Obama is our only hope to turn the page on the type of distructive politics of the past 20 years that have left Americans with a bad taste in their mouths. Americans must take that leap!!!

CNN, you don't seem to let anyone forget Obama's gaffes either. They are small in comparison to the lack of sound judgment our politicians, including most of the Democrats, used in justifying a war in Iraq.

Let's clear us an error of fact the news media keep perpetuating. Obama has four years' MORE experience as an elected public official than Clinton has. Obama served as a state senator starting in 1997, before becoming a US senator. Hillary started her term in the US Senate in 2001 and before that was only a first lady (a figurehead position if there ever was one, despite her attempts to make it otherwise). State senators deal with nearly everything that federal legislators do, except for foreign policy.

Thus she has four years' less experience as an elected, bona fide public servant than Barack Obama. If we're going to count her years as first lady, then we should count Obama's years as a community organizer and lawyer.

And what has Hillary done as a US senator? What are her achievements? She seems to be getting a pass because she's a woman and because the she's still getting some Monica pity from the media. And I'm a Democrat.

IMO, there's NOT nearly as much of a "stretch" for me to see Obama as president; as there will be to see Hillary Clinton…..

Why?

Because IF Clinton receives the Democratic nomination, 2 things will happen:

1) Republicans will turn out to vote in RECORD numbers

2) Some Democrates, like my husband & myself, will not vote for her and MORE of the same type of 'polarizing' politics which has frozen our federal government from doing their jobs - enacting legislation & providing oversight of federal agencies which actually BENEFITS the American people that they were elected to represent.

Senator Obama is the best one for the job to me. We need to be looking toward the future not the 1990's. Oba represents hange and freshness and I know he can win this thing in 08

Also for Dodd, Clinton, Biden, Edwards none of these people have been President before so what makes them think they can be President on day 1 and not Obama. No one is running as an incumbant.In that case then let's just change the constitution and just keep re-electing former presidents like Bill in 08 and George in 12.
Think about that.
Season 4 Change

My understanding is that Barack Obama didn't just wake up one morning and think "I want to be President now."
A lot of prominent people last year urged him to run.

I believe his fellow Senator Dick Durbin (who is in the Senate leadership) reportedly told him that being in the Senate for a few more years will not make him a better President. Therefore, the time for him to run is now.

People should think before they try to portray him as a little kid trying to ride with the grown-ups.

Obama appears to be a nice man, but no, he's not experienced enough to be president right now. It's not just his age, Bill Clinton was younger but had been the governor of AK for 9 years when he ran in 1992. Obama's prior years in the state senate do not count in my opinion as sufficient experience to tackle the most difficult job in the land. I think that he should hope to perform well this election period and bide his time. His moment will come, but the 2008 nomination will go to Hillary Clinton.

Senator Obama did an interesting thing this week which I think is evidence of both his political courage and his strategic naivete. He called for an end to the U.S. ban on Cuban-Americans sending money home to Cuba. While I think this is morally the right position, there’s no doubt it will cost him by riling up right-wing Cuban activists in Florida, where he’s trailing Senator Clinton by almost 20 points. I’m not taking sides here, but if the question is whether Barack Obama is politically inexperienced or a modern visionary, the answer may be both.

Not as much of a stretch as a WOMAN in the White House would be.

Taking this quote:

"It's a stretch for them because I haven't been on the national scene for long and haven't gone through the conventional paths that we traditionally draw for our presidents, so they've got to stretch a little bit during a period where there's a lot of stuff going on internationally, right?" said the unusually self-aware Obama."

and twisting it to this for the headline:

"Obama: A 'stretch' to see me as president"

is very dangerously close to creating a negatively biased soundbite, making it sound as if Barrack is admitting that it's difficult to realistically see himself as president.

It is ironic that those with the most experience in Washington (Bush, Sen. Clinton, Edwards, etc.) are the ones who took us to war in Iraq while leaders like Obama - outside of the DC fog - saw from the start what a mistake it would be. America needs Obama's kind of experience and leadership.

Rev. Chuck Currie
http://www.chuckcurrie.com

It's unfortunate that we complain about "things needing to change", but when the chips are don't we are unwilling to elect a guy who is actually different. But I guess, to put it into perspective, it's no different from our laments about "losing weight", followed by stuffing our faces at every meal. I don't know what it's going to take for us to elect anybody other than "the usual suspects".

This guy probably says the word 'change' at least a hundred times in his speeches. What he fails to leave out, is how he plans to bring about these supposedly needed 'changes'. I'm pretty sure it involves 'free' healthcare, 'free' retirement money, 'free' oil, 'free' education etc. etc.

Obama is slick. He can tour around the country promising these changes, but he knows that if he gets bogged down with details, his case falls apart at the seems. They've tried these changes before in communist countries, and it has destroyed economies and killed millions of people.

All "We The People" ever hear about from you in the media is Hillary, Obama and John Edwards. There was a debate on ABC last Sunday morning and afterwards, we were asked to go on-line to vote for the winner of the debate. Keep in mind that Dennis Kucinich was all but ignored (as usual) by George Stephenopoulos. Go to the ABC site and check out what the people have to say. Dennis won by a large margin over Obama and Hillary. He's the people's choice. Go to the blogs and listen to the people.

WITH A SHIP IN DANGEROUS WATER ,WOULD YOU PICK SOMEONE WHO HAS DRIVEN A BUMPER CAR OR WHO HAS BEEN A FIRST MATE ON A SHIP ?

I think judgment is more important than experience for a U.S. President. Dick Cheney has a boat load of experience in washington but his poor judgment is why we are bigged down in Iraq. Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and others have years of experience but they exercised poor judgment by giving the president a blank check to go to war. America needs sound judgment not another deeply entrenched Washington insider who has bad judgment

You would think the media planned on repeating this "inexperienced" Clinton attack every day until election day. Protect Hillary by repeating her attacks ad nauseum.

Those who control the media want Hillary for president, get used to it.

I compare Obama with JFK, and feel that
the kind of "experience" we have witnessed the last 6 years causes me to jump at the chance to support a man
like Obama. I don't want the usual Washington experience!!!! We have a chance to put a man in office who is fit, ready and capable to handle the job. It is History in the making. Let's not blow it!!!!!

This analysis ignores the proverbial "elephant in the living room" that Obama must also overcome: his race. Is America ready for an African American that African Americans question about being "black enough." Obama gets it from both sides on this issue. (Polls show that most African Americans support Hillary at this point.)

I would hope our country is past this issue, but I think it's still a factor.

Obama for President in 08! Good luck!

At least he is honest and admits he have big limitations to over come….

He should stay in the Senate for another term, and then try the governorship of Illinois, so he can get both federal legislative experience and administrative experience…..

He is not a bad guy, I just think he needs to sit this one and add "stuff" to his resume….

I think everyone is underestimating the ordinary voters desire for serious change in American politics.

I'm sick and tired of Washington's politics as usual and I think a huge number of Americans feel the same way. It's time for some "inexperienced" leadership.

Abama is brilliant, charismatic and many things else. But America is simply not ready for a black president. Period.

I know its been said a hundred times before, but the "Clinton News Network" needs to stop making its bias so obvious. Also, I love how Chris Dodd bashes Obama when he doesn't have a snowball's chance in ___ of winning the nomination. All this stuff about Obama is such garbage. CNN did get one thing right in this article; American's are tired of the broken political system. If Hillary wins, however, it shows that American's aren't willing to do anything to change it.

CNN, the way you word this.. it is SO OBVIOUS you are anti-Obama. I know we have all called you out on this a million times. Come off it already and give us UNBIAST NEWS.

That's your job.

Yes, Obama voted againist the "war". Now, it's time to get over it and move on.What can/will he do to get the USA out of this mess that Bush43made? What about taking CARE of the USA and not eveyone else in the world. Americans are being OVERRUN by illgals. Send what each state is paying for the cost of illgals to the HOME COUNTRY. So easy even a WOMAN can think of it! RON PAUL for President

Great job there, CNN. I wonder if you could marginalize the #2 Dem candidate any more.

Why the favoritism?

It's not a stretch to imagine Barack Obama as President in 2008.

What's a stretch is people thinking they will get real change with Hillary Clinton. We will end up with all the same people that were in the White House 8, 12 years ago.

Go see Barack Obama at an event like the one pictured in NH. You'll hear his ideas and experience in 5 minute answers instead of 60 second sound bites at the debates.

Then decide who will bring about real change for our country.

America needs this guy. He will bring back the 'hope' and 'glory' that is America. He is smart and astute enough to make the needed decisions. He has common sense…something missing in Washington (on both sides of the aisles) He will unite us…not settle in for years of fighting against "a Vast Right Wing Conspiracy."

If we want to change the dynamics in Washington and prepare America for our children…Barack Obama is our next president.

We are worried about Obama's experience? Remember George W was Gov of Texas–which is largely a ceremonial position. Prior to that he was responsible for a series of failed business ventures. Talk about experience?

Go Barack

Thanks for the misleading headline that says that it is "a 'stretch' to see me [Obama] as president" when later in the ariticle you report that he says "it is a stretch for them…" The issue here is the way that you paraphrased made it appear somewhat like he intended to say the prior. By the way, acknowleding that he has critics that do not believe he is experienced enough is synonymous to you pointing out a purple elephant sitting at your table. News? Barely.

Barack will have no problem, no matter how much Hillary tries to sway him or tries to get him to faulter. He's the change agent we need and people know it!

CIC is not ust a ""job"" you are running a country and leading a nation. Experience is a must to ensure good leadership. As well as a good sense of direction. Clearly Obama is not reading his que cards correctly. Good Luck is right.. good luck to this country if Obama wins.

His strongest card right now is he is extremely likeable and his main opponent is extremely unlikeable.

That and the fact that many want real change and know that Hillary would only be more of the same.

Still say he has to run a PERFECT campaign and get some breaks but one never knows.

Obama is a good candidate. With that said his track record is just not established enough to give him the creditability in the world political scene. Then he makes comments about bombing Pakistan that makes me think. The problem with the Democratic candidates isn't personality, its that most have made their mark by defining themselves against Republican policies instead of creating their own policies and agendas. We do not need another reactionary White House. The President should be able to "read" the American people and understand them more than they understand themselves. John and Hilary are just followers and that quality is not something the American people should see in their presidents. Obama is young, but he is a leader. Give him some more time and he will be back in the '16 presidential race.

To Jeff in Atlanta,
I think that's exactly the point. George Bush should never have been elected president. He didn't have enough experience and we didn't know enough about him. I agree with Loyda- Obama is just not ready YET- I think he will make a great president someday-maybe after 8 years as VP? Go Hillary!

I get so tired of people saying that America is not ready for a black president. We can send people to the moon, or people to the deepest part of the ocean, but we can't have a black man or woman lead the country? And were suppose to be a liberal demorcratic country?

I am not American. I cannot vote.

Mr Obama is "ready for the job". People by the millions can make that assertion. People by the billions would shrink at the thoutgh of what that job demands.

Observation: most candidates declare themselves ready for the crown and the scepter. That is not what the world needs. It needs a selfless martyr. Mothers and mathers-to-be understand what I am saying.

Obama has my vote. My mind is made up. Nevermind the campaign ad's and trash talk. It won't matter.

I can care less what's on his "resume" even though it's quite impressive. I like him because he has a vision of what America should look like and I happen to agree with that vision. He also has a great story to tell that isn't based on fear, but based on hope.

Obama is the clear canidate for change. Having another Clinton in Office will just continue the decline in goverment. George Washington did not want to be pres, but the people asked for him, and he got the job done. We don't need an insider who wants the job so there can be another feather in her hat, or prove to her husband that she can do the job too.
We need some one with real grass roots appeal, and international appeal. Go Obama.

The photograph used in this article was very appropriate - Obama standing on a pedatsal, with velvet rope tied around him seperating him from the people.

Obama is getting hammered in the debates - thats why he's cutting back on them. You picked up a $1 sticker at an event he was at? Yup, its counted as a campaign contribution… whether you wanted that or not.

Remember one thing people : Standing around saying "We want change! We are going to change things!" over and over again accomplishes ZILCH. Voting "no" to the Iraq war AFTER THE FACT IS MEANINGLESS. Obama is just another shill politician - if you think he has any intention of "changing" things, you are sorely mistaken.

I think that we forget (or, more accurately, few people actually know) that there was another first-term senator whose only earlier experience was as a state legislator in Illinois. He won the presidency, prevented this country from splitting in two, and went on to become one of our most beloved presidents ever. Abraham Lincoln, anyone?

George W. Bush, the man that still has problems with a coherent, public, non scripted comment, was elected President with far fewer credentials Barack Obama.

If "experience" means actual hours in political office (or sitting close to someone in political office), Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have more experience than Obama and Clinton combined. We want a President that is going make a change and will be an effective leader and not a follower. Obama is that leader! No more of the same old same old, America must move forward!!

As a college student, and an extreme follower of current US politics, I say it's time for a change. It's time for the American people to have a say in our foreign affairs. It's time that the American people become educated on the happenings (and the locations, for god's sake) of other countries. It's time for the US government to get back to it's democratic roots, instead of this Imperialistic and Aristocratic society that we are becoming.

Stop the Clinton/Bush reign.

It's time to vote for someone who has a level head.

Vote Obama.

America needs a change! We have had the same "leadership" since the beginning. Hillary Clinton thinks Barak doesn't have the "experience" to lead a country. We don't need experience we need a person with the vision for change. Hillary and the other delegates think that if you think outside of the box and do things differently than they have been done in the past then it just isn't going to work. Time has changed and so indeed does our Government! The only candidate to provide that change the way I see it is Barak Obama!

I agree with the post that said that the headline for the article was misleading. i was surprised to read that Obama said that about himself (it is a stretch to see me as president), when the story was totally different . I really support him as a president and the lack of experience does not bother me that much (our current president, anyone?). He definitely makes the case for change in this country. I hope more people will see that soon.

"…we can't have a black man or woman lead the country?"

Sure we can. I bet the ones who claim "I wouldn't vote for Obama because he's black" would vote for Condi Rice if she was on the Republican ticket. They'd vote for Colin Powell if he was the nominee.

America witnessed first hand what a white man (President Bush) has done to the country over the past several years, right?

The only thing more "Experience" in the senate will do, is corrupt him.

Obama in 08

My first question is…What is the definition of America being "ready" for a black president?? These discussions are largely red herrings to distract people from the substance of the matter. Second, assuming Clinton wins and wins again in 2012, a Bush or a Clinton will have been president or vice president since 1980!!! That's 36 years, folks. That's over 1/3 of a century. Is this what we need? This semi-monopoly on our executive branch? Simply stated, we need a new face. A really new face. The only really new face is Obama. What he lacks in raw experience he makes up for in intelligence and common sense. Everyone else is just another Washington politician also-ran.

To Mark R, in Fort Lauderdale,

Your point defeats itself. What makes Hillary "more qualified" having been only a Senator a little while longer than Obama? Oh, I get it… because she was married to the President she's more qualified.. and the fact that she stayed with the "womanizer, let's have sex in the oval office" gives her insight and wisdom into what America needs? GIVE US ALL A BREAK. She's same song, 40th verse.

Would you really be touting her if she hadn't been married to the President and was a 2nd term Senator from a state SHE MOVED TO IN ORDER TO GET ELECTED? (Arkansas didn't care to have her and she sure wouldn't get the political clout she has by serving New York.)

Obama is an intelligent person who started his working career helping the common man. That's a good sign in my book. Plus, he talks about change; of course, we won't KNOW if he'll make change until in office…but i do know it's much more likely to happen with him as President than Hillary. I've had enough of Bush and Clinton, lets move on!
Go Obama!!!!

Daniel Johnson,

Republican or Democrat…. Would you vote for a black guy? What about a half white, half black guy?

If yes, why wouldn't your neighbor? Especially after seeing what Lilly-White President Bush has done with the country.

Two websites–Read them and weep Hillary haters. Ok I'll give you a hint the first one–Latest Iowa poll numbers taken after the debate (I know numbers don't matter unless they favor your guy, well they don't)
"Clinton leads with 30% support, followed by Edwards at 23% and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama at 19%. She added six points to her column since the last Zogby Iowa polling in May, while Edwards and Obama have each lost three points during the same time period."
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/20/201526.shtml?s=lh
This one is the best analysis of what Rove is doing. I guess it's too much to ask of CNN to do this kind of quality analysis, when Ted owned you, you would have. Also has been anybody noticed that Time-Warner (they own CNN) CEO & Chairman is a supporter of Obam, way to go objective journalism. Anyway read this it is right on target
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26090
Nuff said

The job of president of the US is unique. With the possible exception of Hillary, they are all nearly equal in that regard.

I think it is a plus that he is young and not as "conditioned" by the political system. Maybe this will allow him some fresh perspectives and new ideas. The current ones are obviously not working.

I would like my country to show the world that we want a real change in direction. In addition, I would like to show everyone that we have grown as a nation and risen above petty prejudice and fear. I can think of no better way to do all this than elect Obama as our president.

you have to base opinions not on sound-bites, but on actions…Obama has worked in grassroots organizations fighting for change, while HIllary has only sought political stardom with no concern for others, even staying married to Bill for political connections. I live in upstate NY where she is Senator. Except for sound bites, she constantly contradicting her own actions such as, on a national scale, voting for the war, and on a local scale, has done nothing for our regional economy, etc., or anything else she was supposedly going to do before being elected. Doesn't this sound eerily familiar to folks who voted for GW? People need to start trusting their own instincts if they want change, and vote for change. If experience gets the foreign policy ineptitude we have currently, then it doesn't count for much. Principles count for everything, with the way our current administration has trampled our rights. I am surprised there is a decent candidate willing to even follow the evil empire. If you are the richest 1%, vote for more of the same….i.e. Hillary…or any of the Republicans…money trumps principles every time…

My concern is that I have seen this man's words twisted by his rivals, because I honestly feel that they are scared. That should tell us how great a choice for a president we might FINALLY have. Somehow "actionable intelligence" and if "Pakistan won't"(they WERE talked to, but not willing), was twisted into "I want to invade Pakistan". The media allowed it and should be condemned for it. You guys have been gullible in your political reporting for too long. This is giving birth to Karl Rove types who use you like a puppet. Stand up and give us great journalism—PLEASE.

Obama is an intelligent man who gain his first work experience working for the average person. I think that is a good sign for a public official. Of course we don't KNOW if Obama will make change until in office but i do know it is more likely than if Hillary were to become President. I'm tired of the Bush and Clinton era, lets move on!!
GO OBAMA!

As an african american, I hate to say this, but not only do I think that America is ready for Obama, but America isn't even ready for Hillary. Say what you want, but America will not at this point in her juncture elect and African American or female president. However, we all know that either could do the job. What I'm most afraid out of all of this is that either of them will win the nomination and then I will be forced to live with another Repulbican for 4 more years because of the secret bias and prejudice that still exists. One can't say it doesn't and Hillary's polarizing affect on people makes it even worse. As much as people say about her husband and yes he was a fast talker, he was generally very likeable and (for his own benefit) admitted mistakes. She NEVER does that and talks in an all too calculated fashion. I hope Edwards gets the nomination only so I don't have to deal with the tyranny of the Republicans for much longer.

As the presidential debates heat up and tensions increase, the candidates need to be reminded of the critical issues that still trouble our society today. Issue such as global poverty needs to be address by our candidates to each and to the general public. As one of the nation that has pledge to fulfill the goals of Millennium Development Project, whose goal is the elimination of world hunger and poverty, the Bush Administration has not shown any substantial action to bring this fundamental problem to a stop. According to the Borgen Project, dedicated to fighting and ending Poverty around the world, only $19 billion dollars are needed annually to stop world wide poverty, hunger and malnutrition. However, more than $340 billion dollars has been poured into this “war on terror.” And each year, our country has a military budge of $522 billion dollars. It's time for a new leader who will be addressing an issue that affects 1.2 billion people everyday worldwide.

I believe the average American citizen, be them Democrat or Republican or Independant desires real change.

Washington politicians on both sides of the fence are so muddied by their own personal agenda's, deciet, etc.

Of all the possible candidates, I believe Obama to be furthest away from the moral denigration, Washington politics seems to curse its politicians with. Maybe Obama will stand tall if elected, maybe he won't. I think we as American citizens need to have faith in someone and it is my belief he is a good start.

Heather - the man has had threats against him and his family by racist yahoos for even considering running for president! A rope at least will keep some nut job from jabbing a knife into him! He's in a PUBLIC PARK! Get a clue - when you run for public office, step on toes, and have a vision against the popular grain… you're going to wake the 'ol gruntin' hillbilly boys. It's either be separated by a rope (which some folks in America want to see tied around his neck - I'm sorry but that's a FACT!) or standing behind bullet proof glass.

I'm sure if it were America's precious Hillary, she'd be in a swanky downtown hotel with a cherry wood podium and her red nosed husband and the Secret Service leering near by. That picture shows a public, accessible side to Sen. Obama.

You said he doesn't plan to "change"… how the heck do you know?! Oh wait… you expected Bush to "change"?? HA! How can you elect a son and think he's not going to act like his father??!

I have mentioned this other post why is everybody touting about his experience but not calling Hillary or John about theirs. Just because Hillary was first lady doesn't make her ready to be president. John Edwards professional resume reads similar to Obama with the exception of teaching positions and accolades. Another question I pose I hope someone can answer it with an intellectual response why isn't America ready for a multi-racial or black President? We have had 250+years of the same kind of president. Middle-age or older white male from somewhat affluence. I think it is time for the old guard out and new blood in. Just because Obama hasn't been jaded by Washington politics doesn't mean he is inexperienced.

I am an American, I can vote. I was very encouraged to see it reported in comment above that Barack O.

called for end to Cuban-Americans sending money home to Cuba.

That, combined with his desire to hold the lid down on rampant welfare spending, shows his moderate side, and should catch the attention of conservative voters who are kind of onthe fence. Refreshing position by Obama.

The real hope lies in a Clinton/Obama 2008 ticket. If Hillary wins and has him as her VP we would have a highly qualified candidate to guarantee Democratic control of the White House after her terms.

The problem in this country is the definition of experience. I work for a job where I have to teach my boss how to do his job. He even acknowledges this but I can't get anywhere because when people see me all they see is a young black guy. They love what I do but they keep me where I am because it benefits them. Barack has this problem.

In the end Barack has made a great change in this election. He is extremely talented, experienced individual and everyone likes what he has to say but the older candidates will take the credit for his achievements. People believe in him and have hope in what he is saying because he has demonstrated his strength through his actions. These actions aren't relevant to some Americans because their measure of experience is longevity. Obama doesn't have a political problem but a social phycological problem. In the end who ever is nominated will benefit from Obama. They will take his speeches and ideas and use them as there own in the general election to beat the Republican nominee. Mock my words! Funny though, the experience that Obama refuses to absorb from his colleges is the art of stepping on someone’s back to advance ones self. I'm trying to be positive about the Democratic Party but if Obama does not get the nomination I won't vote ever again. Black woman don't support good black men, this war will go on forever and more of my peers will die in the streets. I realizing when you are a young black male trying to do some good with your life you still don’t matter in this country. I pray that God please help me to not give up and be negative. Sometimes the road seems very narrow. May God Bless Mr. Obama and his family.

Why in the world would we want our history books of American Presidents to read Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton? I do not care about experience. Does anyone really have experience to be president if your not an incumbent or a VP? Hillary down right scares me. (I think I just got my Halloween costume idea!)

oh, and awesome headline, CNN. I think there should be a news channel that reports how the other news stations use bias to sway voters opinions. Give me a break CNN, Hillary is not liked by the people, she wont be in office for the people, but if she does win - congratulations on your stellar reporting. (please note the sarcasm).

Wow Heather your comment is well lets say naive shall we and a bit childish as well. I sincerely wonder if you even follow all the votes that any of the Senator's engage in or bills that they create and sponsor. If so maybe you would be a bit less eager to lunge at Sen. Obama's throat. Second off everyone who buys a bumber sticker or any other Obama materials knows what they are doing because the campaign staffers will tell you that this is a contribution to the campaign, otherwise why would you buy a bumper sticker. I'm sorry but you either need to learn more about the FEC campaign regulations or stop pretending like you know all about campaigns and whether a politician is the same as the rest. I hate to say it but I almost feel ashamed knowing your from the same state as me.

Thank you John Bell! This is exactly what I've been trying to say, he has more experience! He's been an elected official longer.

And in the current pathetic state of our government's adherence to the constitution, I would certainly like to have a professor of constitutional law who has studied what it says and why it says it to be in office.

Hopefully, god willing Obama will be elected President, he's really the only chance the country has to be saved from all the harm that has been done to this country over the last 20 years, by the Bushes and Clintons. We (the middle class) need him to win. If a republican wins i fear we will have revolution like we haven't seen since our country broke away from England, If Hillary wins it will just delay things for a while. God Bless The United States of America. Land of the free and home of the brave, a country built off of the hard work of our service men and women, and the backs of us the middle class.

Anybody who has to wrangle with the question of Race/Sex in Presidential Election has still not fully come of the dark ages of Racial/Sexual Prejudice.
Look at today’s youth and you will see the racial/sexual lines disappear.
This election is about the future of America and let us break from routine and vote for change!!

First of all, CNN has once again given a very miss-leading headline, making it sound like Obama has misgivings about seeing himself as president.

Second, as a republican, I see Obama as the fresh face of change that many Americans will find appealing… with vision that reaches beyond any of the other Democratic contenders.

Thirdly, I believe that Obama has enough experience to do the job, over that of Hillary Clinton. What's more, if Obama wins the Democratic nomination republicans will have a much harder time winning the election then if the republican nominee was to run against Hillary.

Barack Obama WILL be the next President of the United States.

Hillary has no chance of winning, first off all, too many Democrats don't want her to get the nomination and Repub's will vote in record numbers to make sure she doesn't win, they will do the same if Obama gets it. At this rate will end up with another Rep in office in '08 and the nation will be even more divided, until Civil War Part II comes or because of our bickering some country bombs the crap out of us when were not looking… the White House will be too busy taking and getting kickbacks for the rich.

America be honest. You love this game! Obama won't win because the majority deep down believe that the best president, is the "win at all costs", dirty politician that has be winning for the past 20 years. Times are tough, so our leaders have to be tougher. Hillary is the just the flip side of the Bush coin. Nothing will change for 8 years & we will all complain & say whatever happened to the politics of hope.

Ok guys…this is too much! I read the article about Obama and your sound bite is misleading. MSNBC would never do this. Please do not take sides, just report the news. We have XM for this kind of stuff. On a day when one of your Journalists is getting ready to launch her exceptional reporting (Anampour-God's Soldiers), you manage to just take away from all the good work many of you do…Please simply be journalists, you are not smarter than we are just a bit more pretentious…STOP IT or I am TUNING OUT!

Posted By Mary E Tallahassee, Fla: "Yes, Obama voted againist the "war"."

This quote came from a Ron Paul supporter, which surprised me greatly. Obama loves to talk about his position on the war in Iraq. The fact is he NEVER VOTED FOR OR AGAINST the war in Iraq. He wasn't in office then.

It's real convenient for him to say he would have voted no but, just like the rest of us common folk, he did not have access to all the information, faulty or otherwise.

Obama's experience is not the deciding factor for me, although I do believe he is lacking in many areas. The deciding factor for me is his platform.

If we break down Obama's "universal healthcare" program inconsistancies fall out. Obama advocates strong Medicare and Medicaid programs. Very commendable, except that Medicaid is a state run program, not federal. Not every state offers Medicaid.

Obama advertises he can save a typical American family up to $2,500 every year by providing affordable health coverage for every American by creating a program similar to the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Who pays for this program? If the answer is higher taxes how are the working poor going to be effected? They can't afford health care insurance. How are they going to afford higher taxes?

Obama's answer is a federal subsidy allowing those people not covered by Medicaid to purchase a private health care plan. The simple answer is more tax dollars.

Obama wants to modernize the U.S. health care system to improve the quality of care given. How? Obama's answer is to create a National Health Insurance Exchange to act as a "watchdog" group to reform the private insurance market by setting rules and standards. The private insurers will have to offer coverage comparable to the FEHBP. I can feel my wallet empty as more tax dollars go to pay for insurance regulations and compliance.

I could go on but I don't have enough money to cover everything Obama wants to change. The point is I might be paying less in health care premiums (the $2,500 I'm supposed to save each year) but my taxes are bound to go up, otherwise the program goes unfunded.

Obama advocates change but the reality is he's a typical tax and spend democrat. He isn't change. He's more of the same and frankly I can't afford him.

Change can not and will never come from the office of the President. End of the day, the President is just a figurehead. Change must come from the people, and the only way to affect this change is for us to stop re-electing the same representation in the Senate and Congress. America needs politicians who can say NO to the lobbyists that plague them, contributing huge sums of money to 'buy' every whim they represent. Corporate America is no better - who do you think hires those lobbyists? And how do you think they are funded? Every time we purchase products made by huge corporations, a small percentage of the profit goes into a lobbying fund - rest assured.

It doesn't matter who wins the Democratic nomination, or who wins the "vote", which is yet another lie; do you honestly think your vote counts? Do a search on the Electoral College and find out how that process works, or better yet, doesn't. Regardless of who sits in the Office of the President, our elected representatives and those lobbyists and corporations are the ones who control this country, for better, (or more likely), for worse.

The other major influence is the church - one of the very pricinples our country was founded on - separation of church and state. What's happened here? The church has become one of the most effective lobbying organizations - people are being elected based on their religious beliefs. Granted, we are 'one nation, under God', but we are rapidly heading down the road of becoming another Iraq - where differing factions of religions will be unable to get along, and we will experience a 'jihad'.

It's time to put the separation back in place; make the laws based on common sense and remove the emotion from them. Get people back in church - many have been turned away by the shift to a theocracy-based government - and return to teaching morals and ideals - not politics.

Whomever wins the election - I wish them luck - there's quite a bit from the last 7 years to be 'undone' before any real changes can even be considered.

I'm sure Barack is a good guy but the Republicans will make short work of him if he wins the primary. Look what they did to Ford in TN last November. I also agree that Hilary is fatally flawed, most people have already made up there mind about her whether their thoughts are based in reality or not. I like Joe Biden but any of the other candidates would probably do better than these two.

Wow. I agree with two/three of the comments made above. I do not believe in CNN being biased towards a particular candidate, but the title of this article is not correct.

I believe that it plays out on the fear that undecided voters have that Obama may not have served in Washington as long as other candidates, thus limiting his judgmental abilities.

This borders on exploitation.

He may or may not be an experienced candidate, but the reporting must be kept neutral, or well, at least the title of articles.

If ever there was a more biased report…wow I can't believe the cheap shots the media is trying to land against Obama…this is ridiculous. They would never write an article about the "one term governor" (wow that's a lot more experience than Obama has…yeah right) of Mass. Mitt Romney who didn't run for reelection because he knew he would lose.

Obama earned my vote. I don't listen to people mindlessly repeating that he is too inexperienced, too black, or not black enough. I made up my own mind by listening to the candidates, reading their speeches and evaluating their policies posted on their candidate web sites. Perhaps he is not the best candidate for the democratic party, but he is clearly the best candidate for America.

Clearly, if you look across the entire political field, both Democrat and Republican, Obama is the least of all evils. For Clinton this is just another knotch in her bedpost. I am a frequent CNN reader and I do not appreciate the slant you have taken towards Clinton. The news is supposed to be unbiased, lets try to keep it that way in the future.

I would rather see CNN stop killing Obama on every little thing while allowing Hillary to run a muck without any recourse whatsoever. I have been a faithful CNN viewer for many years, but it seems there is an anti-FOX Rupert Murdoch running the place. I stopped watching Faux News after 9/11 because they took the extra effort to create this us against the world mentality with its programming along with their strong push for all things republican. Where are the reports on Hillary's blunders and misspeaks? Actually when they are reported, they are swept under the rug so fast, CNN still has time to drill the hell out of the rest of the candidates.
That being said, I would rather have the choice of Obama or Edwards because to me they not only represent change, but also hope and putting the American people first again. Regardless of what Hillary says, any democrat will be attacked. That is such a lame excuse to think you are worthy to be president just because you get in the mud with the Roves, Hannitys and Limbaughs of the political establishment. I, and I am sure most Americans, want someone who rise above the muck and actually takes this country in a better, more economically stable direction.
To me, the only direction she can take this country is in two, which is exactly where we are now.
Besides, how much experience do you need to not answer questions, or when you do, you appear to look like 2000 Bush that barely answered questions and then screwed the country 6+ years later.
I, for one, am ready for change and you don't get change in a monarchy.

WOuld you rather have old washed up, but experienced Roger Clemens as your starting pitcher, getting overpaid, and taking days off when the team needs him, or would you rather have a young Johan Santana, striking out people like crazy, winning the cy young for the next 5 years, and getting paid enough to be happy and little enough so the rest of the team can be built around him?

Yea, I would choose Obama too.

Favors Owed

If the media and democrats continue to push Clinton I fear for this County!

I agree with earlier posts that Senator Obama has more time in office than Clinton. The only way she could have more time than Senator Obama is if we include her first lady years. But, what did she accomplish during those years, Health Care reform?

Now she asks for our trust so she can oversees the entire United States Federal Government. Tell me, how well did she over see her husband while he was in office?

If the direction of the 2008 Democratic Party nomination continues down the current path, it is because of favors owed. Most of these favors go back to Bill’s administration. I hate to see how the American people will be sold down the river when its time to re-pay those favors. So, this Massachusetts born Democrat that currently resides in Maryland could very likely end up voting for a Republican President because of “Favors Owed”.

This sort of honesty and self-awareness is wonderful. If our current President admitted his possible shortcomings and addressed reasons why voters might not like him, the public would certainly not be quite as upset with his attitude. As it is, he runs an administration where one never admits mistakes.

This is another moment where Obama shows that he has the right character to be a world leader.

Heather, do a little research before you make a fool of yourself again. Don't you think the people that paid a dollar for a sticker were probably supportive? Use a little common sense.

He also voted NO on the Iraq war BEFORE the fact, check his record. Also, it's hard to actually change things until he is ACTUALLY IN OFFICE. AS OF RIGHT NOW, I THINK THE SENATORS HANDS ARE TIED IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS NORMALLY DELEGATED TO THE ACTUAL STANDING PRESIDENT. Or did they change Democracy overnight and I missed it? He is the voice of smart Americans whom know we NEED a change. Obviously you are one of the smart ones. He needs to be elected first to change things in the world, although living in Illinois, you should have noticed the changes he made that affect your everyday life, like the 800 or so bills he signed into Illinois legislature that are saving you money etc etc etc. Read a book ok? It's not that hard. Maybe do a little google research? Because you are currently unintellingent regarding politics it seems. What's your grudge anyways? You post was transparent enough to notice it.

This type of opportunity comes around as often as "7/7/07″ we must elect change vs. experience. Obama is the best logical choice for these turbulent times. I think that for Oprah to support him speaks volumes.

For a guy to be such a long shot….he sure does grab all types of headlines. Go Obama 08

Obama is a dreamer. Unfortunately, dreams don't often come true.

I have never been more sure of a candidate for presidency than I am with Barack Obama. People will not be stretching it to think of him as being our leader in 2008. He is a man destined to do great things and I want to be a part of that. Do you remember the speech he gave in the Democratic National Convention in 2004? Have you ever been in his presence when he has been speaking? Well I have, and you walk away from that experience uplifted and confident with life again. We are not stretching it, we are feeling it!

For any Democrat to suggest that they wouldn't vote for the nominee if it happens to be Hillary, is beyond my understanding. I have not been certain myself, whether she would be my choice, or more importantly, make a good, strong president. I am more convinced every time I watch and listen to her that she is clearly the best candidate. That does not mean I would not like to see Barack or Joe Biden either.

I was at that campaign rally in New Hampshire and I was impressed by this
man. He is brilliant and real, and never heard him use those true and tested 'talking points'. When you ask him a question, he will think about it and give you an answer from the heart.

I'm convinced this guy will be the next President. Sorry Hilary.

I'm a 55 year old, white, female, employed, registered voter, living in Washington State. I look and listen to Mr. Obama and I do not see color. I see an incredibly balanced, intelligent gentleman who is so gifted and ready to lead this nation. Thank God. He would once again make me proud to say, "This is MY President!" Finally!

In my opinion, Mr. Obama would create even more division within our nation. He would be a great motivational speaker, but I do not think he would make a good President. However, anyone in the White House would be better than another Bush or another Clinton. This is just my opinion, which we are all entitled to.

It's not a "stretch" at all. Barack Obama WILL be the next President of the United States.

Heather, if you were really sincere in your desire to give an unbiased assessment of what Obama is about you would have learned by now that he has done more than just say he's going to change things. He has provided very specific examples on numerous issues that he'd change from Healthcare to ethics reform to education. It's one thing to disagree with those plans but to pretend that he hasn't even said them is disengenous on your part. He was also courageously against the war during a time when it was hugely popular and could have impacted his chances to win the senate. He predicted the outcome we see today way back in 2002 go to barackobamadotcom and watch the 2002 video on Iraq for yourself. Every pundit (pro or con) gives him credit for his foresight on the war. You are in the significant minority on that. The depth of what he stands for is all there if you are truly interested. He's provided more details than any other candidate so far. HRC said herself "candidates shouldn't tell the American people everything they're really thinking". That is what I'm afraid of with her.

White, male Republican here. If She is nominated, I'll vote Republican, as usual. If he is nominated, well……….. I see him as a hope for the future. Not necessarily the answer, but at least hope.

Hiliary can't seem to make it without her husband. He seems to step in whenever she makes a blunder, but yet tries to "jump" all over Obama.

CNN "Clinton News Network" you've lost credibility. You're integrity is gone.

Let's be clear hear. CNN, are you serious with your headline?

Obama: A 'stretch' to see me as president

And then you say:

WASHINGTON (AP) – Barack Obama knows it's a stretch to think of him as president.

CNN,
He never said that. Whey are you doing this? You're supposed to REPORT the news, not make it. In all seriousness, why are you doing this?

clearly not cut out for the job

The very fact that he knows it's a stretch is the reason he needs to be elected president in 2008. He hasn't become a mindless figurehead like so many past presidents. His ideas are fresh and that is exactly what we need.

It is certainly legitimate to satisfy the voters that he truly does have the kind of experience needed in a president, but Barack’s main problem is one of getting the facts out to the portions of the electorate not already familiar with his impressive record and not any sort of flaw with Obama himself that requires a “stretch.”

From his community organizing days, his groundbreaking work during his Harvard Law tenure, his teaching of constitutional law at the University of Chicago and his emergence from a crowded primary field on his way to his role as a US Senator from Illinois, he has a wealth of leadership experience and has many accomplishments.

If you take the time to actually examine his experience credentials, Barack clearly has enough experience and, especially in the case of Clinton, Barack’s experience is definitely more impressive:
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 in terms of the Iraq vote. Iraq is a case study on the kind of decision-making a president faces — serious consequences at stake, imperfect information, and passionate voices on both sides. Despite all of that, Barack had the foresight to know that it was a bad move. That kind of judgment and foresight is what I want in my President, which is why it should rightly be be considered evidence of his ability to sift through the complexities a president faces and make the right decision. We don’t know all of the tough decisions the next president will face, but we do know that Barack has what it takes to make such decisions.

The prescience Barack Obama demonstrated on the Iraq vote is highly preferable to looking at it in hindsight and saying "if I knew then what I know now…" as Clinton and a few others have said now that the political winds have shifted. 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. 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? There are used care salespeople who dream about having customers with the kind of naivete displayed by Senator Clinton on the Iraq vote.

I will take Barack's considered and demonstrated good judgment over "experienced" people like Clinton and the others every time.

Wow. Obama and I actually agree on something.

Let's clear us an error of fact the news media keep perpetuating. Obama has four years' MORE experience as an elected public official than Clinton has. Obama served as a state senator starting in 1997, before becoming a US senator. Hillary started her term in the US Senate in 2001 and before that was only a first lady (a figurehead position if there ever was one, despite her attempts to make it otherwise). State senators deal with nearly everything that federal legislators do, except for foreign policy.

Thus she has four years' less experience as an elected, bona fide public servant than Barack Obama. If we're going to count her years as first lady, then we should count Obama's years as a community organizer and lawyer.

And what has Hillary done as a US senator? What are her achievements? She seems to be getting a pass because she's a woman and because the she's still getting some Monica pity from the media. And I'm a Democrat.

For John S., from Chicago, I like your point (and think it's funny). The only problem is that Santana will likely command $20 mill / year in the free agent

But nice analogy…I agree…

What a slanted article. Clinton is a good fundraiser and a good political strategist. But she blew health care reform and has not done much since except vote for the war in Iraq. The media is certainly very biased about who they pick on. What has Edwards done? Well he helped to write the Patriot Act and I think that was a disaster, so I am not impressed with his experience either. Obama did a lot in the Illinois legislature such as forge an ethics reform law that was the first in decades in that state. What is wrong with the media? I guess they don't believe in objective journalism anymore.

"I think that for Oprah to support him speaks volumes."

Of all the inane comments on these posting, this takes the cake. Yep, a selfish hypocrite like Oprah is really important. Man, oh man. This is what the Left loves. Who did you think Oprah would support? Edwards? Romney?

And for you liberals to seek someone w/o experience is why you are, well, liberals. Scary. No wonder you often lose.

Obama is brilliant? My 35 year old boss is smarter than he is. I have never heard him utter one sagacious sentence.

It's amazing that CNN will censor what goes on their ticker if it remotely resembles Hillary bashing. Way to be Faux News 2

The more I read about Obama, the more I am impressed. He gives clear answers to issues rather than the politically, cautious ones that especially Clinton gives so as not to upset blocks of voters. I also am impressed with his confidece and refusal to back done to the Clinton machine, the bias of the media constantly repating the "inexperienced" tag and his "blackness". He demonstrates he will be a formidible candidate against Republicans!

You Obama supporters are strange. Just make sure he follows Jesus. That's first and foremost.

Cheers

I continue to find the fascination with Obama a big laugh. The guy delivers a few good speeches, writes a few books, the media eat up his every move and now he's a presidential contender. It's a joke!

He feeds into the public's hatred of politics as usual and provides a vision of hope, but abandons both ideas when push comes to shove. When he was called on his foreign policy mis-statement he first defended his comment, then he resorted to name calling and personal attacks, then he said of course I would do the necessary spade work before talking with unfriendly leaders.

Now he targets Pakistan and says he'd bomb the country if he knew where Bin Laden was. How is this any different from what Bush did in Iraq? He didn't like Saddam, he wanted him out, so he went into another country for his own purposes. Obama is saying the same thing to Pakistan now. We want you to do something, i.e. get Bin Laden, and if you don't do as we say we're going to bomb you. America can't bully other countries around at will!

Further, I think Obama's comments on Pakistan need to be analyzed a bit closer. You can't stop a war with more violence. The war on terror is real and many Islamic countries believe that we are prejudiced against them because of their religion. By going into and bombing an Islamic country that we consider a friend would be very damaging to our security. Bin Laden is a figurehead and our inability to get him right after 9/11 to go into Iraq instead has fueled new generations of terrorists that will go on with or without Bin Laden.

We missed our opportunity to get Bin Laden and the fact that Obama thinks getting him is the key demonstrates a clear misunderstanding of the situation we're in. Obama isn't any different then any other politician. He's talking tough on Bin Laden to make it seem like he's going to be tough on terrorism if elected. It's just a political ploy to try and get more support given that his numbers have steadily declined since he jumped in the race.

For once, let's talk the truth and get beyond the Obama hype!

In terms of Hillary Clinton, I don't know if she is electable, I don't know if America is ready for a female president, but she would be the best person for the job. We need someone who can restore our image abroad and mend fences to bring this world together and not divide it like the Bush administration and Obama's terse comments have done. Hillary is respected abroad. When all of you debate who has more experience, I ask you how many foreign heads of state has Obama visited? How many foreign leaders know and respect him? How many times has he even visitted Iraq compared to Hillary and the other candidates?

Once America wakes up Obama-mania will die and it will be seen for what it is, politics as usual delivered by a guy who harps on hope because he has little real experience. And the fact that he saw in his crystal ball that Iraq would fail before others means nothing to me. Guess what, when Congress authorized this war it was overwhelmingly supported by most Americans. We were ALL misled. We don't need someone to delight in saying, "I told you so," we need a respected leader to face the foreign policy hurdles ahead.

Why does CNN repeatedly twist the headlines to make Obama seem weaker than he is. They didn't even quote what he said correctly.

I'd say Obama wants Clinton to run because she's been reliably pro big business and they know that if Obama comes into office he's going to break up some of the media monopolies out there that are controlling our media.

CNN loves deregulation that Bush has brought, ala Enron and the morgage industry, because it allows them to do whatever they like in as many different types of market.

What Obama lacks in big money politics is the biggest boon the middle class of this country could ask for, because he won't be totally manipulated by big money. he'll actually have an opinion and smarts enough to look out for the long term interests of this country.

He has had more political experience than BOTH Edwards and Hillary Clinton, being in actual office longer than either of them. He's also signed many more BI PARTISAN bills than Hillary cound ever dream. In the Senate, it was never Hillary's voice that was heard loudly standing up for our rights, it was Obama. Hillary is content to say the neat and polite sound bite that won't jeapardize her postion.

Guess what Hillary, you've jeapordized the whole country becuase by playing it safe you cast doubt into the mind of voters at a time when you need OVERWHELMING support to overcome Republican cheating at the polls. They'll use caging, faulty voting machines both electronic and otherwise, phony felon lists, and even their bogus votor ID drive to keep democrats out of the polls. We need overwhelming numbers in the next election to win. Can HRC provide that, I don't know.

If you really want to know what's going on in the last two elections, check out Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse." He found some of Rove's missing emails. His broadcasts before the 04 elections, about how it was being stolen, was the most watched broadcast everywhere in the world, except for the U.S.

CNN wouldn't run it. Nobody would.

hellova free press we got here, huh?
How free can it be when it's all run by a dozen or less big money men with ties either to Bush or to Clinton.

Read. Educate yourselves. then tell me about Obama's lack of experience and whatever sound bites they want you to digest and throw back up at an unsuspecting public.

What's wrong with you people? HE DIDN'T EVEN SAY THAT.

Every day, you post biased stories, and every day, people comment here asking you to stop. What's going on over there? If you don't care what we think, why let us leave comments? Is anybody there even reading this? HELLO? HELLO?

Experience is measured by more then years in office. I find it interesting that many here are pointing to Obama's early years in local politics as experience. Do my days as a candy striper count as nursing experience too?

How many heads of state has he met? How many foreign leaders respect him? His comments on Pakistan have caused a firestorm overseas. His polls are slipping and now his fans are screaming at CNN.

If it wasn't for CNNand all the other media outlets he wouldn't be where he is today. He's a fad built up by the media and America's discontent with politics.

Posted By tony, Mount Vernon, NY : August 21, 2007 4:11 pm

Tony, I don't believe you actually read or heard what Obama said in his speeches. You can read them at his campaign web site. Your analysis of his policy on Pakistan seems flawed to me.

First of all, we won't have to go into Pakistan unilaterally, because Pakistan knows that if they and/or we can find Bin Laden, they and we should take him out OR we will take him out without their help.

Hillary Clinton agrees 100% with Obama's position. She just thinks that it is dangerous to let people know what our position is because something bad will happen, although she won't say what that bad thing is. Maybe she thinks it will destabilize Pakistan. She thinks that Pakistan is so unstable that the words of democrat primary candidate over a year before the general election might topple the government there. Did it? Gee, it didn't! So she was wrong and so was every other critic. Rather I think Pakistan faces significant issues that relate to the internal politics of Pakistan that are clearly quite complex.

CNN, be responsible and change this headline to a more accurate description! The phrasing is completely misleading and seems to be deliberate. Don't perpetuate this view that Obama is some kid trying to be president. His experience is more than adequate. I mean, come on people, we elected George W. Bush TWICE. The man can't even speak correctly!

Sorry, In my previous post I meant to say :::

Posted By tony, Mount Vernon, NY : August 21, 2007 4:11 pm

Tony, I don't believe you actually read or heard what Obama said in his speeches. You can read them at his campaign web site. Your analysis of his policy on Pakistan seems flawed to me.

First of all, it is extremely unlikely we will have to go into Pakistan unilaterally, because Pakistan knows that if they and/or we can find Bin Laden, they and we should take him out. It is only in the very unlikely event that Pakistan can not act that we would have to take him out unilaterally.

Hillary Clinton agrees 100% with Obama's position. She just thinks that it is dangerous to let people know what our position is because something bad will happen, although she won't say what that bad thing is. Maybe she thinks it will destabilize Pakistan. She thinks that Pakistan is so unstable that the words of democrat primary candidate over a year before the general election might topple the government there. Did it? Gee, it didn't! So she was wrong and so was every other critic. Rather I think Pakistan faces significant issues that relate to the internal politics of Pakistan that are clearly quite complex.

Hmmm I wonder Sam how old are you? But on the other hand I have to tell you maybe your 35 year-old boss is smarter than him. But does your 35 year-old boss have the charisma and ability to become President like Sen. Obama does. Lots of people are smarter than Sen. Obama, I'm sure. The same can be said for Hillary Clinton and a lot of the other candidates. However that doesn't mean they are qualified, have the judgement, or yes event the experience to be the President. But hey wouldn't it be cool if your 35 year-old boss ran for President.

Obama is indeed right that it is a stretch to see him as a president, because he sees his 20 points behind in polls and decling, and because he knows practically nothing about federal and international polictics.

If nominated by the dems, he will be easily quashed by the republican candidate.

What is attractive of him is being "fresh", which is embraced by our younger genertion voters. But freshness will go stale over time, and alone will not be electable. Their dream will become a nightmare.

With a muslim middle name and education, that does not go well with some americans either after 9/11.

Sam,

The mere fact that you write, "my 35 year old boss is smarter than Obama" depicts your inner-personal struggle with real "change" and your fear that he just might win this thing.

Perhaps we should consider the possibility that the experience issue may not be relevant.

Look at Harry Truman, didn't have much experience or ambition and became a "near-great" president. Both Dwight Eisenhowever and Lyndon Johnson had all sorts of leadership experience, but were mediocre presidents at best. Gerald Ford never wanted to be prez, but was exactly what the country needed at the time. Jimmy Carter brought a lot of gubernatorial experience to the White House and most members of his own party would like to forget his presidency. Ronald Reagan was … well Ronald Reagan. George Bush (41) was probably the most experienced and qualified person ever to be elected president; but he never clicked, blew all the positives from Gulf War I and became a one-termer.

The bottom line is that the character of the person counts far more than experience.