The Korea Leaders Group guess that if Obama be a new President of the America, He also won't different with Bush.
He will employ a strong policy about N.Korea.
The Gorup members guess that Obama may dislike to negotiate with N.Korea for the control of nuclear program like George. W. Bush.

When you get past all the news media hype about this guy, what do you really know about him? Nothing!! Nothing at all!!
It is incredible that anyone would vote for someone they know so little about, and is completely unqualified to take the reins of the most powerful office in the world. Go figure!
Rouse

He is somewhat less experienced than the others. Maybe next time. For now, he might make a good vice president- Even AL Gore could attend funerals pretty well. And so did the kid from Indiana, who couldn't even spell potato, and told a group in South (Latin) America," I'm sorry I don't know Latin..."

Good example Mr. Joe; At least those two had backgrounds.

Just to throw a little "balance" and a different opinion here:

(Oh,and disclaimer: Whether or not these views actually endorse my own -personal- political views, I'm not stating, just giving a general overview of a different opinion! :) )

I honestly think that part of Obama's -appeal- to many is the fact that he's -not- associated with the political status quo, and is presenting the idea of a grassroots movement of the American people working together to implement change.

With all due respect to "age and experience", sometimes someone who may not be a part of the whole political machine can be seen as a more effective agent for change, presenting a new vision that those who have been cogs in the system for ages can't imagine.

Those with "experience" may be perceived as being too bogged down in "doing things the way they always have been done" to actually come in and make a dramatic difference.

To many, Obama represents a new idealism, a new hope...a change -beyond- what we've experienced. There's definitely a reason why Caroline Kennedy, in her endorsement of Obama stated that he would be a "President like her Father". It's a powerful image, when you consider that JFK has long been viewed as an idealist who brought substantial optimism, and change to the White House.

That being said , while Obama may not have been the big Kahuna of the political world prior to this election, he isn't a total newbie , either. He's a lawyer, Harvard educated..the first African-American, actually, to serve as president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review. He's served as a civil rights lawyer, and taught constitutional law. He's served as a State Senator, and as a U.S. Senator, and has served on the Veteran's Affairs Committee. Yes, his service has primarily been domestic, but.. well, given that our current president's only prior political experience before his presidency was a 6 year term as the Governor of Texas,and a 1978 bid for a slot as a U.S. Representative, Obama's experience isn't disproportionately lacking.

For what it's worth, however, I do agree with you completely that it's completely absurd for someone to vote for someone they know nothing about, to base their opinions about a candidate on say, an email they receive that's chock full to the brim of erroneous statements.. it's the responsibility of -every- American voter, I think , to do their own research, to look into the candidates backgrounds.. to educate themselves on who the candidates are and what they stand for.. and then make their own decision.

Dee :)

Like Loyd Benson said to Dan Quail; Obama ain’t no JKF, this guy knows nothing of military strategy nor command, Jimmy Carter in probably a closer comparison.

Weak minded passivism is a dangerous thing to contemplate in todays World.

Rouse

Ahh, by "weak minded passivism", I'm presuming that you're referring to an anti-war stance, or the idea that we need to remain in Iraq?

If so, then that's a horse of a different color altogether, and is more by far a matter of a candidate's philosophy and beliefs than his experience-And this discussion becomes no more a matter of "politics" but of "beliefs".

Notable, however,in such a discussion, is the fact that even the military itself is beginning to acknowledge that our presence in Iraq is depleting our resources at such a rate that if we were to face a threat from another source, we would be sorely lacking in the capability to defend ourselves. We have, to some extent "put all our eggs in one basket", and have left the henhouse open in the process. With that in mind,is a withdrawal or at least a -drawdown- of our troops in Iraq an example of "weak minded passivism" or more appropriately,a strategic reallocation of resources to strengthen our American defenses -overall- both militarily, and by realigning ourselves with allies?

Is the glass half empty or half full? :)

The debate on that could go on forever, and really isn't productive to continue in this thread, as it's far more likely to become inflammatory than it is to actually sway anyone from deep rooted convictions.

However, let's be sure to clarify the point.. to disagree with a person's opinions is a political campaign is perfectly understandable,and acceptable, but.. shouldn't be labeled as something else. Experience and philosophies are horses of two different colors.

Dee :)

P.S. Just as an aside, and on a totally different discussion altogether.. while the Carter administration was undeniably plagued by tons of imperfections, in the annals of history, it is also noted as one of the breakthrough moments of peacemaking, with the historic 1978 Camp David accords and the Begin/Sadat treaty.... it's an example that every administration since has tried to emulate on at least some level, without nearly so much success. (And as Mr. Joe has noted, that lack of success isn't necessarily surprising to those of Biblical belief, noting their accounts).

It should also be noted that while the Iranian hostage crisis was a black mark on Carter's presidency, the actual negotations leading to their release took place -before- Reagan actually took office, and the new president merely benefitted from the arrangements that were made.

It should also be noted that among the problems that eventually led to Carter's failure to be re-elected were issues with the economy, and Reagan's optimistic promises to change things. While this certainly isn't meant to compare Reagan to Obama, the fact is, history, in many ways, is circular, patterns tend to repeat themselves... with the economy in crisis, voters are looking for a promise of optimism and change, which -could- be another reason why they're responding positively to Obama's candidacy.

Furthermore, since Carter's departure from office, he has earned widespread respect due to his humanitarian activities and has even served as a Presidential advisor on Human Rights and Middle Eastern Issues.

I never mentioned Iraq.
I was referring to the perceived lack of resolve to take on an enemy of mankind, head on and without wavering.

Carter, besides totally torpedoing our economy, tried to win the world over with kindness from a position of weakness, and very nearly had world war on his hands by the time he was removed from office by the voters.

The Iran thing would have never happened unless, of course, they thought they could get by with such behavior.

Iran decided that negotiating an end to their hostage “Crisis” was best for them when Carter was ousted. They were faced with dealing with Reagan, and didn’t want any part of how he was perceived to end it.

So my point is; now is not the time for a weak minded leader that shows a lack of resolve in dealing with folks that will absolutely take full advantage of that mindset, at their first opportunity.

Rouse

[quote=ROUSE;57596] this guy knows nothing of military strategy nor command, Jimmy Carter in probably a closer comparison.

This quote left me a little curious, so I did a little research. Of the presidents who have been in office during conflicts, and the cold war period, only 4 have had military *and* combat experience: McKinley, Truman, Kennedy, and George Bush, Sr.

Eisenhower, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Carter, and George, Jr. have served in the military in a non-combat role. Reagan's service extended only to appearing patriotic films. George, Jr. ... well, much ado has been made over his military service (or lack thereof) in the last election, so there's no need to beat that drum again. :) Jimmy Carter, interestingly, actually -did- have military experience: he was a nuclear submarine officer, having served under the legendary Admiral Hyman Rickover.

Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, Madison, Polk, Wilson and Roosevelt had no military experience at all...and given our historical view of their tenure in office, I dare say that it can be said that arguably, the lack of military experience does not necessarily indicate a lack of leadership ability.

Unless you want to categorize Abraham Lincoln, as an example of "weak minded passivism"?

Dee :)

Upon what do you base your assertion that Obama is weakminded, or shows a lack of resolve? If you weren't referring to his stand on Iraq, which of his stated policies leads you to this conclusion of his character? Barack Obama has never stated that he isn't in favor of defending our country against enemies, he simply doesn't agree with the conflict in Iraq. If you're not speaking of Iraq, what enemies are you speaking of that he's expressed reserve about?

His achievements in life, I would think, would indicate the complete opposite of a "weak-minded leader with a lack of resolve" ; indeed, the very fact that he has gained the positions he has in his life would argue against that. A presidential election is very nasty business indeed.. if Obama's resolve was lacking, I dare say that he wouldn't have even entered the race, as let's face it, he, from the very start, had a rough road ahead of him, and has faced considerable adversity from the start.

If, in fact, you are basing your opinion, as you've stated, on the fact that he has no military experience, then again, I point to my assertions in my previous post, about the number of notable presidents, -wartime- presidents even, who have led with absolutely no military experience at all. Furthermore, you obviously consider the leadership of the Carter administration lacking, when he -did- serve in the military- what happened there? :)

While military service is a great thing, I won't deny it, to say that someone is lacking in leadership skills or is "weak minded" because they don't have that experience is a gross generalization that simply begs for disagreement.

Please clarify exactly *what*, in your opinion, makes Obama so "weakminded and an example of passivism" if it's not a) his lack of support for the administrations policies on Iraq, or b) his lack of military experience.

Dee :)