You make some valid points, but you completely overlook the fact that Hillary Clinton has some serious negatives. In particular, her vote in favor of Bush's war and her reluctance to distance herself from that vote is a major liability. Public opinion in the United States is shifting sharply against our Iraqi misadventure, and any politician associated with it will suffer. Obama had the good sense to be against the war from the start. I think Clinton's "pro war" stance on the Iraqi invasion has the potential to make the wheels come off of her candidacy for president.

Stephen Marsh, Marysville, Wa, United States

Bill Richardson has the most "quality" local, national and international experience in the nation, and must be given serious consideration.

Karen, Janesville, Wisconsin USA

Mr. Obama has positiuned himself very cleverly as 1) not a product of the DC estblshment who got the US into the Iraq tarpit and 2) not a member of the aging baby boomer generation who members have spent the past 15 years fighting amongst themselves rather than governing with a degree of maturity.

Experience is wildly overrated in US Presidential politics. Bush II over Gore, Rosevelt over Hoover, Clinton over Bush I, Carter over Ford, and especially Lincoln over Douglas et al prove that. Force of personality is the strongest asset and on that point Senator Obama compares very favorably with the rest of the field.
The US Presidential process is a marathon and we are barely into the first mile but if forced today to bet the rent money I would place my wager on Obama to win it all next year.

Enjoy your Tabasco sauce.

Sam B., Greenville, SC, USA

If Tabasco sauce is a your choice of a dinner table delicacy, then I can assure you that you will not be eating it because of Obama. He will not win now nor ever because he just does not have what it takes to become a President.

He is quite new and green on the political Scene (locally and internationally. He probably will do well as Hilary Clinton's message boy. That's about all he can/will do till he gets the necessary experience and exposure.

Jerry , London, United Kingdom

I think your description of the Democrats as being "inept" takes alot of nerve and is grossly near-sighted, but I am content in the knowledge lots of Tabasco is in your future if you continue to need to eat your words.

Where you're right, I think, is in your description of Obama's lack of experience. And that your fellow travelers, desperate for a story, are responsible for much of the hoopla. I despair of having to vote for a Republican, who have it all wrong about so many vital issues, and in the end I am pretty sure it will not be him as the candidate. I actually have begun to think it will be Mrs. Clinton as the next President. And happy to have Tabasco if I'm wrong.

Michael, New York, U.S.A.

Speaking Arab?

Jonny, Ann Arbor, MI

Well, it seems you know that Obama has written two books. Have you actually read them? American have had a president for 8 years that had as much foreign policy knowledge as a grade eighter before he was elected (apoligies to grade eight history students). Quick George, who is the Mexican foreign minister? Thats that place on your states southern border. George boy wasn't even in the same league as Obama is now when it comes to experience, intelligence, and wisdom.

gord Mcneice, burlington, canada

Comparing Barack Obama to Kermit the Frog.

Seriously.

A comparison like this destroys your entire hope of forming an argument. I stopped reading.

Tony, Portland, Oregon

Firstly, in Queensland (Australia), I doubt they consume as much tea and crumpets as us here in the UK. Secondly, if taking care of business involves going on a global rampage, damaging your own economic well being as well as largely ignoring issues like global warming, as a stakeholder of U.S.Enterprise I'd demand that CEO Bush be replaced by somebody capable. As much as it would be quite satisfying to one day see a black US president, I think in this case it would be affirmative action gone badly wrong.
Go Hilary I say.

Nick, Brighton, UK

If Tabasco sauce is a your choice of a dinner table delicacy, then I can assure you that you will not be eating it because of Obama. He will not win now nor ever because he just does not have what it takes to become a President.

He is quite new and green on the political Scene (locally and internationally. He probably will do well as Hilary Clinton's message boy. That's about all he can/will do till he gets the necessary experience and exposure.

Jerry David, London, United Kingdom

Enjoy your Tabasco sauce. Your muddle of an article may inspire the wingnuts from Illinois who are so upset that a Democrat is actually a Democrat (what did they expect - voters to actually select an incompetent republican after 12 years of foolishness?) but you really havent said that much. The primaries are a long way off. Candidates who appear small grow during the campaign, seeming more "presidential" as time goes by.
Now, all bets are off if Gore listens to the Democratic party activists who love him. It is widely admitted that he won in 2000 and many people would like to see him take the office that is rightly his. His work on behalf of global warming has impressed many people and the voters who are now tired of the Republican liars may now be ready to repair things by putting the former Vice President in office.
Senaor Clinton also should not count her chickens until the eggs are hatched.

Dennis Roberts, Bremerton, WA, UNited States

I think we all know what America needs, however it would be impolite to suggest, however maybe a little less arrogance is needed. It may improve your relationship with every other country, especialy those who will be assisting whoever is the next President in sorting out your International messes.

Leon, Brisbane, Queensland

Do not worry your pretty little heads about American politics. Stick to what you know. The parliment and the prime minister,...you wouldn't know anything about what America needs, you don't live here. Talk about what you do know,.. tea and crumpets. Let the big boys over here take care of business, as we always do.

Jacquie , Hampden, U.S.A, Maine

Take two steps back. Senator as President? Only two incumbents have won that bet in the history of US politics - Warren G. Harding and JFK. Unless it comes down to a Sen. v. Sen. match-up, a former mayor or governor will take that prize. Avec sauce.

F. Michael Angelo, Philadelphia, PA, USA

There is one grownup on the horizon you ignore: former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich.

He's smart, he's sharp, he's got charisma of his own, and he too has a solid accomplishment under his belt: overthrow of the 40-year jerrymandered Democrat stranglehold on the House in 1994. He lacks McCain's PTSD issues and can control his temper. AND he understands the threat of violent Islamism.

But you're right. Barak Obama is an empty suit with a smile. We had one of those in office from 1977-1981. Thank you, no more.

Richard L. Kent, Eastpointe, Michigan, USA

If Mr. Obama is "spectacularly unqualified" with a mere 25 months as U.S. Senator, what was it about President Bush's previous experience as Texas governor that made him especially qualified for the job?

Or former presidents (and governors) Clinton, Reagan, and Carter, for that matter?

Gunnar Heinrich, Washington,

I agree with your take on Mr. Obama.You are left with a queesy feeling that the Dems have shot themselves in the foot to encourage Mr Obama on this one ,at this time.
I think he should wait for the next train and at least take a few driving lessons before going out on the road.
Although this is an internal race between Mr. Obama and Mrs Clinton, can't the Dems see that they will leave themselves wide open when they promote a race between the first likely woman president and the first black president.
White male Democrats will rub their hands in glee and say to the membership "Hey I told you so. Now lets not have anymore of this nonsense in the future. Its a man's world, and a white man's world at that."
Still only in America!
I would not be surprised if the Republicans put up a member of the KKK to add some balance.
Somebody must get hurt in such a fight.

Mike K, Westbrook, Kent

This is a relatively silly article. That Mr Obama is a comparitively inexperienced candidate means very lttle. Mentioning Kermit the frog is nonsense. This article is getting ahead of itself. Mr Obama is not a front runner. He is offering an exciting alternative. He is a more consistant politician than Mrs Clinton. That he has opposed the Iraq war throughout, while Mrs Clinton has had to justify changing her mind on the issue is a huge hole in the side of Mrs Clinton's campaign.
Having read this article, it has still not been made clear why Mr Hames feels the need to attack Mr Obama's campaign. Does he just want to be different? Does he fear an Obama presidency for some reason? After all the lethargic, self-serving years since Mr Bush came to power, does he not feel that the public minded initiatives pushed by Mr Obama warrant a close look and dare I say it, some support and enthusiasm?

Paul Goatman, Derby, UK

As a voter in Illinois, I feel we have been sold a bad egg. We were promised that Barak Hussein Obama would be a 'different' kind of Democrat. What did we get? Someone who blindly parrots anything that the Dem Party tells him to. He's more Democrat than most Democrats! If this guy gets into office, the whole country will be speaking Arab before 2009.

Brian Schoenman, Peoria, Illinois

Sometimes it takes a non-American to show some perspective on American politics. Your column has a ring of truth to it. To what you said, you might add that Obama's decison to run when he is this new to politics says something negative abouit his judgment. I feel uncomfortable about anyone who has an ego big enought to think that he/she is qualified for the job. Multiply that discomfort by a factor of 10 for anyone as inexperienced as Obama.

Dave S, Bloomington, IL USA

All this talk about experience is a just a ploy of the old guards and Washington establishment jealous of a rising star. Lincoln had no experience but turned out to be the best Prez in history. In 2002 Obama correctly judged that the war will end up badly and was against the war from the beginning while the so-called experience went along and voted for it.

Eret, Nashville, TN

The first of your three reasons as to why Obama's 'claim to the White House is ridiculous' strikes me as remarkably unconvincing. The basic point of the particular paragraph is that there have been previous candidates that failed spectacularly, and with no compelling logic (other than the inclusion of Obama's name at the beginning of the list!) the reader is supposed to assume that this is one piece of your conclusive and 'interconnected (??)' argument. Remarkable use of rhetoric, well done.

William Dunn, Melbourne,

He won the senate, when the odds were likewise against him. Maybe it was charisma, more likely it was his position on the issues, but either way he'll be bringing the same thing to the presidential race. He may not win, it may even be best if he doesn't win, but I'm not ready to bet against him just yet.

Beryl Alexandros, Michigan,

While not claiming to be an expert on US politics....the chances of America electing a Black man with a Muslim father as President are nil. If Mrs Clinton wants to totally destroy her chances she could adopt him as running mate.

G Gardner, Edinburgh, Scotland

Charisma, intelligence, vision, humility, leadership. Clearly overrated if you are a republican...

Jeff McNeill, Honolulu, HI

You don't understand Illinois politics.

Barack gets national publicity and gets to bring home something from the convention.

Losing the nomination will solidify his position as senator-for-life.

Abdul Alhazred, Chicago, IL

I think the media bias in backing this man is obvious. Remember when the press was hounding Bush day and night about his alleged cocain use? Why is there no concern about Obamas admitted cocain use? It really doesn't matter to the left what their side does because the only thing that matters to them is does the candidate support their agenda, character is of no cosequence whatsoever. Also, Obama and the rest of these candidates either didn't support the war or can't wait to get us out regardless of the consequences. Do any of you think that there is anything that would cause these people enough anger to fight for our freedom? Look at Hillary and her history as Co-President. The 93 attack on the WTC, the USS Cole, Somalia etc. lots of death to our people and no response from Clinton. Also the many opportunities to have Bin Laden turned over to us and their refusal to take him. If any of this bunch gets elected start digging your grave, our enemies will soon put us in it.

Frank Fawcett, Cameron Park, Ca.

You are absolutely correct about Mr. Obama.

You are absolutely correct about what the Democrats have done since gaining a majority-nothing. They have been in the role of saboture and stonewaller so long they don't no how to govern. This may be a closer race that people believe.

Senator McCain could be the "not another Clinton / Bush" candidate. He understands the military. He is a fair diplomat. He also a follower of Milton Freidman.

James Troscinski, Grosse Pointe Park, USA

I've been reading all day about this candidate, and whom he isn't. Funny, no one has mentioned Reagan. Talk about no experience and plenty of charisma!
Did you forget, or omit him?
Obama will profit, not lose because of his lack of experience, in my view. None of the others who aspire to that office have done much to move us toward the 21st century.

Danny Lindsey, Pulaski, TN

Ah , the myth of competence and experience blown to proportions over and over. It really fits the actual incumbent of The White House well.

Given that for millenias, life expectancy was maybe into lower thirties, one would wander how was possible for all those people to rule themselves and bring humanity where it is now.

Whit this attitude, no wonder that all over the world the younger generations are not voting anymore and are totally desilusioned by the existing crowd of "experienced" leaders that somehow, fail to deliver.

Yes, the whole article is bogus and proves once more that the sycophant class is here to stay. And if they can eat tabasco, what else they would be able to eat?!

Cornel Lencar, Vancouver,

the polls are showing a three horse race between Clinton, Obama and Edwards, poor article really.

Dan Smith, London,

Jeez, I just love it when folks from places likeAustralia and (yuck) Paris deign to lecture us on our political candidates. Rudy Giuliani is going to be the next president and has already started modifying his stance on gun control which is the single issue that can deep-six any politician at rhe national level. Almost 100 million law-abiding gun owners can decide the outcome of any election. And have proven it repeatedly.

Ken Muise, El Paso, USA

Sober up, Dems.Neither Obama nor Hillary CAN (that's the important word here) win in 2008. 50% of Americans detest Hillary, and for sure, the other 50% don't love her. She cannot be elected. The numbers are not there.Obama is a flash in the pan and could never carry a majority. I mean, if the American people didn't think Katie Currick had the gravitas to be a news anchor, just how do you think they will feel about Obama for president?Republicans, even as dizzy as they currently appear, are rubbing their hands at the thought of running almost anyone against either of these press creations. If Democrats want a winner in 2008, let me give you two words that would send a jolting shiver through those hand rubbing Republicans: Jim Webb.

Brian Dillingham, Washington D.C., US of A

Why Sir do Obama, Churchill, Kennedy, Roosevelt, McCain and Guiliani deserve first names but Clinton merely a 'Mrs'?

Rebecca, Nottingham, UK

Obama is a Harvard graduate who distinguished himself. Bush barely passed. Rhetorical skill should not be the threshold for ascertaining whether a candidate is worthy, and Obama obviously had a lot more than that - he has the face of a new America, the vision, and the capability. Another neo-con will be in the mould of Bush, and will surely carry America on a course that is so extreme, Iraq, Iran and anyone else those Hawks take it upon themselves to target, shall be escorted back to the stone age with record pace. A democratic candidate is a must, and Clinton is to discordant and charisma-free to be be a bipartisan, widely appealing candidate. Edwards has the right mix of charisma, experience, and is akin to a Clinton Mini-me, but as of yet, I just don't see him being smarter than a Harvard graduate on the law review. The only thing that would impede Obama in the future, is that which aids him in the present - his skin; this is evidenced in the rapid fire response of John Howard.

Franke, London,

You're wrong about Obama. Keep the Tabasco close at hand.

Dan Mayland, Lansdale, PA, USA

You say Barack is spectacularly underqualified to be President.

I say he has what it takes!

Look at those who are supposedly qualified, they are failing the people of the United States miserably. They are also bringing this country to its knees.

Theresa K Adams, Florissant, Missouri

Dear Sir:

If Obama, one of the brightest, most eloquent and talented politicians to appear in America in decades, is a "loser," what does that make you? Experience is only one of many factors that people look at when assessing political candidates. What, for example, do you think of his positions on the issues of war, health care, or the role of faith in public life? What do you think of his leadership skills? What do you think of his books? Do you agree with his assessment of the state of political and cultural debate in America? Why or why not? Have you looked at his position statements on his website? How does he compare with Edwards, or Clinton, on the issues? Obama may not be ready to be president, but that will depend on how the Democratic party assesses his political vision in comparison with the other frontrunners, Clinton, Edwards, and, quite possibly, Gore.

Give us real arguments, please!

Ian O'Corrain, Atlanta, USA

Abraham Lincioln was a former one-term congressman when he was elected president.

Caroline Cracraft, Chicago, IL USA

Giuliani is qualified? Apart being a wildly self-publicising mayor and then joining in all the immediate post- 9/11 rhetoric (what a hero!)....how exactly is he qualified? What foreign policiy experience does he have?
Nada.
I agree that Obama is not an impressive candidate and is essentially a media invention, but can't you just say that calmly instead of injecting your own right wing leanings in a hyperbolic manner?

Jack McD, San Francisco, CA, USA

All the same, Obamas charismatic campaign is built from the blueprint William Jefferson C. used in 92. He has the kind of publicity capital movie stars crave and one would expect that to be useful if the primaries were in a few weeks. but the first one is not for another year. Both he and clintons( hil and bill) operate from the view that they are entitled to the office, and characterizes how they would govern as well. This is the first time the stategy is forced to compete against its mild variations. Style over substance. Where's the beef!? My, how timeshave changed!

Brian Reynolds, Dallas, Texas

In a country that takes its politics more seriously than most in Europe the US has however grown weary of the grind of politics as usual. As someone who has voted both democrat and republican at different times I find the candidacy of Mr Obama fascinating. If he can sustain his momentum then he might be able to win. I can remember a catholic John Kennedy winning the good old boy vote so race is not necessarily a guarantee of loss. Who is he up against? In the Democratic party not only is Clinton a winer - like most house democrats at present - she is unique in that she appears to possess negative charisma. Her approval ratings go up as long as she stays out of sight the more speeches and the more visisble she becomes, the less popular she is.
As for the Republicans - the only good candidates - wont win the primary as the religious right flexes its self destructive muscle.

Graham Hallett, Apalachin, USA

The conventional wisdom has been for years that no woman or black man has a chance to win the White House because there are too many bigots, both open and closeted, who would vote against them. Pollsters have gone door to door asking 2 questions: 1) Would you vote against someone because they are black or female? (2) Do you think your neighbor would? The answers back are usually (no) and (yes). Even when the polster asks the neighbor.

Whatever they say in public voters decide the issue in the privacy of the voting booth. To date that decision has alwasy been for the white guy. Obama and Hillary both have a huge hurtle ahead of them.

Tom, Riverside,

You may be right in claiming that Obama cannot win the 2008 Presidential Election. However, you lost me when you claimed that Ms. Clinton is "undoubtedly qualified" to be President, and would "be a better President" than Bill Clinton. I am afraid that many of us in the US who have carefully watched and listened to Hillary do not agree. As a Democrat who wants our team to win the White House in 08, I am seriously looking for other viable candidates beyond Hillary, because her track record shows me she is clearly unqualified for the Presidency. More importantly, I don't think she has the strength of character or the honesty we want in our next President. If Obama is not the right one, we will look for others who we believe have the skills, honesty, and character that we do not find in Hillary.

audiophileguy, St. Paul , Minnesota

This is a very refreshing perspective. Too bad it takes someone from abroad to remind the American lieberal media that their latest darling has no clothes. Further, such early adulation is often a harbinger of failure in politics. Six months from now, Obama will be seen as a flash in the pan; perhaps even overly ambitious. Which is a shame because he appears to have real potential as a leader. But Senators are representatives, not executives. Obama needs more experience before anyone should take him seriously. In the nonce, anyone is probably better than Bush.

Jim Dexter, Taylorsville, Utah, USA

Sir:
It's far too early to tell who will be nominated by either party. But after eight years of being run by people who despise the constitution, though, it would be refreshing to have a constitutional law professor in the white house. In that sense, he is well qualified. We've definitely elected worse.

Michele Rasor, Brighton, Michigan

Mr Wright:
In 1979 Ronald Reagan had served two terms as Governor of California, a state with a population larger than most states in the EU and with a GDP that would rank it among the ten largest economies in the world were it a country. He had served as president of a labor union (Screen Actors Guild) and had been involved in national politics since the 50's when he fought Communist infiltration of labor unions and McCarthyism. He had spent years crisscrossing the United States as a spokesman for GE and had been a serious Presidential contender in 1976, almost taking the nomination away from Gerald Ford. He brought a record of decades of service, thought, and actions as a candidate.
As with most Englishman, you think you know the United States, but you don't.
I have met Ronald Reagan and I assure you, Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan.
Mr Hames, you are so "spot on."

PKCasimir, Arlington, USA/Virginia

The article overstates the value of experience. This lot currently in office do have a lot of experience, and we all see how well they are doing. If Obama is not qualified, I suppose 99.9% of the citizenry are not. How elitist! You may want to acquaint yourself with the experience the revered Abraham Lincoln had. In fact, Obama's experience is broadly comparable to the expereince of current president Bush. The idea of a president who single-handledly performs the functions of the executive is a fable. Any president will surround himself with the experience and gravitas the office of the president requires. Too bad V.P. Cheny is not on offer; he sure had a lot of experience!

RS, St. Louis, Missouri USA

I lost any faith I had in predicting the outcome of American elections after George W. Bush was reelected in 2004 and the feckless mayor of New Orleans was reelected after his grossly negligent performance in connection with Hurricane Katrina. I wouldn't write off Senator Obama so soon. Lots can happen between now and the vote-casting in Iowa, New Hampshire etc. Senator Clinton is not likely to stumble, but stranger things have happened. From what I've seen so far, Senator Obama (and his wife) seem to be serious, substantive, and engaging. Notwithstanding the Clintons' huge financial resources, this may be a real horserace. The first horse out of the gate isn't necessarily the first to cross the finish line.

P. Bosley Slogthrop, Saukville, Wisconsin USA

I agree that Obama is not qualified to be President, but neither is Hilary C. The Dems are woefully short of qualified leaders as witnessed in the past two elections, and the next one promises more of the same. The other party is also lacking able candidates although their experiencce levels are certainly more attractive than the Dems. Two years ago McCain would have got my vote, but now, after watching him "fence-squat" and change positions on an almost regular basis, he is not a LEADER.
Which raises the question - where are the LEADERS? It seems that the days of Roosevelts, Churchills, Trumans and even Eisenhowers are now unobtainable, as evdenced by the current "cowboy" and the host of completely unqualified wannabees. Wake up America, ignore the advertising hype that accompanies the current bunch of hopefuls and get back to leadership basics. If you don't the country will continue on a rapid downward slide with every chance of becoming another banana republic.

Ala Freeman, Venice, Florida

I fear that Tim Hames may have to down a bottle of tabasco a second time. Your correspondent from Madison WI is absolutely right. A lack of experience of the Beltway or international affairs has not stopped previous candidates winning the nomination and, thereafter, the Presidency. Governor W J Clinton is one recent example, along with Governors J Carter and R Reagan. What will kill of a nominee is a lack of likeability. Apart from at least some of her nearest and dearest, who ever liked Hilary RC?

G Campbell, Brighton, UK

Good heavens, after George W. Bush, does Mr. Hames seriously think Americans elect their presidents on experience and gravitas? It's true that after the disaster of Bush, we might be a bit more wary but it's rather like betting on a drunk who we are certain will surely reform after reviewing the ruin his actions brought on. Maybe we've hit bottom; maybe we have another binge in us. I, too, think Obama is too inexperienced and too vague. But I thought and think Reagon was an airhead and Americans still like him.

Joseph G. Anthony, Lexington, Kentucky

Here's my own Tabasco prediction: even if she is miles ahead of Obama in the polls and enjoys huge advantages in terms of experience, connections and money, Mrs. Clinton probably won't be the nominee either. At the end of the day, Democrats tend to make the safe choice: Mondale over Hart, Dukakis over Jackson, Kerry over Dean. Obama appeals to liberals but is probably too exotic for most voters, while Mrs. Clinton is a woman, which upsets traditionalists, and voted for the Iraq war, which enfuriates her party's activists. So say hello to... former senator John Edwards, a white male Christian Southerner who has repudiated his Iraq vote and called for an immediate troop withdrawal, knowing that the Iraq war will likely still be raging come November 2008. That's going to look mighty wise in retrospect.

Tariq, Toronto, Canada

Bush was spectacularly underqualified to be President. And he's been a spectacularly underqualified president. I think Obama is a bit light on experience, but smart enough to figure it out.

Hal, Iowa City, Iowa

Right on Mr Hames. I thoroughly enjoyed your article. Charisma is not enough to run a country. The election is not till next year and I believe that most of the silent majority of Americans when the time comes will vote with commonsense for their next President and will not be swayed by someone whose books one has to read to find out details of his position. Talk is cheap so is charisma. .

Elaine, Canberra, Australia

considering that the current leader of the free world can not yet pronounce "nuclear" after 8 years in office, Barack would be a trophy president for US.

what he offers is freshness, hope, intelligence and compassion - and the outsider perspective - something an insider like you will not get - sometimes all a president can offer is inspiration, the policy wonks and bureaucrats can take care of the rest. He can set the tone and internationally he can do more to create goodwill for USA than anyone else -America and the world needs a fresh start.

Just visit his website and listen to him speak and watch his wife speak - glory hallelujah!

Nadine Roy, Montreal, Canada

"Kimba, Paris" has put his finger precisely on why this article is nonsense. Out of 43 US presidents, you can select any number to support your contention that the office favors the smartest, dumbest, oldest, youngest, shortest, or tallest candidate. But the truth is that the winner will be determined by a combination of individual merit and historical coincidence. It may be that the cultural stars are aligning for Barack Obama, and he may be smart enough to exploit the moment.

David Mesko, Arlington, VA

To Kimba in Paris. I assume the novice your speaking of is Mr. Bush, he ran the state of Texas that probably has a higher GDP than all of France, especially in light of the fact the French don't like working too much, but do like the idea of the government to take care of all aspects of their lives. He was also part owner of the Texas Rangers baseball club and also had oil ownerships' ( not unusual in Texas).
In regards' to Mr. Obama, his half brother Roy is a practicing Muslim, getting elected in
these days', in this country with this much baggage, would be a bit of a stretch. A mere
25 mos. in the senate hardly qualifies' you for president. Just because i can drive a car does not mean i can run General Motors.

Don B., Chicago, U.S.A.

Why are the journilist not talking about the religion of Barack Obama. Did we not hear of his Muslim leanings from the internet? Unless the Democratcs come up with a person to run for president, they stand to loose the Whitehouse to the Republicians again.

Jerry K. Jaqueway, Schoharie, NY

The American voter is profoundly unsophisticated. With all the hype Obama has already received and is sure to receive in the future he may yet receive the Democratic nomination. Howard Dean wanted to be a president who would actually have the interests of the middle class in mind but his candidacy was sabotaged by the political establishment with help of the mainstream media- the "scream" that ended his chances was signicantly enhanced in the clip that was replayed over and over to the derisive comments of the mainstream news readers. The American voter simply prefers hype over sustance.

Mike L., Columbus, Ohio, USA

With your head so far up your fundament, you must be smelling that tobasco. The Dems started off with a one-hundred hour agenda, which they polished off in less than half that time. Republicans are now trying to make political hay from the Sgt. at Arms request for an aircraft capable of flying to California, which Speaker Pelosi parried by offering to fly commercial. Here in America, people rate the congress as much improved by the latest polls. I cannot say I would or would not vote for Obama, however, with your track record, I sincerely doubt your opinion would carry any weight at all.

M. Pilkington, Davenport, Iowa, USA

While I agree that Obama is ill prepared to be the next president of my country, I hardly think that a carpetbagger like Clinton is in a favorable position. As has been commented, she is loathed by a good number of the small portion of the country that votes. And as part of that minority, I find her positioning and quest for ultimate power a detestable example of everything that has gone wrong in the United States.

Robert Lyons, Royal Oak, Michigan

If Obama has any chance at all, it's because he's a blank slate-- unknown, but charming, as Gov Bill Clinton was when he first ran. We don't unusually elect sitting senators, because it's too hard for them to hide where they stand on national issues-- not a problem for Obama! Hillary is hated too intensely, and most of us are ready for a break from Bush-Clinton-Clinton-Bush-Bush presidential ping-pong.

Kathleen Ackerman, Denville, NJ USA

There is nothing wrong in having an African-american president in USA but I think the nation has still to shake off its prejudice against certain races.

Manohar, leicester,

Hilary Clinton was given healthcare to resolve and made a complete screw-up, almost totally down to her own incompetence.

She is a cynical Washington machine politician.

Obama at least suggests something different, a little better, a new John Kennedy maybe who can take the stench of Washington away for a while. Of course he will never win, red state america and the good ole boys will make sure of that. The Dems know that too, and will not commit electoral suicide by electing him as Presidential candidate.

Neil Murphy, cromer, uk

No one knows what the future holds for presidential elections in 2008 but Tim Hames' analysis of Obama's candidacy is terribly flawed. It's flawed mainly on the grounds that it is resorting too much to historial precedence on such matters. Perhaps, America has come to a point to change history (as it has on several occasssions) and that seems to be missing element in the analysis. I hope Mr. Hames' finds the big bottle of Tabasco handy, if he he proven wrong!

Saurabh Sircar, Philadelphia, USA

You are so right. Maybe Obama will be a good candidate in a few years, but certainly not now. At this point it's like putting an office manager in a CEO position, just too large a leap.

I don't understand why people aren't embarrassed to support a freshman senator for president. Their judgement clearly could use substantial improvement if they think that a young, untested and unscarred politician could fill the seat in the White House.

Lily Downing, Forest Hills, New York

I think that understand the author of this articles problem with B Obama. Regarding his policies, I don't what they are. He gives no strategy of with drawing troops from Iraq and stabilsing the Region. However, what is Clinton plan? I do not think this is beyond either candid to do. I feel that we do need another President in the US, but we need one now, not later. The US needs another figure head because their present/ spokes man has lost all his credibility. They need a new spokesman whether it be Democrate or Republican. Both Democrates and Republican need to do something now.
Lastly there is too much of a cult of personality in the Western World. The western world was never built on the Cult of Personalities it was always built on great minds. Our leaders, need to have the greatest logical minds around to solve the current problems we have.

krishna, Leeds, UK

Donovan Wright of Reading implying Ronald Reagan compares with this Obama guy is quite the most absurd thing in these debate. Come on go back and check your facts. Reagan was a candidate for his party's nomination a couple of times (1968 and 1976) before he eventually won the nomination in 1980 and then the presidency. He was also a former Governor of California (1967-1975) and the oldest President on inauguration. By 1979 Reagan was a hugely experienced and well tested politician. There's no comparison with Obama.

Of course compared with the current incumbent, the rest of the world might think anyone would be better - but is that really so?

I think a small wager on this guy Obama not making it all the way, would be quite a safe investment.

That the next President will still be a Republican would be more of a gamble but not incredibly so.

Occam, Solihull, UK

Mr. Obama and the Democrats have floated the idea; could a African-American male get votes? Of course, he can. I would lay odds that the whole program is designed to prove or disprove his running as the Vice Presidential candidate.

Bill, Ossining, New York

You are wrong again on this one. Obama will be President over the next 10 years. He might have had publicity but he hadn't declared officicially and was not really campaigning. Now he is earnest, it is very early days, lots of time for the public to get tired of Mrs Clinton and all the others who are so much more 'competent' than he is. We live in a different world now, the world of the celebrity, the cause celebre. My prediction is that he will be Clinton's vice president which would immediately strengthen both their appeal make them unstoppable and the rest, as they say, will be history. So keep your tabasco to hand, Tim, you're gonna need it!

Elaine Sihera, Maidenhead, United Kingdom

Wow, what an inpartial column...
It is clear where Tim Hames' preferences lie. Whether they make his column credible is quite a different issue.
It's not the degree of venom that counts, tim, only the (lack of) validity of your arguments.

Bill Sullivan, Bristol, UK

Sir,
I agree with you that it is easy to be caught up in the Obama hype. I have found myself guilty of it when explaining his virtues to my friends. However Obama himself has taken this into account. His speech on Saturday was littered with eveidence that he understands the message must come before the man. At this present time he is in an impossible position. He must introduce himself, the man, to the wider electorate without going over the top, falling into the trap of letting the charisma get out of control and being accused of having no weight behind him. His speech on Saturday did a pretty good job of that introduction. In the next few months I believe we will see the weight and I look forward to it.
I believe experience in politics brings you no further to the answers, just lessons on how to avoid the questions. This is a man who has bags of experience with those who matter so much yet are forgotten so often - the people. The US needs this man more than ever.

A. TOCHER, London, UK

Tim Harnes is far removed from the euporic feelings within grass roots communities regarding Senator Obama. If it is that Mr. Harnes wishes to be entertaining, he should go join a circus.

Paul, New YorK, U.S. A

Obama would be better served if he had waited another 8 years to enter the race for President -- a good idea would be for him to offer himself as V-P to Candidate Hillary Clinton or perhaps John Edwards whom I believe stands the best chance of winning the election!
Mrs Clinton carries too much baggage and is still not a popular figure in the US. Obama lacks relevant experience and the other candidates have tried before and lost the nomination. Unfortunately Al Gore has also lost credibility with voters, despite the way in which he lost the election in 2001!

Chips Westwood, Sarlat La Caneda, France

Time to get yourself a decent hat, Tim. Something tasty. Firstly, the one thing that you're missing is that there is an overwhelming sea change with regard to the war in Iraq. Hilary voted for it and has tapdanced around the central issue of why. She has no central policy tenets and is gripped by political operatives that are steering according to focus group. One of Obama's strengths is that he's not being handled in a similar fashion, and some consider him to be largely untouched by the SIGs and PACs that litter the day to day portfolio of most senators.
Obama's rallying speech before the midterms was a rousing call to energy independence, correctly pointing out that the first nation to achieve it would dominate the markets from technological spillover.
No, the real impediment to those front runners is that they're not Christian, Male or White enough for a small 'c' conservative nation. Edwards is promising, although Mike Grevil is the outside favourite.

James, Rugeley, UK

You say 'Democrats have already been so incompetent and incoherent' without offering any evidence of this. They've passed important legislation to make college more affordable, raise the minium wage and they've begun to properly scrutinize the war in Iraq, they've done more good in their first 100hrs than the Republicans did in the last 2yrs. If the current Democratic congress can be described as incompetent, then i wonder whether there are adequate words to describe the previous one.

As for the question of experience, as Sen. Obama himself has said Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld had the best resumees in Washington. Abraham Lincoln had very little experience that didn't stop him being a great President.

You dismiss Obama's ability to connect with people, his vision and hope for America as charisma. I'm not personally backing Obama, but America could do far worse.

James , Leeds,

Presidential campaigns need not be viewed like a horse race.
Senator Obama's participation may seen as shaping the nature of the overall campaign as well as in terms of its outcome.

David Owen, Pemberton BC, Canada

I think you all will be pleasantly surprised with Obama. The direction this country has gone in the past decade is less than comforting in my opinion. Inexperienced in caparison to some? I will not argue that point, however a fresh approach to the issues this nation faces along with the intelligence to implement such changes are 2 things that I am optimistic about after listening to what he has to say and what he has written.

I also believe that he has a quality that is needed in this country right now as well. I believe that he is of good character. Like has already been stated numerous times he is not as seasoned as his opponents (most anyway), but I am not nor have I ever been a big supporter of the "he's put in the time so he should get the job" theory regardless of the position. If that’s the worse they have to say about him then its of no concern to me.

Shaun , New Paris, Ohio

'a risible figure to aspire to inherit George Washington’s mantle'? OK, but surely even someone as obtuse as Tim Hames would be more than qualified to inherit George Bush's mantle.

Gabriel Casey, Belfast, Northern Ireland

The idea that Obama is unqualified for the role is absolutely laughable given the post's current incumbent. Not that Bush's ineptitude should lower the bar for what is expected, but his appalling regime has surely increased desire in the US for a president with principles. It is Obama's fresh-faced, unsullied nous that makes him the perfect antidote after years of 'favours for the boys'. A few years of Senate experience won't teach him not to put his tennis buddy in charge of FEMA. he knows that already.

B Brady, london,

I agree with you that Al Gore was( and hopefully is ) a superb candidate. I really respect his contribution to environment protection

Zhimeng Wang, BeiJing, Mainland China

What an awful article, the logic that is used is so superficial. It mentions the two books which have been written outlining Obama's policies, no mention of the actual policies just that they have sold well and the an unworthy comparison to Kermit the frog, for which I feel to see the reason. Giuliani is held up to be a real candidate, yet he has no national experiance or any foreign relations experiance (the greatest need for any aspirant president). Tim Hames uses logic to try and make his case but once again turns a blind eye to the same logic, so that he can push his own political views. Its not Obama's lack of experiance that he has a problem with it is his politics.

Tom Holvey, York,

I cant think of many wonderful and useful things that
experienced presidents have given to the world or America
lately, Is it perhaps that they all follow the same old ideas and methods and ideology. Things change when you take a chance and if the Americans are afraid of change then
their Nation has grown old way before its time.

saro gergosian, Manchester, UK

It's interesting how many of the leading candidates are from the US Senate. Senators do not generally perform well in presidential elections. Americans generally prefer to elect governors of states, where a candidate can show whether he can do the executive job. Don't count Gov. Bill Richardson (D NM) out this early. He had better get to raising serious money, though, unless he wants to be classed with the no-hope Kucinich.

Obama is light as ashes; HRC is devoutly hated by a non-trivial portion of the electorate; McCain has a temper that could blow at any inopportune time; Giuliani is vulnerable on personal issues. This race is wide open.

Mitch, Wakefield, Massachusetts USA

I find this emphasis as a laudable political characteristic appalling. Hitler and Idi Amin were highly charismatic personalities, but it doesn't mean that they were good leaders. There are so many other characteristics that are far more important.

Lisa, London,

Democrats have a history of early media darlings who flare out and Obama is likely to join them. However, you can hardly say he is being rediculous for running. If you're dealt an ace you play it. He and Hillary are the two with good cards showing, so they are playing them for what they are worth, but there are more to be dealt.

I agree with those who say that a lot of Democrats will look for a candidate that they think could draw more mainstream support (Hillary is severely disliked by many even moderate conservatives whether Republican or Democrat). Bill Richardson could make an interesting candidate, especially if he is able to capitalize on his Hispanic origins and draw significant support from that community. No matter what his race, however, he has excellent credentials and could have huge appeal to middle of the road voters

Bill, San Francisco, USA

It's clear you are all too far away- and thus totally incapable of understanding Senator Obama's impact on U.S. politics at this time. Americans are tired of Mrs. Clinton's (and her croonies) manipulative, vicious politics of the 1960s. I am a Baby Boomer, but they have not only failed but have run out of ideas. We are tired of the same old faces- mostly from our Senate- who do and say nothing. Senator Obama represents a generational shift. An acknowledgment that the country and the world have changed. He is this generation's John F. Kennedy, without the personal foibles. He is in fact, older than JFK was when he ran for President. He can build generational and cultural bridges and repair the severe damage that has been done concerning U.S. relations with the rest of the world. Mrs. Clinton is a political hack. Always has been. She is, across the vast expanse of the U.S., the most detested politician in the U.S The military hates her. Law Enforcement hates her. Americans can see through the phoniness and ruthless political ambition. My view comes from 20 years of Washington experience.

Patricia Ravalgi, Lutz, Florida

If anything, Hillary Clinton seems even less principled than her husband. This is a real distinction because Bill Clinton probably did more to coarsen and infantalize American politics than anyone in memory. The political utility of Al Gore, John Kerry, John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton herself are understandable only in the context of a post-Bill-Clinton world. At least, however, Bill Clinton was likeable. Sister Frigidaire is not. She's probably the best thing Republicans have going for them.

Michael Grable, Silver Spring, Maryland

Sir,

Your column regarding Mr Obama's presidential candidacy is very interesting.

Did you provide a similar analysis in 1979 when Mr Ronald Reagan announced his presidential candidacy? If so I would very much like to read it.

Regards

Donovan Wright, Reading, United Kingdom

Mr. Hames. I agree with your article and feel that it is right on point regarding Obama in the White House. The Democratic party has too many candidates who want to "fix the county". All of these candidates will only cause a further split in the party and show that none of the party really knows what direction they want to take except opposite that of the Republicans because that is what the polls say they should do. Obama will get very good press, but I do believe he will exit this race. That being said, it would make the most sense to use the charisma that he has, the youth he presents of not being polluted by Washington politics and the fact he does not come off as strong or as polarizing as Clinton, to be a great Vice President. You would then have the democratic backing with the intangibles this race will focus on. One thing is for sure, this will be one of the dirtiest races in America's history and is going to show there really are no boundaries.

Matt, Philadelphia, PA, USA

There are a lot of contradictions in this article--why mock the Democrats for putting up Gore and Kerry, both of whom had long Senate records (yet lost to a novice), and then count that a long record as one of H. Clinton's primary strengths in comparison to Obama? And beyond that, as president GWB shows, a novice who has little to show but his name and had no real job before his name won him the Texas governorship, can beat more qualified candidates with long records of personal achievement and public service. There are too many contradictions in this article to make the argument credible. I am sure that the argument can be made credibly but alas this author has not done it.

Kimba, Paris,

These are (with the exception of the polling data) reasons why Obama may make a poor President. They are not reasons, however, why he would not win a nomination fight. As to the polling data, the largest percentile of those polled say they don't know enough about him to form an opinion yet - something, presumably, that may change over the next 11 months.

Will, London, GB

Aside from being superior to Mr. Obama's, Mrs. Clinton's record is undistinguished and in no wise comparable to Mr. McCain's or Mr. Giuliani's. Or that of Rep. Duncan Hunter, whose record also commands respect. Moreover, Mrs. Clinton is no more principled than her husband., unless one considers lust for power a principle. Otherwise, Mr. Hames has written an astute and wonderfully witty piece.

David Adrian, Pontiac, Michigan, USA

In the case of McCain and Giuliani, it could be argued that it was there inspiring personalities that caught the public's attention. H.C, no matter how able a politician she be - is arguably - not exactly inspiring. There's been a few democrat presidential candidates in the last decades that fit the same pattern.
It seems apparent that most notable leaders in history were able to inspire their followers. Not that this made them especially good leaders.
In a world of contradictory absurdities, spiced with the sauce of hypocrisy blended with cynicism, maybe
surrealism has a certain inspirational appeal to an electorate tired of all the double-talk.

Keith Robotham, Bengtsfors, Sweden

I have seen my share of people who are a "flash in the pan" in US politics from all levels - President of the US, all the way down to Sherrif of a county. Right now in our history, things seem to be so unpredictable. Who knows? Maybe Obama will win. However, don't misinterpret my words. I do think you really have made a valid statement. I am just saying that U.S. politicians have, on MANY an occasion, been elected to their high post, when they weren't even worthy of being the town dog catcher.

Harold Dodd, Phoenix, Az, USA

Putting Al Gore and John Kerry together is insulting. Al Gore was (and hopefully is) a supurb candidate, but the American people were duped by George Bush's promises of being surrounded by competent people, uniting the nation after Clinton, etc.

The Dems are terrified that the Repubs have already successfully demonised Hillary to the point she can't win the election, so they're desparately searching for someone else. There's plenty of good candidates though, and I agree Obama is not ready to be President.

Bill Richardson is ideal, Governor of New Mexico (executive experience), former UN Ambassador (foreign policy experience), former Secretary of Energy (Administration experience). He's even better qualified than Hillary !!

Jonathan, Sydney, Australia,

Perhaps the democrats will come to their senses and drag Al Gore into the race. He won the popular vote his last time out .A Gore/ Obama ticket will chill the blood of the GOP. Gore has a recent nomination for a Nobel Prize and an Oscar. The press has defamed him in the past and is feeling guilty about it so the "swift boaters" will have trouble getting lies and half truths spread. A Gore/Obama ticket might buy sixteen years of White House control.

Carlyle Perry, Boynton Beach, USA Florida

Mr Hames, the fact that you are writing about the US is no excuse for the illiterate "...who may have made...". Mr Bradley might have made a good president, and your article might have been a joy to read, if only...

Rosemary, Germany,

I agree with most of what you say but we should give him a chance to 'step up to the plate', as the Americans would say. Let his wooly pronouncements on abolishing global poverty, building a better america etc etc be backed up by sound policies and money to pay for them.
Like you, I feel that Obama's star will fade away as quickly as it has risen once he is put on spot.

anil desai, gerrards cross, UK

2008 will break the mould of presidential elections in some ways. Since Reconstruction only Jack Kennedy has been elected directly from the Senate to the Presidency.

Next year the real candidates on the Rep side (according to the betting exchanges) are McCain and Guilani and Clinton and Obama on the Dem side. Three of the four are in the Senate; only Guilani is outside.

There is a dilemma here: either we will get the first Italian American president, the first female, the first black or the oldest person elected the first time to the office. None stand out; all have massive negatives but the smart money has to be on a Democrat year and Hilary, although the concept of a dynastic presidency has a ring of North Korea rather than a Jeffersonian democracy about it.

William Thomson, Guildford, Surrey

Governors are favored precisely because they have evaded Washington, a fact which has not struck many as "profoundly disturbing". Obama's rookie senate engagement is balanced by his deep intelligence and ease with most any issue. Bush entered the White House profoundly less knowledgeable about international and domestic concerns than Obama will be. Also, Obama shares little in common stylistically (a crucial factor) with Dean. Dean was a gruff, mirthless and frosty policy wonk: Obama can charm the pants off him. Remember, one of the inexplicable reasons for Bush's once deeper support was his capacity to make people think he would be a good fella to have a beer with. Sad, but true. Obama has got a good shot, if he can bring in the cash.

T manley, Madison, USA

Mr. Hames, You might be right, but this race ain't over yet- it's barely begun. As a white middle class American, I speak for a lot of us when I say Mrs. Clinton leaves us cold. True, we do tend to vote for the charismatic newcomer- Jimmy Carter won on a smile. But I'll bet you Mr. Obama goes a lot farther than we expect. Our country is ready for change again- big change. If I'm wrong, I'll take the tabasco torture. But then I've been putting it on my beans and rice all my life.

Laurence Budd, Fort collins, USA

You're probably right that, for some inexplicable reason known only to the en-masse democrat portion of the US electorate, Hilary will be selected in the primaries (although 12 months is a long time in politics). But why is President Obama such a "surreal idea"? Look at what they were saying about "Ahnold" in California a few years ago.

Gaz, Pittsburgh, PA, USA

Reading between Mr. Hames lines, I'd say Mr. Obama's got him scared spitless.

Reich Winger, Redlands, California

Ok, so here we have a politican who apparently has no "baggage" to deal with, is a man who wants to UNITE the USA and appeal to white voters as well as black, which is why he doesn't harp on about being African American, he is a family man, has charisma and charm, and it is obviously the time to start knocking him. There was Rod Liddle in the SundayTimes yesterday, and now Tim Hames. You are supposed to be educated people but you just don't get it.
All right Hilary has experience of living in The White House -so did George Bush Jr and look at the state of things today.
I am not American and I am not black but this man appeals to me more than any of the other candidates all put together. After the disaster of G Bush Jr isn't it time to forget the 'experience' claims and just bite the bullet and go for someone new and fresh?

Vonny, chesterfield,

It's good to hear that people have opinions on things they know nothing about. Obama is someone who is new and seems fresh and is able to reach out to those have different beliefs than him. In the U.S. Democratic primary, Obama is in the top tier of candidates because he offers something beyond charisma. He offers the possibility that the U.S. people will have a president who has beliefs similar to them and the opportunity to have a president that is not influenced directly by special interests and who understands how to balance the needs of the working, middle and upper classes and business (instead of playing as if the government is only to represent the rich elite and corporate interests).

Chris D, Chicago, Illinois, USA

Obama has more national political experience than the current occupant of the White House when he took occupancy of it. He also has more national political experience than the former Pres. Lincoln had when he took occupancy. What he does not have is an obvious, cynical, artificial, and suspect attitude that all other contenders display.

Marzo in LV, Henderson, NV

Please remind us again of the searing intellect and vast experience that the current incumbent brought to the Whitehouse. Perhaps also remind us of how the collective wisdom and worldly experience of ‘team’ Bush is winning the war in Iraq or improving the US economy or turning around the environment or doing anything that is not wholly fundamentalist and fanatical.

Moreover I’m not sure how you define ridiculous. I guess it wouldn’t be having an actor as President?

For sure Ol Rupert must have been working those phones on Sunday. First Michael Howard and now the Times goes on the attack. I'm beginning to like Obama more by the day.

Ian, Toronto, Canada

I can't wait to see your response to Obama's comments to Australia. It is clear from his taunting of Mr. Howards lack of troops in Iraq, that Obama does not even know what the population of that small country is. I suspect the population of Illinois, his home town, has more people than all of Australia. He is not ready for the presidency, nor does he have ANY diplomacy. He has been a candidate for one day and already upsetting our friends and allies.

Beth, Santa Monica, CA

Mr Smith, get your facts right! Obama spent just 4 yrs of his life in Indonesia and was in fact educated for the better part of his life in the US, including the respectable Havard where he proudly presided over the Havard Law Review. And even if he was educated in Indonesia, why would any well-informed not vote for him if they believed he was the right guy. Bear in mind that he schooled in Jakarta which is the intellectual capital of Indonesia, the equivalent of Oxford or Cambridge in the UK.
Living in a christian country bears little nothing to your faith, belief or character.The UK which was founded on christian principles now has the worst rate of drunkenness, teenage pregnancy and yobbo deliquents to mention a few in Europe - contrary to christian principles. The same would apply to Obama not having muslim beliefs just because he schooled in Indonesia as a child. As a matter of fact, he humbly dedicated substantial time in his life to assist churches in Chicago with the poor.

Sam Harbage, London, UK

Congratulations on missing the substance of Obama's message and what it would mean to the world to have this man directing the energies of our country. Every country's status would be raised, every individual's point-of-view more highly valued, in an instant with Obama's ascendancy. He has addressed the most divisive topics in American politics with eloquence, honesty, and passion. Save your contrarian drivel for a man or women who merits it.

Bryan Dwyer, Washington, DC, USA

At last a voice of reason!

So Mr Obama is young and charming and highly educated;so was President Kennedy,the same Harvard graduate who had rings run around him by Soviet Premier (and wily peasant) Nikita Khrushchev.

What the US,and the world needs, is a steady pair of hands, some experience, to steer her through the difficult times ahead.

Let's keep the young idealistic charismatic types where they belong, on the West Wing.

Ashley, London, United Kingdom

Dear God. A foreign columnist who utters thoughts about the US other than "Bush is dumb, ha-ha-ha". Your observations about Hussein Obama are well thought out and elegantly stated. I shall add you to my daily blog stable. I know that will make you happy.

Jack Lipkins, Sands Point, New York, USA

Oh my goodness. I think Mr. Hames is going to regret going out on a limb. But since he's already set the tone, I'll say right now: Hillary Clinton is unelectable. Republicans simply won't vote for her, while not even Democrats can get excited by her candidature, whatever the polls might say. In fact, Obama is probably delighted to learn that Hillary is currently ahead of him in the polls. Much better, strategically and psychologically, to overtake your more experienced opponent in the home straight.

Sharkey, Miami Beach, USA

The other point is that he is completely unelectable. The first black (or female for that matter) president is bound to be a Republican. Because a Rep. minority candidate will attract votes from well-meaning liberal Democrats who want to give minorities a chance, whereas you won't find Republicans doing the same for Democrat minority candidates.

And anyway - who in their right minds believes the Republican heartlands would vote for a man named Obama, educated in a Muslim country (Indonesia)?

Jamie Smith, Peterborough, UK

The wishy-washy liberals in the US are in love with a non-entity full of rhetoric and inspiration with nothing to show to claim the mantle of "leader of the free world. Eight years as state senator hardly qualifies one to lead the US. While I am black and pleased to see a black politician succeed, I want to see one who is seasoned and prepared. While many speak about Hillary's inability to win, no one has given much thought to whether someone with no experience in the complexities of the world, can. In 1988, when I was a liberal, I watched as the Republicans savaged Michael Dukakis; now, 20 years later, the liberals, who have learnt nothing from the tactics of Rove et al, are in love with someone who lacks the spine or wherewithal to stand up to an expected Republican onslaught. It is pathetic were it not so tragic. But to the liberals go the will to destroy themselves.

Carlyle, Stoney Ground, Anguilla

Obviously these past writers, with the exception to Richard, are here to malign Sen. Obama. Americans are so built up on this false pretense that "Experience is best." Who cares about a record? If he has knowledge then he is ok. If you really would like to talk experience then call up a veteran who has been in a couple wars, then ask them to be YOUR president. I didn't think so.

As Mick's comments: He isn't completely black? Ok I give you that but if it were 1945 he wouldn't be able to drink out of the white fountain now would he? No, what you're saying is that they would say "Oh, well he is not all black, so we will bring him with us and make friends with him!" Wow. You're completely biased.

Chris, Chanhassen, Minnesota

You are spot on!

Fran Simmonds, Sherman Oaks, CA

Mr. Sucre,

Rallies are not a panel discussion on a set number of issues. They are for supporters. They generally are to rouse supporters to help out in a candidate's campaign. I attended the rally and I was roused and left impressed. This is only the beginning of his campaign and there were between 8,000 to 10,000 in attendance (and the rally was put together in the last few days; I found out about it on Thursday, 8 February and called an elected official's official's office that day and while someone knew about it, the passes were not in the office until Friday).

Also, the rally was held at the University of Illinois AT Chicago. This is a common title for the campus. It was called the University of Illinois at Chicago Circle from approximately the 1970s to 1982.

Chris D, Chicago, Illinois, USA

I am surprised, Tim, that you rate Mrs Clinton's record as superior to Barack Obama's. His record in elective office is certainly longer, and he has experience at both the state and Federal levels. She has been famous for longer, but became famous when she was unemployed and purely for being married to her husband.

Quentin Langley, Woking, UK

The heralding of Barack Obama as possibly the first Black President is encouraging, yet the constant media hype is disturbing. Should the reins of the most powerful country on the planet be handed over to a relatively unproven man? The Presidence should be decided on merit, capability, credentials, and policies alone. With all the media spin, one worries that working class black people might vote for him for the sole reason that he is black (though by the looks of things, he has yet to endear himself to this community). Having already voted a failure that is the War Criminal/mass murderer George Bush, the US cannot afford to elect another incompetent leader. If true, the rise of China will be all the more distinct in relation to the decline of the American Imperialistic Empire.

Pete, Cov,

Obama has the single most important quality lacking in the three candidates Tim Hames seems to be swooning over. Obama has the capacity for sound judgement that is woefully lacking in the ostensibly more experienced McCain, Clinton, and Giuliani. For all their experience, why did this trio either vote for or continue to support the most disastrous foreign policy misadventure in the history of our republic?

So much for experience, Mr.Hames. Obama trumps this lot any day.

Eric Omolo Otiende, denver, Colorado, USA

Idiotic. The entire article from top to bottom.

I have no plans to vote for Obama but you should get out of DC and get to know the American public.

David anthony, los angeles, usa/ca

George Bush has proven that experience in Washington is not a prerequisite for the presidency.

Laura, Long Beach, CA,

Thank you for your opinion. I was at an Obama rally today at the University of Illinois in Chicago and his speech was entirely lacking in policy. I don't expect detailed plans this early in the race, but he has, as you say, been trumpeting his personality and charisma for too long.

Furthermore, you say that McCain, Clinton and Giuliani have better credentials than Obama. This is true, but I would invite you to read up on Gov. Bill Richardson. His credentials dwarf any other potential and declared candidate, on either party. This race is more about who can raise the most money, not about who has the better resume.

Carlos G. Sucre, Chicago, IL

Reading between Mr. Hames' lines, I would say Mr. Obama's got him scared spitless.

Reich Winger, Redlands, California

Obama will win a landslide, courtesy of an American public DESPERATE for false hope. He is the first ISNT candidate for President; he isnt going to have to defend any sort of record, he isnt associated with the war, he isnt Hillary Clinton, and he isnt completely black.

Mick Verran, Boston, Ma, USA

Thanks for one of the first "this Emperor has no clothes" stories I've seen--on either side of the Atlantic. Especially when foreign affairs and defense are central issues in 2008, as will surely be the case, I doubt whether swing voters will chose Obama over McCain or Guilianni.
And finally, the scrutiny that a Presidential candidate received is intense--and despite two books i doubt Obama has begun to experience that media vetting of his past.

Daniel, Vienna, USA/Virginia

That looks like a good bet: McCain for Prez and Giuliani for the second slot. The more intriguing question is who would play second fiddle to Mrs. Clinton. Perhaps Al Gore can be convinced?

Larry Seman, Broadview Heights, Ohio

I say don't write Obama off just yet.

With no rich daddy to help him, he still wound up being admitted to Harvard Law School on his own merits, where he became editor of Harvard Law Review. So he has plenty of intellectual horsepower. (You can't say that about most of the British cabinet, can you?)

I view the fact that he is not part of the political establishment or the security-industrial complex as a great strength.

Good luck to him

Richard , Chicago , IL