I can fire up a crowd.
I can get a mic and get on stage and tell people what they want to hear. (I've done it thousands of times, but never as a politician

)
But if I don't have the experience to pull it off, or if I don't have a plan in place, or all I am interested in is partisan rhetoric, or if I think I know everything already and aren't willing to seek out very experienced people to learn from, I am doomed to failure.
So would Barak Obama, but I do not firmly believe the American public wants someone with such little practical experience running the Executive Branch of their nation.
I vote for who will be the absolute best commander-in-chief to protect our nation from enemies--foreign & domestic FIRST (defence & foreign policy). If a president can't be the cornerstone to defend his/her nation's people, then who is going to even care about the economy, education, energy, etc.
Ladies & gentlemen of the forum...I am 47 years old and this is the second time in my life I will cast a vote during wartime.
What is more importaint than having a strong experienced commander-in-chief in time of war?
And for the folks yapping on and on about Ron Paul--he's a decent guy, but face it---he did NOT get the nomination---by a longshot. Face it, any vote for Ron Paul (no matter how well intentioned, because he doesn't have an ice cube's chance to win) is a vote for Barak Obama. If you feel I am wrong, please read your history. Every third party candidate handed the election away to someone else.
ROX