS OF $$$$ from our government.

Since you said you've been here! You should now that KBR is charging $75 for each laundry bag that's turned in to 'em when most of us can do it ourself if provided the washing equipments. They charge the governmet $45/soldier walk in and additional $45 if they take a to go plate with them. They pay their employees about $100,000/yr for passing towels at the MWR's and other places.

We all want to win but we want to win the right WAR. Ben Ladin is still in the LOOSE my friend.

After six years into this war and loosing about 4000 of our fellow brothers in arms, WE NOW KNOW, there is NO WMD, SADDAM IS GONE, NOW WE GOT TO STABALIZE THE IRAQ GOVERNMET…what's next.

Hey Laura from Tulsa,
What a great fashion idea! You're wearing your rose-colored glasses and your blinders AT THE SAME TIME!

Please explain to me why you think this war is illegal!!! As a soldier that has fought I would like to hear why people keep making that stupid statement. This war is not illegal. It may be something you don't agree with but it was done with full APPROVAL of congress. It may have gone on too long for you or shouldn't have taken place but it is not illegal. No war is ever good and certainly should be avoided but we are here and to leave all at once would seriously hurt millions. The media doesn't represent everything going on in Iraq. Do you ever hear about the good we are doing in Iraq. NO because that is not their adgenda. We have done many good things and alot of Iraqs are happy that we are here. When are you civis going to open your eyes to the fact that the media is just as bad as the so called political people you hate.

This experience debate is absurd. For one, Obama has more political experience than Abraham Lincoln did. Lincoln was an outsider who came into office and did what needed to be done. Obama can do the same. Clinton just wanted to be president since she was 5 yrs old and would not change a thing, nor have any positive impact around the world. Her "experience" voted to authorize this "president" monarchical powers (maybe because she hoped she would be the one to inherit them?). She knew the consequences of her vote - but she chose to advance her career - by not looking soft on foreign policy - all in exchange for the lives of thousands. This has got to stop.

To the people who keep saying "Obama does not have experiene etc, etc", all I can say is, well, the man is only 46 years old ,already a Millionaire, has a Law degree, was a State Senator for 8 years and is now a US Senator. What an accomplishment!

Its ok even if he losses the primary.I'm sure he has gained a lot from this campaign. He has made a name for himself. Most of us blogging here do not even have an associates degree, have basic medical insurance(which you won't have once you lose your unstable/unpredictable job) and are living from paycheck to paycheck.Go figure.

Hey Laura from Tulsa.
You might want to check figures and history before you cite them as an argument…here are some of your claims and then I have listed what is actually the truth…

-the economy is performing very very well. unemployment is 4.6, the lowest in 20 years.
The economy is NOT doing well…the Dow Jones has lost over 1000 points since mid July and unemployment while at 4.6 that is .6 HIGHER than 2000 when Clinton was in office. Also the median income for the lower half of american earners is down by aprox 11% (when adjusted for inflation)
-we haven't had a terrorist attack in six years in the US. Would you change that, Barack? - We havent had an attack but not for a lack of the terrorists trying. What he aims to change is just that …lets create a country that doesnt do thing to make people WANT to attack us!
-the economy has added jobs for 47 straight months. Would you changes that, Barack?

-the economy have experience six years of uninterrupted growth. Would you change that, Barack?
Uninterrupted growth? Yes but only for the upper 10% and the corporate sector. for the rest of America and its small businesses, jobs and earnings are harder to find that can actually support a family…all the manufacturing jobs have gone to China thanx to tax cuts avail for that made by the Bush presidency

-avg. income has risen 11.4 percent since Bush took office. would you change that, Barack?
Thats the average…when you count all the richest making more thanks to the Bush tax cuts…the MEDIAN income has actually stagnated wehich when you include infaltion means they make LESS

-8.3 jobs created since Aug '03. Would you change that, Barack?
OK now factor in all the better jobs that were lost and you actually have a wash…eliminate the good jobs and then we have a situation where we actually ENVY the jobs that the illegals get!

[.......] In other words if you dont include ALL relative qualifiers…you dont have anything CLOSE to the truth!
Posted By Laura - Tulsa, OK : August 20, 2007 12:32 pm

People that question Obama's experience are just hopping on the band wagon because they have already made up their mind that they are for someone else. If they would really take the time to get to know the candidates and their past experience or "resume" and their values, they would have better informed responses. Obama's values are impeccable and his experience is amazing, much more experience than Clinton and of course more experience than Bush ever had going into his first term. Of course Obama doesn't have the kind of experience that Cheney and Rumsfeld had, but they are the example that we need to get away from. I believe that Obama can lead our country out of the hole that the Bush administration created. Obama's success in Illinios should prove his ability to bring about a cohesive government and not one divided among party lines. He believes we all have a stake in the success of our country and would never abuse power like this administration has done. The constitution would be restored to it's former glory and fear wouldn't be the catalyst for election and coersion. Change is needed desperately in our government. Anyone who travels worldwide knows that we are not viewed favorably nearly everywhere one travels. We are looked at as aggressors and frequently compared to the German's at Hitler's heighth of glory. We do not have the reputation we had prior to Bush taking us to war in Iraq. Those who look so favorably at Bush should look up information regarding goals before election which are addressed in PNAC (policy for a new American century). It's amazing how they all came to fruition and BIG OIL has been the most beneficial during this administration. Laura, your statistics appear to be a bit ignorant.

I want a leader who puts American values first and one who has a true love for our country. I don't care to have someone back in office only there for power. Obama is the choice for me!!

Obama has more experience bringing people together than Guilani or Hillary by far. Read his books, both of them. He has passed a ton of bills with huge bipartisan support. People on both sides of the aisle like him. He brought people together even back in his days at Harvard as the first black editor of the Harvard Review. People back then were quoted as being mightily impressed with his ability to take many different view points and see the clearest solution, and a solution that made all parties feel like they've contributed to it.

Hands down, he can get us over the partisan poison we've had to put up with not since Bush, but even back through Clinton. I was sick of it in the Clinton years and Bush took it to a whole new level of divisivness. Hillary is already sounding like she'd be divisive with sayings like "if you need someone to take on the right, I'm your girl."

I need somebody to take on corruption, period, right and left. I need somebody to walk into the white house and tape our constitution back together again. I need somebody that can actually look at the ills of this country for what they are, which is MAJOR.

Obama 08. Period.

I was all fired up to reply to Laura from Tulsa, but so many people already did such a great job there's no need to say much else.

I'll still add that anybody that thinks we're better off in the last six years is on crack. Have you tried to buy a house lately? I have. Even if you make a good chunk of cash you can't really afford it unless you get a risky ARM loan.

I wondered for years why Bush could tout the economy and home sales when it seemed everybody else was losing money and jobs. I just found out recently he deregulated the morgage industry in the same way he did the energy industry ala Enron. He let the morgage brokers make up their own loans and market con artist rates to people who otherwise can't afford a home.

That kept the economy humming for awhile but now it's starting to fall in on itself because the payments go up and up. Everybody's losing their homes. Thanks again King George.

To me, Obama is the most in touch with the real problems of the country. The Republicans are looking at stuff on paper not in the real world. Obama actually feels like he listens and when he speaks it comes from a place of knowledge and logic, not from political expedience.

to Lee, Boston, MA

What has Obama really done? For one, as state Senator in Illinois he, through working with the opposition and forging political alliances, got the first meaningful ethics reform in decades in that state. Do you know the reputation of Chicago politics? Very bad, so this was no trivial accomplishment. He learned as a community organizer how to reach out to all factions and look for solutions that work. This man has a gift that we need. Clinton is all for fighting the GOP. Well, we are going to have a divided country again with Clinton, when we now need solutions. With division we get no progress. With Obama we get a man that will look for the solution not the political gain. I don't want more gridlock and fighting for the next 8 years. I want Obama.

Once again it looks like voters are going to depend on sound bites and repetitious half truths to decide on who to support/vote for.

Clinton has the tag of "experience" and Obama of "inexperience". However, I have read nothing here, on news sites or on Clinton's websites which outlines one constructive change or piece of legislation Clinton can lay sole claim to.

I am a surgeon's wife; I have done volunteer work at the hospital, chaired charity drives, socialized with members of the board, surgical staff and administration and listened in on my husband's accounts of surgical advancements and procedures. I doubt, however, I could convince anyone to let me remove her appendix based on this "experience".

Clinton's stature on the world stage will be diminished as "the wife" of Bill, she is divisive and not liked by too many voters. She has as many negatives as John Kerry, a man I admire but who I felt was unelectable.

To accomplish what most Americans want we need someone to renew our faith, has worked hard as a inner ciry worker, has an education that is relevant to the office he is campaigning for, has been a legislator at the state and national level and has championed changes almost everyone on here is clamoring for.

Do polls reflect the voting preferences of independents?? They are the ones who will be making the ultimate decision in November 08 and we need to be listening to them.

It is clear Obama lacks experience. As I watched the debate yesterday I saw a pattern emeerge. When Obama was asked a question he was clearly at a loss, he said over and again, "I agree with so and so'. The very people he is struggeling to compete, have the answers and Obama mimicks their answers. Seems to be the ONLY tie he is in agreement with Hillary.

To Laura in Tulsa: Wow…could I borrow your rose-colored glasses? The America I live in has a government that is not only corrupt, but repeatedly hides the truth from the American people and lied their way into a horrific war that has only made us less safe at home. The America I live in has a poverty rate that's climbing every day. The America I live in has people unable to pay their mortgages, or provide health insurance for their families. I could go on, but space doesn't allow. I'll only say that Barack Obama has inspired millions to come out of their complacent haze and take in interest in changing this country for the better. I pray he succeeds.

The boy talks with out substance. Like he is going to go to Washington and the Republicans and Demacrats are just automatically start getting along. Right. His vote is exactly like Clintons in the Senate except for one. A Bush War General Appointee. Clinton voted against Bush. Obama voted for in support of Bushes war. He is just trying to get ellected president. We know nothing of his marrage. What about his college friend who was on the street. Had info to sell about Obama. The Obama campaign said he was just seeking money. Then the story died. Where did this friend go? Clinton is the only Democratic running that can even come close to beating the Republicans. If you notice there is no deversity in the canidates running in the Rep. feild. There is a reason to that. They certaainly are not going to cross party lines and vte Dem. if and do it will be the woman.

Like Harry Truman, Obama has significant background as an negotiator and politician in the mean streets of urban politics. He has been, arguably, a more creative and successful legislator at the state and national level.

That he was able to play hardball and rise to where he is now suggests his skills at diplomacy (even if he doesn't wear striped pants or an Acheson mustache).

Unlike Truman, however, his upbringing gives him a far more nuanced view of the outside world.

follow up: to Ron P. from Plano

If Obama is so naive and inexperienced then why is there such a large fraction of the people in Iowa who are going to vote for him? Are you saying those people in Iowa are naive, foolish, stupid, unwise?? Or just less smart/wise than yourself?

Why isn't his support level much lower than Biden's. Biden has much more experience than Clinton. Surely he would be a much better nominee for the party than Clinton, right?

When I read Clinton's speeches and Obama's speeches and study their web sites I see a clear difference. Clinton is either hiding her thoughts, or her thoughts are not as deep as Obama's. Obama's policies, as he has explained them, don't appear to be naive to me, and they don't strike me as proposals from someone who is inexperienced. I have made up my own mind, not mindlessly listened to what other people mindlessly repeat.

Sure, if you feel you want someone who has been a Governor or has had executive experience, and therefore can't vote for a mere Senator, that is reasonable. If you feel you can only vote for a Senator if they have served at least 3 terms and have gained enough experience, that's reasonable. But it certainly isn't my view, nor is it the view of many, many people.

I will vote for Obama.

I agree with Obama that experience alone should not be the deciding factor in choosing a president; otherwise, Biden and Richardson should be rated very favourably than Obama.

On the other hand, I do not think "fresh and new" is the deiciding factor either. Otherwise, my newly born grandson should be rated more favorably than Obama. In other words, what is the use of "fresh and new", but without experience?

In my view, the above two factors plus some more are the keys in picking a president, e.g., does the candidate look, talk and act like presidential? Being fresh and new does not cut it.

I have always had a distaste for message boards. They are like the landfills of the internet. This drivel is worse than useless, it is dangerous (free tip: this is especially true when it comes to investment and financial advice).

What is it about seeing something in print that makes people think it is OK to skip the indispensable step of doing the research and thinking on their own?

Most of us have spent years on the internet wading through the garbage, but it wasn't until about 2 weeks ago when I started reading these boards that I began to develop a smirking problem. It's ridiculous.

Honestly guys, don't you sometimes feel in a brief moment of enlightenment that you are only trying to convince yourself?

When I was younger I believed that corporations, the media, politicians were the source of all our problems. As I have grown I have realized that they are but symptoms of a much larger and more dangerous problem: OUR immaturity, irresponsibility, laziness, apathy, and seemingly profound desire to avoid thought and awareness at all costs.

WE are the problem, guys. In the USA and other countries with similar systems, those other factors are all reactive. Think about it.

The good news is that our obvious power to mess things up can be turned around and used to take things in a better direction.

We need to talk less, listen more, THINK more, and really try to educate ourselves on the issues and candidates for public office. Anyone who does NOT wish to make efforts in that direction would be doing everyone a favor, themselves included, by not voting.

With a political science/international relations background, I am prone to verbosity at times. My apologies.

I do not belong to any political party, but I do wish to address the statement someone made about 9/11 mysteriously happening as soon as Bush took office. I honestly don't care which major party you want to blame 9/11 on, but I doubt anyone could make an argument of any substance that GWB or his policies responsible for provoking that attack. You could blame the actions of Congress or previous Presidents (the first Bush or Clinton), or you could blame the American people. I realize it is all about partisan politics, and boy do we love it in America, but the sort of rationalization that allows us to blame GW for the recession that started shortly before he took office and the terrorist attack that occurred shortly after is why our country is falling apart. We have freedom, we have the vote, we have the power to really muck things up. The USA really is the land of OPPORTUNITY… but we sure squander it.

@Peter in Houston

Did I mention George Bush?

Ron P. from Plano says:
Why does a candidate for the Presidency who wants to be leader of the free world have to "beat back questions about his experience"?

Because his opponents believe that if they say it enough times people will be naive and inexperienced enough to believe it.

I think Obama is tooo inexperienced to be president. He hasn't even been a senator yet. he may be a rising star in he democratic party, but, he has to earn his way to the whitehouse.
My hope is the obvious, Senator Clinton.

@ Ron P Austin, TX: "Why does a candidate for the Presidency who wants to be leader of the free world have to "beat back questions about his experience"?"

The REAL question is…..why aren't the other candidates with equal or less experience being asked that same question? Edwards? Giuliani? Etc…..?

And the answer is: Obama represents the biggest threat the grab the nomination and general election I don't care what anyone says. Throw in the fact that he is a black man who gained the national spotlight out of nowhere….people are going to hold him to a higher standard.

Good post, JC from Baltimore. It's nice to see some intelligent discourse.

Lee from Boston, I recommend you read Obama's books and his website. The information you ask about is there if you look for it and read it rather than waiting for some other ill-informed person to answer your questions

Why does a candidate for the Presidency who wants to be leader of the free world have to "beat back questions about his experience"?

Barack Obama's resume just isn't ready for the big time.

Doesn't Obama's 8 years in the Illinois Senate where he served as chairman of the health and human services committee count for something? Doesn't the fact that he went into public services 25 years ago as a community organizer count for something? Doesn't sponsoring 823 bills in the Illinois senate count for something? Doesn't 10 years teaching constitutional law also count for something?

Barack is the only guy in the race who has worked at all levels of government — local neighborhood, city, state, and federal. This means that when politicians in DC want to reform welfare or improve health care, this guy actually knows how it will impact families and communities at the local level.

In addition, he has shown the best judgment among all the candidates in the most crucial issue of Iraq.

This guy is the most qualified person running for President in both parties.

None of the Democratic candidates have any significant Executive experience.

Many people assume Hillary Clinton had executive experience as First Lady and was involved in Bill Clinton's administration. Until that involvement (beyond her failed health care proposal)is confirmed (her policy proposals/successes), I will assume that she has very limited experience….no more than any other Dem. candidate.

This post is in response to Laura - Tulsa, OK : August 20, 2007 12:32 pm:

The two main points Laura raises seem to be that (1) the economy is doing well and (2) we have not been attacked in six years.

With regard to the economy, while it is true that some people have done well, there are a great many people, including people with jobs, who are having a tough time. The changes that Barack is talking about are readily available on his website (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/fightingpoverty/).

With regard to terrorism, correlation is not causation. The sun has risen in the East every single day since Bush was elected, so does he get credit for that as well? To support the status quo based solely on the fact that there have been no major successful terror attacks on US soil for the last few years is no reason to believe that the current policies are sound. If you do want to go there, remember that 9-11 happened on George W. Bush’s watch too. He was right to pursue the Taliban and Bin Laden in the wake of the attack, but has subsequently squandered almost all of the moral high ground we once held due to the invasion of Iraq.

To solve the root causes of terrorism, we need to do more than make the US a giant fortress. Even if we “finished the job” in Iraq tomorrow, we would still face the problem of terrorism elsewhere. Barack actually has the leadership skills and expertise, along with responsible policy positions, to help make America safer than it is today as well as to restore America’s image with other countries. He not only has the judgment that a commander in chief needs to possess, but also is much better equipped to help America win the battle for the hearts and minds of people around the world.

In response to Longmont, CO : August 20, 2007 11:20 am, who said “What has Obama ever changed? Is he a force for change just cause he says he is???”
The answer is that Barack has been a leader for many years and does have a track record, it’s just not exclusively from inside the beltway. You can check out the link below to review his record from the Illinois state senate, but that’s only part of his career.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/07/29/us/politics/20070730_OBAMA_GRAPHIC.html

Everybody is touting Obama's experience or lack thereof. John Edwards resume reads the same except serving on the state level first but I have yet to read or see or hear anyone mention that. What is Hillary's experience other than being a First Lady in which hey guess what she wasn't so hot at doing. W didn't have any experience and he got elected not once but twice. Honestly at 24 I am sick and tired of the Clinton-Bush dynasty. People learn to think and analyze facts for yourself because IF American Society doesn't wake up and Change the old-guard in Washington, WE( except those making 6 figures)will continue to suffer the increasing tax rates, unacceptable health care and increasing fear of war loving politicians.

A young generation for Obama in 08!!!

Is Barack electable??? National polls show him time and time again shredding the Republican competition…I think that question has been answered

@ John Thomas

"It really doesn't matter how you spin it. He simply does NOT have experience, PERIOD (p-e-r-i-o-d, '.', PERIOD, Period, ………..)."

so……how much experience did George W Bush have?

Laura, I think those are silly questions. Obama is talking about "changing" political paradigms and "transforming" the standards that dictate who is allowed to be a member of the American voice.

He believes elections are about more than squeaking 51% of the vote for one side; the only real loser is the American electorate. As president, those are the political paradigms he wants to begin deconstructing.

He also wants to expand the American voice and transform the rules that govern who is allowed to be involved in the inner-workings of this country. People that have heretofore been neglected and ostracized are allowed to have a say, as well.

Obama believes that 2008 is about more than raising income a few percent in American homes and lowering interest rates: he wants to take a step further than other presidents have done and reconstruct a system that has silenced voices and has divided this country.

Ask yourself, do we need this overhaul in American politics? Are Romney and Clinton really the agents to institutionalize this change, or have they simply been part of the problem?

Take a stand and don't be afraid to think big. Don't allow others to limit your breadth of thinking and the ability of what you can accomplish.

Those are the real qualities we want in a leader. Are you on our side?

I trust Sen. Obama. I believe in Sen. Obama. I feel really good about Sen. Obama.

The idea of Sen. Obama appearing on the nightly news to update the American people on whatever pleases me. I know I will be able to trust and believe what he tells us.

Sen. Obama gives me hope for the future. There's no other candidate out there on either side who even comes close. Most of them are out for themselves and what they will get out of being president.

Sen. Obama truly is out to do what he can as president for the American people. We haven't had that since the Kennedys were in office.

The thought of President Obama excites me. I can hardly wait. I will be in downtown DC standing among the thousands who will come out to welcome President Obama. I've never done that before but I can't wait to greet President Obama.

I know that when he's sworn into office things will be better. Things will be okay.

Laura,

The unemployment rate for 1999, the previous democratic administration, was 4.2 percent. At that time the lowest since 1969. Beats your 4.6 quote.

During the eight years of the Clinton Administration — which, by the way, raised taxes — about 23 million jobs were created, which comes out to about 240,000 jobs per month. By comparison, only a net of 5.6 million jobs have been created during the Bush years, which comes out to about 71,000 per month. Even taking away the job losses caused by a recession and the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the Bush years come up short: In the 47 consecutive months of job growth since the fall of 2003, the per-month average has been about 177,000 jobs.

The gap between the wealthiest and the poorest Americans is increasing. If the top 1 percent of income earning people have a huge increase in net income and everyone below them stay the same then the national average income goes up. Average income isn’t a great statistic.

This could go on and on, but I think one of the things that Barack wants to change is the misleading, incorrect and fear propaganda perpetrated by the current administration.

"With that kind of experience, I don't want it if experience leads you to stop asking questions, if experience leads you to be hesitant about telling the truth to the American people about the challenges that we face," Obama told voters later Sunday in New Hampshire.

Hmm, I have even less experience than Obama. Why not elect me, then? The less experience, the better!

Posted By Mark, Princeton, NJ : August 20, 2007 11:27 am"

Well, Mark, did you get your degrees from Columbia and Harvard Law, or a school of equal prominence? Doubtful.

Also, to Laura from Tulsa–
There are more issues in this country than the economy and jobs. Inequality between rich and poor is still increasing, despite the menial gains the average american worker has made in terms of their wages. Health Care, Social Security, Education are just SOME of the areas important to our Americans.Terrorism will be an ongoing battle for this century, and I'm sure whoever gets elected our commander and chief will fight terrorism to the fullest. Obviously you are a Bush supporter, and there can be no doubt that he is a typical conservative in terms of the economy.. which is a great thing and he has done great things to keep our economy going and growing. But there are more issues that just the economy that have plenty of room for change. Try not to think in such narrow terms.. Politics talks about it all.

Unfortunately, not all would agree with the assessment that the country is headed in the right direction, despite the numbers. Employment means nothing if you are not making enough to live on. The problem with economic averages are that very, very good news for some people tends to mean bad news for others. And it's not the absense of past terrorist attacks, but the imminence of the next one that worries people. The credit crunch, consumer confidence, international reputation, the rule of law (both at home and abroad) have all taken a hit. I am sorry, but I have to respectfully disagree with the idea that the status quo is acceptable. Unfortunately our most experienced leaders have all been parties to the status quo (either as effective proponents or ineffective opponents of poor policy). Until our literacy rates go up, poverty rates go down, and our standing in the world returns to where it once was, none of us should be satisfied. The thing is we CAN do this, if we can only find a way to agree about HOW to do this. Bruising personal attacks, race-baiting, fear-mongering, bad faith bargaining, false dichotomies, and a general disdain for the views of others will not help bring the country together. That, I think, is Obama's point.

Will someone please tell us the truth!If we can get a President to do that, then that's change enough for me. Obama is the man with the plan. Go Barack Go….all the way to Washington.

Could one of the many Obama supporters around here please answer Longmont, CO's question?

I'd really, really like to support Obama. But all I've ever seen from him is talk, and I know very little about whether he has anything to back up that talk. Does he have a history of change? Of bringing compromise where there was none before? Of seismic shifts in behavior and opinion in those that he works with and for?

Or does it really all come down to the comments of John in Chicago who "bets [Obama] knows how to make [this] happen" and Tony who has a "sense that [Obama] really cares about [him]"? Because while I really hope those bets and senses are true, it doesn't seem like much to go on when picking the next President of the US.

Senator Obama represents everything that is good and honest in our political forum. He is by far the most intelligent person running for president. His experience is a plus for him because he hasn't been jaded by Washington insiders and lobbyists! OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!!

All out-of-office-party candidates promise change, but the key questions for B-Rock are experience (too little, even as HRC's VP) and electability (still not so for either).

Laura,,, Mrs. CHANGE THAT Barack.

I would trade all of those things, so that I might live free under our CONSTITUTION.

Right now,, you are not living in freedom under our CONTITUTION because George W. Bush has tossed it into his trashcan.

Laura from Tulsa, OK
What planet are you living on? It's nice how you drop statistical numbers in your blog, but considering how the majority of the middle class and working class in this country have suffered economic setbacks over the last few years, I think these numbers don't represent the whole truth.
You claim the average income has gone up 11.4% with Bush, but I don't really know anyone who's had that kind of increase in income, especially when compared to the astronomical inflation of the Bush years! And I know a lot of "average" income people–working professionals and working class skilled labor.
And the numbers on employment obscure the fact of many higher-income jobs being sent out of our country, forcing people to take lower paying jobs with less (or no) benefits.
Our country is trillions of dollars in debt, and China has threatened to use their power of our debt (because they own a large share) against us.
Have you seen the Dow dropping these last few weeks? What about housing? People can't afford to pay rent in many places.
And the "no terrorist strikes in the last six years" argument is weak. ALL AMERICANS stand up to fight terrorism and do their part. Security doesn't just belong to the Republicans.
Get real, please. Why are you even pushing for this agenda?

IN RESPONSE TO LAURAS COMMENTS

I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE JOBS CREATED FOR THE LAST 47 MONTHS,THAT LAURA SPEAKS OF, ARE JOBS THAT PAY BELOW THE CURRENT POVERTY LEVEL AND WE STILL HAVE TO ADD THOUSANDS MORE JOBS TO MAKE UP FOR THE CURRENT NET LOSS OF JOBS THAT STILL EXIST SINCE THE BUSH ADMISTRATION HAS BEEN IN OFFICE.

THE GROWTH THAT LAURA TALKS ABOUT IS LIMITED ONLY TO THE TOP 1% OF AMERICANS WEALTHIEST INDIVIDUALS AND CORPORATIONS. AND LAURA, THE ECONOMY NORMALLY GROWS EACH YEAR, BUT UNDER THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION, THE ECONOMY HAS MOVE SLOWER THAN AT ANY TIME IN RECENT HISTORY.

THE AVERAGE INCOME THAT LAURA POINTS OUT HAS GONE UP, BUT ONLY IF YOUR IN THE TOP 1% OF AMERICA'S WEALTHIEST…..YOU KNOW LAURA, PEOPLE LIKE KEN LAY FROM ENRON CORPORATION.

AND YES LAURA, NO RECENT ATTACKS LATELY, HOWEVER 4000 BRAVE MEN AND WOMEN HAVE LOST THEIR LIVES IN IRAQ.

A BIPARTISAN CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE
HAS TOLD AMERICANS THAT WE ARE NO SAFER THAN WE WERE 6 YEARS AGO AND OSAMA BIN LADEN IS STILL RUNNING AROUND IN PAKISTAN.

YOU KEEP SHOUTING OUT KARL ROVE'S REPUBLICAN TALKING POINTS, BUT
THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS, HOWEVER, PREFER THE TRUTH.

Wow, Laura. Pull out some arbitrary statistics, why don't you?

How about 3,500 of America's finest killed in an endless struggle?

How about 100,000+ civilians killed (by conservative estimates) in Iraq because of the policies of this administration?

How about a behemoth federal deficit?

How about the lack of 'conservation' (arguably more important than fuel efficiency and alternative power) in the President's rhetoric, leading to an increased hole in the ozone layer?

I could go on and on.

I'll stop, though. Before you think this President was a success, think abut why every single candidate (both Republican and Democrat) is looking to step away from the President's policies.

Think about why his approval ratings are in the gutter.

This administration has been a victory for the wealthy ; avoiding higher taxes and avoiding sending their children into war.

Barack talks about "change" and "transforming". Exactly what would you "change", Barack?

-the economy is performing very very poorly. Unemployment at minimum wage McJobs is 4.6, and highest in better paying jobs in 20 years. Would you change that, Barack?

-we haven't had a terrorist attack in six years in the US prior to the Bush Admin, then when Bush is elected, we get hit. Would you change that, Barack?

-the economy has added McJobs and lost skilled jobs for 47 straight months. Would you changes that, Barack?

-the economy has experience six years of uninterrupted deficit growth, by trillions. Would you change that, Barack?

-avg. income of those in the upper class has risen 11.4 percent since Bush took office, along with the number of poor, would you change that, Barack?

-8.3 minimum wage McJobs created since Aug '03. Would you change that, Barack?

So, if fighting Iragis instead of fighting terrorists away from our backyards, keeping the deficit rate high, the unemployment rate higher is not what you want, Barack, what is it you would do?

If you think the economy is doing good, the war is being waged perfect, employment is at its best then Obama's message is very simple. We can do better.
JFK and Bill Clinton never had that much experience. They had good judgement. Thats what Obama has over and above experience in elected office.

The candidates with the least amount of conrete things to say, call for the "urgent need for 'CHANGE'" !

Sentor Obama is right on target. next cnn do survey let the people know how many took part. ensted of the saying america has spokend or they have created new jobs I would like to know what state got the jobs.

Obama is the right person to lead this nation back to where we all want it to be: prosperous, moral and idealistic. Hillary is too divisive, Republicans are too shortsighted.

And, hey, he has a lot more National experience than Bush did, so everyone who voted for Bush should be willing to accept Obama's experience level.

Lies, Lies, and more Lies……that's what W has been about. Getting him and out of the White House will be a welcomed change. All of those statistics about unemployment, rising incomes, etc. was due in large part to the policies of Slick Willie anyways. The positive of his presidency is that he has pretty much ruined any chance of having a Republican President or congress for the next what…..8 years……which is how long we will be in Iraq trying to set up that dummy government that will never work. We may as well conquer and colonize the entire middle east. That is what W and most oil hungry americans want to happen anyways. They will next admit them openly because it will make them seem like a British imperialist of the Nineteenth Century. That's the only way that western philosophy will be embraced in the middle east. It's either conquest or be bogged down in quagmire after quagmire for the next 100 years. Oh yeah….I almost forgot…..Barack Obama for President 08. It's time for a welcomed change

SO Laura's a Bush supporter. Well, 70% of the country hates you, your views, and your president. Way to throw out numbers. How bout Iraq? How bout the government spying on Americans? How about the lack of custody of Osama Bin Laden? How about intimidation and lies to coherse the ignorant public, thats you, in order to fund illegal military action? How about ignoring Kim Jung Ill? How about we are going to invade Iran now? You are truely blind if you believe those numbers mean anything? If you think our country is well positioned and safe today, you are joking yourself. You are blind. You are probably in the top tax bracket. You are uninformend and the only conclusion i can draw from your statement is that your life is sustained completely off of ignorance and cluelessness.

Lets think about why certain things have happend? Unemployment numbers are the first thing that politicians talk about, there is always a reason for mentioning it, and as studies have shown, unemployment numbers are typically significantly higher than ever reported. Not to mention, cost of living has doubled in the time since 9-11, which negates the 11.4% rise. creating jobs is also easy when they are temporary jobs, created by flawed budget commissions using wasted tax dollars to set up doomed governement programs that A. dont address the greater problem of poverty, B. dont supply the people truely in need of jobs (legal minorities) with them, instead going to prefered people, groups, or interests. You are a sad sad farmer who sadly doesnt know your head from a hole in the ground.

@Laura

Well I'm not going to go into an exhaustive list here but I certainly wouldn't mind him changing the extremely negative image the US has on the world stage through better diplomacy. I also would really like him to change the fiercely partisan atmosphere in Washington which causes senators and representatives to vote strictly along party lines and is the main cause of the "do nothing" label attached to this congress and the last. I think Obama is particularly well-equipped to solve both of these problems. Then of course theres our failed healthcare system, our broken borders, our dangerous trade practices, etc.

Dear Laura from Tulsa,

The tone of your response shows why we need to change. We are a badly divided country. As Obama said, we need to be able to disagree, without being disagreeable. You show what he is talking about when you pick out selected facts, some of which are very misleading, and suggest, in a mean way that Obama would be bad for the U.S.

I come from a conservative, religious family. I see so much confusion in my own family. They don't know who to believe or trust. Some feel like they've been sold down the river by Bush and other republicans. I think they have, and that's a real shame.

I don't know who should be the next president, but I hope it will be someone who is honest, decent, and smart. Obama seems to be those things, and most of the others are not. I don't think he'll win, but I think he'd be a good president.

We don't just need experience from our candidates. We need leadership and vision, something that Hillary lacks.

Obama is the only one with the strength and courage to speak the truth, however controversial it may be. He is the only one with the vision to lead us out where we need to go.

Yeah Laura…the average income of the upper class has risen! While local law enforcement which I am a part of has stayed stagnant…That's really something to be proud of…Let's increase the salaries of CEO's and let's not increase the salaries of those who do their best to protect citizens like yourself on the homefront. Also somewhere in your rhetoric you forgot to mention that close to 4000 US military personnel have lost their lives in Iraq over what Dick Cheney himself called a "quagmire" in 1994 (It's close to 5000 if you include the contractor's who fight side by side US troops…but you don't see that reported because the administration doesn't label those deaths as military casualties) Yeah Laura…you make a lot of sense.

Laura of Tulsa, one of the things Obama correctly stated that needs 'change' is one that could obviously benefit you — change in the mis-education system.
Obama clearly stated (and you failed to comprehend — educational shortcoming?) some of the areas badly in need of 'change':

"It's not going to be enough to change political parties. … The problems with our health care system and our educational system and rising inequality preceded this particular administration," Obama said."

OK, Laura, he actually answered your question; no need to go off on a tangent? LOL

Experience doesn't make you Bad! Lack of experience makes you BAD! With Experience you should learn to avoid mistakes. I pitty the Fool!

Experience is not measured by how many years someone has been around in politics but what he/she has accomplished during that time, how he/she conducted herself during that time and how people's lives in the country have been impacted by his/her accomplishment.

So, Senator Clinton does have experience in terms of being around for a while. Being a 1st lady and accompanying the president to 82 countries does not create foreign policy experience. Failing in only significant effort on healthcare reform during her time as 1st lady did not accomplish anything. Getting elected in a democratic state like New York, with a last name of Clinton defeating an unknown light weight in Rick Lazio is not a huge success. She did not get elected in a Republican state defeating an incumbent Republican senator to claim "she can withstand the relentless right wing attack machine". As a 2 term senator from New York, what legislature she passed in US senate that have improved lives of American people. Her only significant bills had to do with addressing needs of 9/11 victims which is logical and right thing to do.

So when we talk about Mrs Clinton's "qualification and experience" as the most qualified democratic candidate, what the main stream media really means? Do you guys know something more that people don't?

To Laura, Tulsa

I hate to say it, but many more Americans have died or have had the quality of their lives greatly diminished by lack of access to adequate health care than have ever been or ever will be materially affected by terrorist activity in this country - regardless of who is in political power. We may damage ourselves more in an effort to prevent terrorism than terrorists could ever do on their own if fighting terrorism means we can't provide the health care and education needs of our population.

The economy is great? Tell that to the former owners of the 850,000 properties that entered some form of foreclosure this year. 3.4% of all homes for sale are from foreclosures!

Survival of the fittest. I hope you believe in evolution, because we are heading into American Evolution. Those with money in America will survive and those without will die. That's tough luck for the poor, but I sense that according to you, that's not our problem.

Time to get out of the US stock market and into foreign stocks, this ship is going down.

Maybe a cabinet post but never president. Sorry Senator Obama you just aren't ready.

It really doesn't matter how you spin it. He simply does NOT have experience, PERIOD (p-e-r-i-o-d, '.', PERIOD, Period, ………..).

Seems like the only thing any of the other candidates are consistent on Obama is to question his experience. Looks like they really don't have anything else.

I've cast the majority of my votes for republicans in the past, with a good number of democrats sprinkled in. I'm current;y registered republican, but I really like this guy.

So, from a voter not trying to "align the stars" so that 'my party' can grab power in 08…..

I like Obama, Bill Richardson and Joe Biden in that order on the democrat side.

I like Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee so far for the republicans.

Have a great day,

Chip

Fast Talk but no answeres, scams don't cut it unless your are Republican. No wonder he doesn't want to answerer questions.

Laura-Tulsa, OK

Off the top of my head, I'll try to counter each of your points.

1. The unemployment rate is a very misleading number. There are two main factors that are askewed: one, part-time workers are counted as full-time workers. In other words, we could have 0% unemployment, with everyone working 10 hours per week. Two, the unemployment rate does not include discouraged workers (those not even attempting to search for a job). So, we could have 0% unemployment with only one person, so long as the other 299,999,999 Americans do not search for employment. In other words, the unemployment rate, without context, is useless.

2. This may sound childish, but that statement reminds me of an episode of the Simpsons. Put most simply, I have a rock that I claim keeps tigers away. Since there are no tigers around me, then that must mean the rock works. In other words, a lack of terrorist attacks does not mean that President Bush is doing a good job.

3. and 4. After a huge hit like 9/11, is it any suprise that we should have growth. When you hit bottom, it's easy to go up. (Though I would agree, it is something to keep it going for six years. You know, like Clinton :))

5. Can we compare that to inflation? Oh, and was that for everyone, or just the richest 2%? Increased income is great and all, but if our lower 50% is making $5.15 an hour, it's not that great (and yes, I am aware of the hyperbole).

6. I assume you mean more than 8.3. Maybe 8.3 million, or 8.3%? Either way, if this is not a net gain, then what's the point? Once again, without context, it's just a number. Now if there is no loss in jobs, then that would be great.

And, before you say it, I am not a Bush-bashing liberal. I just don't like when people just spout numbers. You know, like most poiticians do.

That's the ticket, Go Barack America needs you.

Change:

1. Bring Americans together, Blue and Red State

2. Stop spying on Americans

3. Stop spying on your political opponents

4. Stop denying citizens opportunity to vote (Caging)

5. Stop arresting, jailing and torturing citizens without a trial

6. Restore American's prestige and respect around the world

7. Stop poluting the air and water under the pretext of saving company money

8. Fight the real war on terror, not the fake war in Iraq which only benefit Cheney and his gang of lying criminals

Do you want more Laura - Tulsa, OK

To Laura-

The unemployment rate was at 3.9% in 2000, that was not twenty years ago.

While Clinton was in office the average income inreased 30%.

I am not a checker, so I am not going to check the rest of your statistics.

How about changing the elitist politics of the current administration?

How about rolling back the tax breaks for the weathiest 1% of the nation?

How about bringing home thousands of troops who are mired in an illegal and unjust war?

How about changing the politics of our current president who smears and discredits anyone who disagrees with them?

How about getting lobbies such as the Healthcare industry and the oil companies to finally act fairly toward the American consumer?

How about correcting the shameful no-bid contracts that Halliburton and their friends enjoy?

How about doing a decent damn job instead of sucking on your thumb when someone thinks you might be able to do something a better way?

We have a sham administration right now and they are going down. Time the people spoke up and threw these bums out of office!

Barack is the one who can do it. Face it. And he did it on the Southside of Chicago, where the real people live: the folks who have to struggle every day to make it, not the spoon-fed and entitled rich kids of career political families!

You wanna know who the real terrorists are?

People who raise the terror alert right before elections to frighten backward thinking hicks into voting for them. Has the terror alert been raised since? No? Hmmmm…I wonder why.

Obama reminds me of Giuliani. While Giulani does not want people to question his family affairs, Obama does not want people to quesion his experience.

Its surprising that Republicans rally behind the current strong economy as a strong reason to not embrace change. The hypocrisy in that is amazing considering Bill Clinton led one of the most financially responsible and successful terms in United States history. To most republicans that didnt matter, his personal sexual activities….Family values were more important thus many Reps. thought we needed change.

I find misleading the nation into war, abrasive international policy, Pandering to big business and Pharmaceuticals, Above the law mentality and Indifference to the constitution, are all are strong reasons for "change". Making money is great but if thats all thats important anymore in America then we are truly DOOMED.

Telling the American People the Truth Ruth……that's what he would change. Our last two Presidents has continuously lied to the American people…..George W. and those unfound Weapons of Mass Destruction and Slick Willie…..i didn't have "sexual relations" with that woman. Give me an honest president!

Laura,

From where are you getting your statistics? You really think things are "going well".

Are you kidding? Do you not see all of the corruption that is going on with our government. Do you not see what's going on with the market? Economists are talking about a possible recession and you're saying everything is peachy?

Laura, maybe things are great in Tulsa and everyone there is affluent, has healthcare, and even better– no on knows anyone fighting in Iraq.
Are we talking about the same country? Please tell me you're joking?

Wallace

Unfortunately, Laura, there is a little more to this world than wars and numbers. Yet, that is all President Bush ever seems to see, which is exactly why his numbers are where they are.

I believe when Senator Obama talks of transforming the country, he means fixing the problems, not contributing to them. Perhaps that means taking care of our veterans when the return from protecting us from terrorists. Or maybe it means fixing a broken healthcare system that leaves millions of Americans out. Or maybe it means improving the quality of jobs, not just the quantity of jobs.

Laura, if you can honestly say you are perfectly content with how things in this country are going, maybe I'll just move to that utopia of Oklahoma you are living in.

We cannot just assume because we haven't been attacked in 6 years that we are not in danger of another and we cannot assume that because job numbers are high, that they are great jobs.

If you don't think Obama is the one to ignite change in this country that is your opinion. But don't expect me to believe that this country does not need change.

Hey, Laura–
Al Queda has gotten stronger, not weaker, since 9/11, due to our incompetant foreign policy — Obama would change that
Poverty has gone up every year of the Bush presidency — Obama would change that
Even though we pay twice what other countries pay for health care, we receive far fewer services — Obama would change that
There's a lot more, but you get my drift. Stay tunes

Obama is the man!!! Good to see him fighting back the cynics and standing strong, he definitely has my vote!

Whether Obama wins or loses this election, this guy will still be impressive. It's to the point now where even if you disagree with Obama's positions, you have to respect him. No other candidate has been–so forth coming with the American people besides maybe Kucinich and Biden.

I like Biden and Kucinich for the same reasons. They tell it like it is. If Hillary gets the nomination, I'm behind her 100%. I just like candidates that are candid. I'm so sick and tired of the "old guard" mentality.

(sigh).

Wallace

Barack talks about "change" and "transforming". Exactly what would you "change", Barack?

-the economy is performing very very well. unemployment is 4.6, the lowest in 20 years. Would you change that, Barack?

-we haven't had a terrorist attack in six years in the US. Would you change that, Barack?

-the economy has added jobs for 47 straight months. Would you changes that, Barack?

-the economy have experience six years of uninterrupted growth. Would you change that, Barack?

-avg. income has risen 11.4 percent since Bush took office. would you change that, Barack?

-8.3 jobs created since Aug '03. Would you change that, Barack?

So, if fighting terror away from our backyards, keeping the job rate high, the unemployment rate low is not what you want, Barack, what is it you would do?

I listen to Obama and i trust him, he gives me a sense of hope like i have never seen in any campaign, not even with Bill Clinton. I get a sense that he really cares about me and about my America. He is not a robotic politician, He is a human politian that conveys hope and optimism. I have listened to experienced and seasoned politicians in the past both Republicans and Democrats, and after they have been elected its politics as usual. But these guy seems to really care. He sure has my hearts vote.

Regarding the erroneous allegation that Clinton has more experience, please, please, please, Clinton supporters, provide some facts to support your position. Don't worry, I'll help you out. Who has more experience in elective office? That's right, Barack Obama. Who has sponsored more bills? That's right, Barack Obama.
If you take the time to actually compare, it's not even a close contest and Barack clearly has more experience and strength:
http://www.hillaryproject.com/index.php?/sg_distro/comments/how_much_experience_does_hillary_really_have/
"…Obama, who is fourteen years her junior and has only been in the Senate since 2004, has a much more impressive record–as Senator he sponsored 152 bills and resolutions and co-sponsored 427. He has an even longer list of achievements from his previous days in the Illinois Senate from 1997 to 2004. He can therefore easily smash Hillary's latest illusion…"

Even if one were to concede that Clinton has more experience (which I do not), let's talk about the record of those with experience such as Hillary's in terms of Iraq. Iraq is a case study on the kind of decision-making a president faces — serious consequences at stake, imperfect information, passionate voices on both sides. Barack sure nailed that one, didn't he? He had the foresight to know that it was a bad move. That kind of judgement and foresight is what I want in my President. Highly preferable to looking at it in hindsight and saying "if I knew then what I know know…" Guess what, Barack knew!!! Even back then and Clinton and many others did not. He had the same general information a lot of us did and he chose wisely, despite the prevailing political winds at the time.

Hillary didn't even bother to read the entire National Intelligence Estimate. Hasn't her "experience" taught her that you need to read the fine print? I will take Barack's considered and demonstrated good judgment over "experienced" people like Clinton every time.

While Hillary Clinton is clearly the front-runner, and taking on a former first lady is a tough challenge, Barack Obama seems like the man with the right vision, judgement and character to take on that challenge.

Who would have thought a couple of years ago that someone with a name like "Barack Obama" would be the lead fundraiser for the primaries in either party, attracting twice as many donors compared to the wife of a former President?

Governor Bill Clinton did a great job in 1992 of motivating the progressive base and attracting independents, and I think the rightful heir to that legacy is Barack Obama.

Go Obama!

When Barack was talking about negotiating with dangerous leaders, I think he meant some of the Republicans in the senate :p

America needs judgment, not traditional Washington "experience." All "experience" mean in Washington is that you've been there long enough to become corrupted.

Obama is dead on here.

Capitol hill is too stuck in its ways, too corrupt, and to reliant on lobyist gifts to make any real headway. that's their only real experience. It's about time we got a breath of fresh air in the whitehouse. Who knows? Maybe Obama will even take a cue from Lincoln and have a cabinet filled with his political rivals (although highly unlikely, one can always hope…)

I hope everyone else can see the Vision and Intelligence this man possesses. Oh yea, not to mention that he is the only candidate without a fractured family life. Living the American dream, I bet he knows how to make that happen.

"With that kind of experience, I don't want it if experience leads you to stop asking questions, if experience leads you to be hesitant about telling the truth to the American people about the challenges that we face," Obama told voters later Sunday in New Hampshire.

Hmm, I have even less experience than Obama. Why not elect me, then? The less experience, the better!

A very legitimate point, Hillary may certainly be a capable woman who would do well as President, but is such a polarizing figure that our country's political problems would not change. Obama is just as capable, however has a record of reaching across party lines to achieve results.

What has Obama ever changed? Is he a force for change just cause he says he is???