Did you ever notice that, in order to fulfill their dreams of governing their fellow Americans from Washington D.C., political candidates do their best to convince the masses that actually having done exactly that is a terrible trait to have as a candidate and that they would never descend to such a level themselves? Not until they are elected, of course. And once elected and having gone through the fire of experience, they tout their incumbent status, along with the assertion that nothing can substitute for on the job experience! Love them politicians, don't you?
Well, truth be told, I am one of those in favor of candidates who haven't been there, haven't done that. The trick is to find a viable one that really and truly hasn't. Democrat Obama is running as such an entity, even though he is a United States Senator in Washington D.C. However, if one pays attention to some of the outlandish things he says and promises to do, it quickly becomes apparent that he really does intend to go about the business of governing in an unorthodox manner. Is that a good thing, or a bad thing? It's a little of both. When reading his assertions and ideas, the first thought that often comes to my mind is "that won't work, because...," after which I proceed to wonder why he doesn't realize that. But in fact, he MUST realize it, and he is still attempting to change the ways of the world in spite of that realization and in spite of the likelihood of failure.
That is what is commonly referred to as "revolutionary thinking," and it is exactly what people who present themselves as "Washington outsiders" should engage in. When more "practical" or "experienced" players attack the idea or the stance, fine; that is exactly what experienced people should and will do. And it's exactly why those people will never drive any change to the status quo. They know that it would likely be a wasted effort to attempt something other than what has always been done. They know that the senior members won't support it, because the party leadership won't support it, because the lobbyists and money and other influences that truly direct the government won't support it. Now these ideas may be naive, they may be unrealistic or idealistic - they may even be dangerous. But that is what the entire apparatus of the 3-branched United States government is in place for, to cull the harmful and implement the useful, provided that individual rights and liberties are not harmed in the process.
I cannot comment on whether or not I would support Obama, because I don't know yet. I don't know if he'll pull out a crazy platform that I can't get behind, and I don't know if a Republican will trumpet something I care about more deeply. I believe the War will define the President and not the other way around, so it's not much of a factor for me either way - it will end when it ends, no matter who threatens to end it immediately or prolong it indefinitely. I do know that I've always voted for Republicans, but that I've also had fires lit by outsiders of all parties, from Bill Clinton of Arkansas to Ross Perot of EDS to George Bush II with his MBA and business ownership experience instead of a law degree and lawmaking/special interest-beholden background. Bill and George quickly succumbed to the machinery, and perhaps Obama or anyone else would, too. I know I'll never lose hope though, and the more Obamas or Perots to choose from, the better.