If someone would have told me, say 18 months ago, that I would choose my candidate in this election based on charisma rather than cold, hard policy positions, I would have felt insulted. A year and a half later....

Obama made it easy. His effortless grace on the stump is backed up with a platform that matches my convictions in nearly every detail. Whatever reservations I might have about the shallowness of getting on the bandwagon with the guy everybody loves, it all comes down to who can get elected in November. If there were a word for anti-charisma, Hillary's picture would be next to it in the dictionary.

I actually have good deal of respect for Mrs. Clinton, but her voice, that grating monotone shout she uses in an apparent effort to convey passion, can poison the water for miles in every direction.

It seems to me a trivial reason to rule out a presidential candidate, but such is the nature of the game....

I sure wouldn't downplay the value of charisma for a job position many people refer to as the "Leader of the Free World". I think that Leadership is a large part of the role of POTUS. Policy makers are often total failures at Leadership because they aren't charismatic enough to connect with the people to accomplish the Policy Maker's vision.

From the Young Leader May 7 2007

"Charisma sure isn't a bad thing because it can be a rather useful tool in Leadership. Most people are by nature social and emotional creatures. Our emotions also play a big part in how we live our lives.

This is charisma, that ability to connect with people and eventually to influence and persuade them to take up your vision and follow your plan. Leadership, though would use charisma to influence people to stick to the team's plan to make the vision happen. "

Ok so far one choses Obama for charisma and the other because they can not stand Hillary's voice. And then People post here that they cannot understand why people say Obama supporters back him for frivolous reasons.

While I think charisma is a good characteristic to have, and I think Obama has plenty, I do not think it is going to help change the resistance he is sure to get from the republican party. Also being a nice guy probably is going to be looked on as weakness by Iran, North Korea, and even Russia.

We all sometimes vote for someone based upon silly reasons. I think a significant part of Obama's support is based upon silly reasons.

For instance, on Fox they were doing a show that had Dem's on a panel where they asked questions to see what their responses were. One of them who obviously was pro Obama, when asked about experience said that he thinks experience is a negative.

Right out of Obama's stump speeches. But tell me one other occupation where you would hire that person because they have no experience. Your doctor, lawyer, school teacher, contractor, dentist, taxi driver, or any of the other fields you can think of.

I think it happens when there comes a time when the current state of upheaval within a Country or company when the voters/stock holders are presented with a choice of "keep on doing the same old stuff that we don't doesn't work" or to try something new and innovative that would unite our organization. The same old stuff are the Clintons/Bushes and the divisive Conservative movement. Something new and innovative would include a charismatic young leader that has had vast experience as a unifying force in his community.

Assuming, those are the only two choices, I see many people opting for the young charismatic Leader. If either Party had been watching the voter opinions of the current "same old stuff" over the past few years, I don't think that anyone should be surprised by that.

Ok I can buy that. There is little doubt that the people running this country have a sweet deal going. What we really need is term limits, election reform where raising money is not the key factor in who gets elected. Granted money is not the only factory but someone with brilliant ideas and not fund raising ability is never going to be heard. I do not see how Hillary is the same old stuff.

It seems Obama supporters want to have it both ways. She does not have these experience she claims and then at the same time she represents the past. She clearly has demonstrated that she is not content with keeping the old status quo. Her shot at a National Health policy came a long time ago and it is only raising its head now.

The fact that he has gotten so much attention is understandable but I personally wish we had a better way of picking a leader. I think in my opinion and many others the ones left would never be on our short list of people who really should be running our country.

I like your corporation analogy and I view things that way often. While I think when thing are not working you need to make a change, I do not agree with putting someone with little experience in charge of implementing that change. I think no corporation would hoist someone with no relevant experience into the CEO position. I could be wrong but I do not believe any of them have executive experience nor have any of them run a business or private enterprise.

According to that thinking Mitt Romney should be our next president. He's run a lot of things. But people didn't like his policies, and they didn' t like him. Or, Bill Richardson should be the next prez; but he just didn't have the personal power to project himself in a way that made people want him. One thing that I think many overlook that is very important is how well do any of these people pick their staff and advisors, and what is their style of decision making? G. Bush picked people who were smarter than he (good) and who were ideologues with extreme agendas (expand the reach of executive power, assault the courts at all levels with ideological picks, preemptive war against Iraq, reconfigure all environmental agencies and laws to benefit business, etc etc). He became a figurehead. On the major issues - health care, womens' rights, taxes - both Obama and Clinton are fairly clear and close. What we, of course, don't know is how they will handle the things that "come up". And, how will they handle the opposition's road blocks. How transparent will they be in their agendas and with their decisions? What kind of team will they assemble? Who will be in their cabinet? Those things are important. Bush picked an EPA director who scuttled regulations. He picked an FDA director that sabotaged the agency's very mandate to regulate chemical safety. On and on. Bush did not reveal any of that in his campaigning, of course. So, we have to guess, with any of these candidates, what they will do, both as a matter of course (ideology) and in unforeseen circumstances (world events and castraphies). We only get hints of any of those things. I look for intelligence, an openness to the ideas of others, an ability to attract talent, a meshing with most of my priorities, and at least some sense that they have the well-being of everyone in mind and not just privileged minorities. Then I throw a dart.

raptor5618:

Right out of Obama's stump speeches. But tell me one other occupation where you would hire that person because they have no experience. Your doctor, lawyer, school teacher, contractor, dentist, taxi driver, or any of the other fields you can think of.

Right out of Bill Maher; would you have brain surgery performed by the wife of a brain surgeon? What occupation hires based on the spouses experience? Oh right the same jobs that you'll surely get if your name is Clinton, Bush, or Kennedy.

This experience argument is, and always has been, ridiculous. Does Clinton really think she can run the experience gambit against McCain? When the dust settles both Dems lose the experience argument, so what's wrong with people supporting the candidate they like, even if they can't articulate the reasons? The fact is that actual experience is slightly, 7 years in the Senate v. 3, in Clinton’s favor but in lieu of stark policy differences people are going to vote for the candidate they like the most.

I’ve heard Obama’s popularity equated with Brittany Spears selling a million albums; you’ll go crazy trying to figure out why it happens, but must accept that it happens.

You missed my point slightly. I am not sure that Hillary's experience is much greater than his. Although I think that she was privy to more of what was going on and the thought process put into deciding what decision to make than a surgeon 's wife might be.

What I was commenting on was on the show I saw and some of Obama's comments supporting the idea that experience is a negative. I think that is an approach that seems to be working but is very flawed.

Experience is important but it must be relevant to what you are trying to accomplish. I think talking about experience as if being naive were a virtue is just plain deceptive in a very creative way.

I also think it is kind of sad that some of the other names tossed around in a few posts above were never really given the chance to succeed. My view is that unless the media buys into your campaign you are done. Some very experienced, bright people were left on the sidelines watching.

A minor clarification, it's not that "I can't stand the sound of Hillary's voice", it's that I believe that her voice makes her unelectable in the general election....