Quote from AAAintheBeltway:
I think you meant 72, but I would agree that McCain is older than ideal.
I meant 62. If Obama has to wait 15 years to be "experienced" then he'd be 62.
It's not that Obama is too young, it's that he lacks relevant experience and any kind of track record of success.
I don't know, I think registering 400,000 people is a success by any measure.
Like another poster said, we don't have a record of him being tested and making decisions. Has he run a great campaign? Yes, no question, but if that's the criterion then we should be electing David Axelrod. Campaigning, particularly with a fawning media protecting you, is not governing.
It's ironic you say that when the press has run more negative articles about Obama than McCain.
Clearly he's made plenty of decisions, 4000 votes in the State Senate, 800 bills sponsored -- you just don't agree with him personally.
We have a choice between a guy who seems capable but who is untested, unvetted and who has made terrible choices in associates in the past.
Boy is that the truth. McCain has hung out with at least two pastors, one who has said that all the Jews must die (then McCain accepted his endorsement.) Plus there's the lobbyists, the whole Keating thing, etc. etc.
Until he got the nomination, his politics have been from the extreme left.
The extreme left would be nationalizing industry. Clearly Obama is not from the extreme left.
The other choice is a guy who is older than ideal, who has made some courageous decisions and also some questionable ones. He has a long record of bipartisanship and has tried to defuse disputes with compromises. Frankly, I don't like either of them, but McCain is by far the safer choice.
Lots of questionable decisions, a decent guy, few courageous decisions, and his record of bipartisanship includes Obama (where they both sponsored bills, for example).
McCain is also a hothead, and so not the safer choice.