Obama and McCain - your thoughts/opinions on the American presidential candidates

[Earlybird]

Is Obama all charisma and no substance? Or is he a breath of fresh air politically speaking - offering hope for real change? Is he politically experienced enough to be president, or is he largely the X-Factor presidential candidate (huge momentum created by media adoration/hype but at some point the bubble will burst revealing a manufactured candidate?)

Is McCain too old, too conservative and/or too dull? All substance and no charisma - so doomed to fail with the media/public due to importance of image/soundbites? Or a man of experience and integrity who will guide the country with a steady and experienced hand?

As a Mumsnet member based in America, am curious to hear how the candidates appear to those who don't get their news through the US media. Am particularly interested atm as Obama is in the midst of his International tour.

"What he lacks in experience he'll make up for in his ability to choose excellent advisors. He's obviously picked a great team so far."

Just like every other President before him. The only candidates that have had Presidential experience were former Vice-Presidents like Johnson, Ford and Bush Snr.

I don't get this big deal about his so called lack of experience.

How much experience did Kennedy have?

"The only pictures we see of John McCain were ones of him sitting in a chair with another leader across from him, not up at a podium in front of a crowd. Please correct me if that is different from you have seen."

The reason for that is because people are more interested in Obama than McCain. Obama is young, fresh, interesting, enigmatic, engaging, exciting and forward thinking. McCain is a relic and will take America backwards, not forwards, imo.

spokette,

I've heard him in debates when asked about his lack of experience say that he'd have the best of the best advisors and that his skills at choosing people that work for him will make up for that.

Of course every president has had good advisors (W. excluded), but when his response is that he'll hire good people, I'm a little wary.

And yes, Obama is young, and I guess he's charismatic (I'm not really that impressed), but it seems to me that he's all spark. I want him to come up with a good piece of legislation and then maybe I'll be impressed.

What has made Obama famous is speaking at the '04 democratic convention and writing a couple of books.

Being here and having watched every single Democratic debate their was, I'm surprised that he's made it this far because I think the field was loaded with much better candidates. People are blinded by the hype.

i personally wish clinton had made it.
but she diddnt
so obama it is for me.

but since i dont get a vote.

Here is a story from today's Washington Post that describes the 'presidential presumptions' of Obama:

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/29/AR2008072902068_pf.html

Would be interested to hear your thoughts.

Well, smacks of a bit of a hatchet job to me. But, then it's presumably an influential paper. Does the Washington Post have a history of Obama-bashing?

I think one major strategic error with the world tour was perceived selection of certain celebrity journalists to accompany him and get exclusive access. Who's that going to piss off? Well, ummm, most other journalists, and there's your problem, and the result will be more bitchy content like this, be it truthful or 'tweaked slightly'.

Meanwhile, backwater-McCain has definitely been low-key (not sure this was a game-plan, but that's certainly been the result) and managed not to offend huffy egotistical(influential) journos. McCain 1, Obama 0 on that count.

Presidential presumptions of Obama? Bush did it, Clinton did it, they all do it so what is the big deal? Why all the nit-picking? Agree with Mrs Sprat in that it reads like a hatchet job.

One of the things one has to remember about the American media is that it is largely dominated by WASP Neo-conservatives who are right wing, mysogenist and racist as hell. The two things they fear most is a black man with power and a woman with power. Both Obama and Clinton had them gnashing their teeth in rage. The Washington Post's residential Neo-conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer himself has written pithely about Obama.

When Obama on his campaign trail had the temerity to state "We are the hope of the future. We can remake this world as it should be. Believe in me and I shall redeem not just you but your country -- nay, we can become "a hymn that will heal this nation, repair this world, and make this time different than all the rest," Krauthhammer wrote a column entitled "The Audacity of selling hope".

What on earth is audacious about a politician offering hope to a disillusioned nation? If McCain had said that, they would have been singing his praises.

Bill Clinton was born in Hope, Arkansas and in his 1993 campaign said that the boy from Hope offers hope to the American people. It was embraced and he was elected.

The Washington Post don't like Obama so their coverage is going to be completely bias, polemic and replete with invective and lies.

Politicians have to sell themselves to the electorate and if one of the things they do not offer is hope for a better future, then why bother? Now what would be audacious is to not offer hope to a disillusioned electorate.

Not sure I agree with your general assessment of the makeup of the American media. Many believe/complain that the media is largely controlled by liberal Democrats.

A huge part of the current political story is the media's love-fest of/with Obama.
A huge part of the story is how the media and public have been swept up in the excitement of this new, different, charismatic, articulate, intelligent man.
A huge part of the story is how lopsided the media coverage has been - in it's most extreme case, we had planeloads of journalists (and every network anchor) accompanying Obama's European tour (newsworthy, without doubt), while in contrast during the same week, poor old John McCain landed his plane in middle America (not so newsworthy, without doubt) to be greeted by a solitary journalist. The enormous coverage of Obama's trip was essentially one long advert for Obama, and resulted in a virtual media black-out for John McCain.

Put simply - Obama was, and is, a better news story than John McCain - and the media coverage has reflected that.

You are correct, that Obama does offer hope. But dig deeper than the rhetoric - can you say specifically what he proposes? How the concept of hope could be transformed into real and measurable change? That is the concern here - most people can't say, and don't know. That part of the message is NOT getting through. Maybe the media is to blame as it deals mainly in soundbites and photo opportunities, maybe the legendary short attention span of the average American are to blame.

McCain is not exciting, new/different, passionate, charismatic, or even very articulate. He seems like an old man. Lord knows, America doesn't need/want 4 more years of Bush style Republicanism. But IMO, Obama seems too slick and media savvy, too good at manipulating the press, too good at knowing the right thing to say at the right moment (but is it really what he thinks), too adept at playing both sides of the race issue (very skillfully) according to who his audience is.

At the moment it seems we have a 'perfect storm' of media and politics: on one side there is the media who want a charismatic and intelligent candidate who is groundbreaking/camera ready and delivers a message of hope/change. On the other side is a candidate who understands the power of media to create myths and heros, and is willing/able to give every soundbite and photo op with poise and finesse. It is a fairy tale unfolding before our eyes, and Americans love happy endings.

But where do we stand as a country when the victory speeches have faded, and it's time to get down to day to day life? Will the media then begin the business of tearing him down? And will our/their political idol turn out to have feet of clay?

"A huge part of the current political story is the media's love-fest of/with Obama.
A huge part of the story is how the media and public have been swept up in the excitement of this new, different, charismatic, articulate, intelligent man."

Lincoln, Roosevelt, JFK, Clinton and closer to home, Churchill, Atlee, Thatcher, Blair....... so what's new?

"But where do we stand as a country when the victory speeches have faded, and it's time to get down to day to day life? Will the media then begin the business of tearing him down?"

The media starts tearing them down as soon as they have their first wobble.

'Lincoln, Roosevelt, JFK, Clinton and closer to home, Churchill, Atlee, Thatcher, Blair....... so what's new?'

spokette - the difference in 2008 is media permeates every area of our lives every minute of our lives as never before (if we want/allow it) with 24 hour news channels, email bulletins, news websites updated many times a day, etc.

The politicians you cite never had the sort of exposure we have now (except perhaps Blair who experienced the relentless negative media exposure for his final years in office).

The media machine must be fed - hourly - in order to secure and maintain ratings/advertising dollars, etc. As a result, the media's job is not just to report a story, but to create a story. And Obama, for many reasons, has been the story of this election.

And that is where I hesitate with the candiates/this election. I honestly don't know/can't distinguish how much is media embellishment, fabrication, manipulation, spin - and what is genuine. What can be trusted?

Well on the media point I agree (Churchill & Roosevelt had a lot of media coverage due to WW2 but it certainly did Churchill no favours after 1945!).

However, Dubya has won two elections in this era of 24 hour media coverage (granted the first election win was bogus, imo) and considering the way he is portrayed by the media as am inarticulate, vacuous muppet, it did not hinder him from becoming President. Consequently, the public will make up their own minds despite what the media says.

We have the same issue here with Cameron. Style and no substance but because of dissatisfaction with the incumbent, his soundbites sound appealing to a disenchanted electorate. The media knows this and plays the game accordingly.

There continues to be much comment/coverage (and some grumbling) about the blatant and ongoing media favouritism extended to Obama. There is little impartial and/or neutral about it.

Here is a startling example: Obama is currently on the cover of Time Magazine - for the 7th time in a year!! How many times has McCain been on the cover during the same period? Answer: Twice.....

Perhaps it's because Obama is a little cuter?

Lol! Well, if cuteness was the main qualifier to be elected president, I could understand why Obama has been a 'cover boy' so much more frequently than McCain (who wouldn't be considered 'cute' by anyone).

With the cuteness criteria, should we expect David Cameron to replace Gordon Brown as prime minister sometime soon? Or is Milliband cuter?

It appears I am mainly talking to myself on this thread, but will keep plugging away in hopes of getting a good discussion going.

Any thoughts on Obama's choice of Vice President?

Interesting article in today's Telegraph (will be interesting to observe if opinions have changed by this time next week when the Democratic convention is over):

www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/08/26/do2603.xml&DCMP=EMC-new_26082008

Well I would join in eb but I think you know where my train of thought leads

But you keep going because I may end up with an education!

Yes I do, MarsLady!

Michelle Obama is due to speak to the convention tonight. Will be interesting to see what she has to say, and how she says it. She is an impressive woman.

I wonder if McCain's wife (Cindy) will speak at the Republican Convention in a few weeks?

I think Obama's choice for VP is astute. He has gone for someone who has experience and is able to connect with as well as appeal to white blue-collared workers because he is from that background.

I'm glad he did not choose Clinton because America has enough trouble digesting the possibilty of a black President. To have a female VP as well would send many of them screaming to the hills. One step at a time as they say.

I like Michelle Obama. She is strong-willed, highly intelligent (she use to be Barack's boss at the law firm where they worked!), elegant and a no-nonense type of gal. I also love her hair (it's a black woman thang, you know).

I find it interesting after reading/skimming this thread (so I apopologise if I have missed something to the contrary) that the only reasons people have listed for not liking Obama are racial and the only reasons for not liking Hilary are related to her sex. I don't like either one of them and it doesn't have anything to do with race or gender.

I hate Hilary Clinton because she is dishonest to say the least. I dislike Obama's politices, although I don't have a problem with his character. I am adomately opposed socialised medicine for the states. And higher taxes is the last thing Americans need right now.

Someone mentioned McCain was too right. I think McCain is a Right Wing Republican like I think Tony Blair is Left Wing Labour. McCain is pretty middle ground, really. Fiscally Republican, but socially a bit liberal. I believe he is pro choice.

McCain is out touch with reality. The man does not even know how many houses he ownsso it will be interesting to see how he attempts to relate to the average American.

Clinton dishonest? Show me a politician that isn't!

Opposed to socialised medicine? Are you also opposed to the fact that nearly 1/3rd of Americans cannot afford health insurance or afford basic medical care? Even many middle class families are foregoing health insurance because they can no longer afford the premiums.

Good thread. I think Obama is an exceptional individual and his time will come. The more intelligent print media analysis seems to suggest that time is not yet. I hope they are wrong. I don't think McCain (sp?) would be good news for the rest of the planet either. I find the whole thing geekily compelling. I was reading about the role the candidate's family plays in the campaign. It's pure theatre.

FWIW I don't think we are any more likely in the UK to elect a person of colour to the highest office than the US is. OK, we had a woman PM, but Thatcher FGS. We don't seem to be able to find many people to lead us who haven't been to public school FGS!

Aha! Just saw some newer posts about "cuteness". Well for looks Obama is no Matthew Santos (the character who was written with BO in mind). God, I would have moved countries and changed nationalities to vote for him.......................

I don't want to debate Clinton on here. And, actually, I must remind myself from time to time what a lucky escape we have just had. The truth I'm so very very happy that Clinton is not going back to the whitehouse, that Obama is not so bad.

Socialised medicine ensure everyone gets inferior care in my experience. I'm opposed to that. And I have a very had time believing the 1/3 statistic you quoted. My sister live on welfare and I've seen them get better maternity care than I got. I also see their children get better medical care than mine are offered on the NHS.

(in fact, Underrated, I think you and my sister might be neighbors...) Weird small world this is.

Why does socialised medicine ensure everyone gets inferior care? Surely, if you want private healthcare, you will still be able to pay for the privilege (if you can afford it which increasing numbers of American's cannot)?

The maternity care your sister received - who was it provided by? I bet it was by some charity or a corollary service which surely negates your argument because according to you, she is receiving better care than you without paying private insurance.

Have you even seen the documentary Morgan Spurlock made about living on minimum wage and what happened when he and his partner required medical care? If you don't have money, you are stuffed unless you can find a "free" hospital to treat you.

What an interesting thread. I'm no expert on US politics, but probably have heard more about them than most other countries (including those overseas that I've lived in) but as the OP was concerned with non US-media reports on the candidates I'll just put in what I've heard (I'm in Australia).

The media here seems to be very pro-Obama. McCain seems to be old-school, possibly even more so than Bush.

I saw the Michelle Obama speech today on Sky News and wondered why she was giving a speech when it was her husband running for president. Doesn't it seem that more and more men are running for PM/president with a very powerful female/laywer next to them?

He seems a very charismatic man. I wonder though, is he truly representative of the black community in America or just a bi-racial politician using his darker skin as a trump card?

I have to say I quite liked Hillary Clinton. At the very least she had experience of the White House.

I'd rather see Clinton or Obama in the White House than McCain - to me that would show a shift in American attitudes.

I don't have good idea of what any of the candidates actually represent though - it seems that the Democrats are getting in the media for their black/female candidates but I don't know what electing any of them would actually mean to America (based on the news coverage).

"He seems a very charismatic man. I wonder though, is he truly representative of the black community in America or just a bi-racial politician using his darker skin as a trump card?"

Obama is trying to be elected in a country where many whites judge black people on the colour of their skin rather than by what they do. The first thing they see is the colour of his skin and as many mixed race people with African heritage know, any hint of melanin, makes you black in many of these people's eyes.

Even you have made the statement asking if he is representive of the black community - the fact that his mother is white is nugatory - as long as he has an abundance of melanin in his skin, he will always be seen as black by many so why accuse him of using his darker skin as a trump card?