Originally Posted by Misty8723
Speaking for myself, it's partly because I don't see much substance with Palin whereas I do with Obama. I've had die-hard Republicans tell me they like her, but also don't see much substance.
Really? She has to have some substance; she's run real campaigns against serious candidates and gotten elected time after time in a state where, had she been a mess-up, everyone would have know about it. I don't like any number of things about her, but to call her "without much substance" is to do exactly what I was talking about earlier: Refusing to reasonably and rationally consider the facts about the other party and refusing to see them on your own party.
Obama, on the other hand, has only had one serious campaign opponent until he ran against Hillary Clinton, and that opponent was seriously damaged close to the end of the campaign by divorce papers that got leaked to the press. All his campaigns before that ended up with his opponents withdrawing or being eliminated by challenges to their pre-election petitions.
However, all of that is really moot, because Obama is, first of all, not running against Palin, and secondly, is as ready as anyone who meets the basic requirements of the office. Everyone learns on the job; that's why the CIA and FBI start giving the candidates briefings once their conventions are over. They don't want them either harming ongoing negotiations and operations or making statements that cause the current leadership to be unable to do their job.
After all...how many science fiction books and movies are there on the subject of a President taking office ignorant of the facts as they are? Can you say, "Independence Day?" How about the embarrassing fact that Truman didn't know about the atomic bomb until after he took over from FDR?