It’s been touched upon here…but the key thing in judging our candidates is “what have they done?” Not “what have they said?” The political “machine” that churns in Washington (and beyond) is too large to be altered by mere words – which is all Obama has to fall on. Clinton too (to a large degree). The people who “make a difference” in the national scene are the ones who have a history of DOING – not preaching. With that in mind, this twenty-something moderate democrat feels there is little alternative other than choosing McCain come the general election.
A lot of voters are already trying to make the parallel to Bush simply b/c of party affiliation — yet I find there is little similarity between the two. Bush was somewhat “annointed” the throne through his family affiliation – relatively little effort needed to be made to push through the political ladder. McCain has done yeoman’s work in the senate over the past 25 years, following his heroic tour of duty in Vietnam. He’s put himself front-on-center on international issues (i.e. war, immigration, etc.) as well as everyday domestic issues such as consumers’ rights. Having this experience gives him an understanding that Bush never had (nor Obama/Clinton).
And for those who say that experience is overrated – I give the example of a precocious young baseball player standing in the batters box against an MLB pitcher who throws 95 mph with a wicked curveball. He might have the talent to hit a home run (Obama) – but his inexperience will “leave him guessing” more often than not, and he’ll strike out much more than make contact. Meanwhile, the old pro (McCain) – the guy who has some ability but is workmanlike in approach – knows all the tricks of the trade and finds ways to get base hits and score runs, bit by bit. Over the long run, I trust the old pro….
