TheByte

Choleric

Two words:

Abraham Lincoln.

His experience? 2 years in the House and a few in the Illinois legislature. How old was he? 50 when elected. What did he do led the nation through the hardest time in its history and prevailed.


As for Obama, he may be just all talk and no action, but he has to be elected to know for sure. Just as JFK.

And I certainly hope he doesnt get assassinated, but I can totally see some self infatuated KKK bigot doing just that.

Rob

There is no denying that race has been a major factor in the hype surrounding Obama .....and many whites will vote for Obama simply because he represents some kind of liberal statement -- these are the types of people who carry personal guilt and self-loathing for the racist attitudes of their great grandparents generation. You are right Ray, it is about celebrity ....but this is nothing new to American politics. Having said that, Obama does inspire people -- and that would be refreshing. I think perhaps Hillary would have a harder job to win the Presidency than Obama -- she comes with a lot of baggage.

That is true to a point .....but I do feel Obama is there for the right reasons.

You mentioned my dislike of Gore, here is something I read a while ago:

Gore and Peace By Dr. Henry I. Miller

Portuguese neurologist Egas Moniz received the 1949 Nobel Prize in medicine for "his discovery of the therapeutic value of [prefrontal lobotomy] in certain psychoses," including depression and schizophrenia. The prefrontal lobotomy operation, in which the nerve fibers connecting the frontal lobe with other parts of the brain were cut, and which often made patients zombie-like, would be repudiated by the medical community within a decade.

Al Gore, the latest recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, is a similarly poor choice, one likely not to stand the test of time. Leaving aside the school-marmish, preachy, superior attitude that makes him such a magnet for parody, Gore is a phony. Consider that in 1996, he gave an impassioned address to the Democratic party convention, vowing to fight the tobacco industry to his last breath because twelve years earlier his sister had died from lung cancer. In 1988, however, while campaigning for the nomination for president, Mr. Gore had been telling tobacco farmers (in a Southern accent much thicker than was ever heard from him in Washington) that he was practically one of them, that he had tenderly held the young plants in his own two hands, had their interests at heart, and so on. And his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," which offers an exaggerated, one-sided, and often inaccurate view of global warming, is more propaganda than documentary.

Perhaps I can offer a medical explanation for what makes Al Gore tick. On the basis of his actions and writings over many years my guess is that Gore suffers from Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The criteria for this diagnosis, as described in the psychiatrist's bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, include a "pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts," as indicated by these manifestations:

* "a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)." Gore regularly demonstrates his grandiosity. Who can forget his notorious claim that he had been instrumental in creating the Internet? But far more serious and complex are Gore's delusions about issues of technology and environmentalism, such as his repeated endorsement of anti-technology tracts and criticism of technological advances while a congressman, senator and vice president. His writings generally place science and technology at odds with "the natural world" and by inference, with the well-being and progress of mankind. More on this below.

* "preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love; believes that he or she is 'special' and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)." These sorts of fantasies run riot in Gore's Earth in the Balance, in which he assumes that he, alone, has divined the solutions to the world's problems and the bold and dramatic measures that await the education and enlightenment of the public. When he was vice president, Gore and his staff of true believers attempted to purge the federal government of any dissension or challenge to his view of policy, in a way reminiscent of the worst paranoid excesses of the Nixon administration. Vexed by people who weren't sufficiently "special," Gore simply got rid of them.

* "lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others...shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes." While a senator, Gore was notorious for his rudeness and insolence during hearings. A favorite trick was to pose a question and as the witness began to answer, Gore would begin a whispered conversation with another committee member or a staffer. If the witness paused in order that the senator not miss the response, Gore would instruct him to continue, then resume his private conversation, leaving no ambiguity: Not only is your testimony unimportant, I won't even pay you the courtesy of pretending to listen to it. Gore once accused his political enemies of possessing "an extra chromosome," a remark that infuriated the families of persons with Down Syndrome, which is caused by the presence of an extra chromosome.

Gore's patronizing, apocalyptic, and overwrought Earth in the Balance provides numerous illustrations of many of these diagnostic criteria, and thereby offers disturbing insights into its author. In it, Gore trashes the empirical nature of science for disconnecting man from nature. "But for the separation of science and religion," he laments, "we might not be pumping so much gaseous chemical waste into the atmosphere and threatening the destruction of the earth's climate balance." But for the separation of science and religion, we would still be burdened with the notion that the sun and the planets revolve around the Earth.

It gets worse. Throughout the book, Gore employs the metaphor that those who believe in technological advances are as sinister, and polluters are as evil, as the perpetrators of the World War II Holocaust. He accuses Americans of being dysfunctional because we've developed "an apparent obsession with inauthentic substitutes for direct experience with real life," such as "Astroturf, air conditioning and fluorescent lights . . . Walkman and Watchman, entertainment cocoons, frozen food for the microwave oven," and so on.

An example of Gore's bizarre thinking is his take on biotechnology. After campaigning tirelessly for years to over-regulate the most precise and predictable techniques of biotechnology applied to agriculture - ostensibly to ensure environmental safety - he changed his tack and came up with this doozy: "The most lasting impact of biotechnology on the food supply may come not from something going wrong, but from all going right. My biggest fear is not that by accident we will set loose some genetically defective Andromeda strain. Given our past record in dealing with agriculture, we're far more likely to accidentally drown ourselves in a sea of excess grain." Food prices are now under intense pressure because of the diversion of corn to the production of ethanol for fuel.

People who suffer from Narcissistic Personality Disorder are tough to be around. They make terrible bosses, unbearable in-laws and insufferable neighbors. That's why I don't want Al Gore to be president - or to live next door to me.



Dr. Miller, a physician and fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, was at the NIH and FDA from 1977 to 1994.
TCS Daily - Gore and Peace

Rob

Really! .....extraordinary. I don't undertstand how the KKK are tolerated.

Harry Plopper

As I said: today the USA are also seen as the leader of the Western world. Cant be compared with USA in the mid 19th century. And .. wasn't Linclon very active & vocal in anti-slavery movement. And that was a great deal at that time. As they were eg. MLK's actions. But what has Obama done beside talking?

Yet ... Nevertheless ... I'm sure Obama can do it better than GWB. I hope so.

I just can't stand too vocal people who are all about big words. I have met many of them in my life, and I despise them - since they are all bluff. And my bluff-dar is detecting Obama.

And IMO Republican representatives & senators would rather dig themselves alive than cooperating with a president - a black Democrat - helping him to be written in the history as a uniter & one of the most significant US presidents who reformed the States. Yes, he has a dream ... But is that enough? I have a dream too. And I guess everyone here have dreams.

IMO Obama can persuade people and win, but I'm afraid he won't be able to deliver all the promises (change, uniting the nation). Mind that GWB was also self proclaimed uniter in 2000.

Is Hillary any better? You gotta be kidding me. She would even sell her own mother to get a ticket to WH. When I listen to here she says word "I" about 100 times a minute. This says something about her as well.

They (Barack & she) should run together - one for president, the other for vice president, and then shifting positions after 4 years.

A perfect blend of "changed experience" or "experienced change". A unity of change & experience, a unity of new & old, black & white, men & women. A perfect combination. Best the Democrats can offer in 2008.

450SEL6.9

Normally, I would agree with you, Jeff. But Bush has been criticized for being green and inexperienced when he took the job. Therefore, after 8-yr. with Bush, I question whether or not Americans would want another less experienced president.

In 2000, when the world appeared much safer, I think the argument that experience means less would be more convincing.

I'm not sure Obama would win so easily. McCain runs pretty well against all the Democrats and you know how I feel about northeastern Liberal Democrats' chances in the south, Jeff.

McCain is also a war hero who can say that it's about time America had a commander-in-chief who has served in the military. It's only my personal opinion, but I think the president should have military experience. America is at war and has already been attacked on home soil. McCain can make a compelling argument that a man who has served in the military and was tortured for years is best prepared to deal with this present reality.

Rob, I think Gore is the safest candidate and the one that the Republicans would have most trouble with. Logically, I think if the Dems want to win, he should be the nominee.

However, I am less of a Gore fan now than I used to be. I liked Gore the most when he was the stiff vice-president. Today I think he is too "cool" and too much of a celebrity for me.

Choleric

Leading(?) the western world vs. leading the deadliest war against your own people, trying to unify your country?

Never discount the past, in favor of the present.

Absolutely not. Hillary is no more experienced than Obama, and she would rather shoot herself than be the #2. Edwards is the more likely VP candidate for Obama.

Fair point, but a huge amount of the voting population is wanting change not a crusty 71 year old war vet that is older than most grand parents. I believe it is the older portion of the population that is most concerned with experience.

I know how you feel but I have to disagree with you here. As you know McCain is not exactly a popular choice amongst many Republicans especially young ones. I think Obama can sway a lot of moderates who would normaly vote GOP especially if it were Hillary running. Also Obama can do well in the south if he can mobilize the black vote there. McCain's immigration views may hurt him among many republicans as well. Also lets not forget Ron Paul, who probablly run third party once McCain is nominated, RP will definately hurt the GOP more than the democrats in November.

Also the Dems tried to say the same thing for Kerry in 04, a experienced war vet to lead a country in war, that didnt turn out so well.

Choleric

Ok, since experience is the big thing here, answer this:

What Is Experience?


How much is enough? How exactly does one gain experience running a country other than actually doing it?

Choleric

A good example of why Obama will win.

Centurion

Welcome to the world of politics. Performing great speeches and making promises is what all politicians do, and if we're lucky they deliver 20% of their promises. Obama is not different from any of the other candidates except that many find comfort in his voice, he's kind of "the people's man." Insinuating that Obama is a bluff is a bit far fetched since he wouldn't not run for presidency if his intentions weren't to solve some of the issues and problems America is experiencing right now.

Germaniac

I'll pose the question - is being a "war hero" any less symbolic than, for example, Obama's idealistic words? I know the idea of a man fighting for his country's freedoms and serving it in the ultimate act of patriotism holds a lot of symbolic significance, but does it really better qualify someone to be a president? When you think about the reality of being a soldier - bloody, intense warfare, being exposed to death and brutality on a daily basis, severe mental and physical trauma, and in many cases permanent after-effects such as PTSD - I just don't see how this translates into being a better president. But I would love to hear your view.