Redstate

Obama may be the best of the Dems, I am pretty sure he is both a free trader and a free markets kind of guy (at least thats what I heard on Kudlow last night). Social issues are a whole other ballgame, but what Dem candidate is gonna agree with us here on those anyways.

as his state-senate voting record and current policy statements indicate.

And who says being "free trade" is a plus? I've had enough of the destruction of America's manufacturing base.

manufacturing, technology did. When it became possible for anyone in the world to make a product due to technology and logistical improvements that made it cheap to ship these products anywhere, American manufacturing was in trouble.

America loves beauty queens. America votes for beauty queens. To your point, I think it's far from clear that he is enjoying success with Democrats per se (and it's far too early to know that for sure anyway). If I had to guess, I'd say that the media is just star-struck with him, and celebrity breeds continued media success. I'd also guess that he scares the seniors in the Democratic Party out of their wits. Because he doesn't owe them anything.

Rosie O'Donnell is going to rip him?
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.

After having Al stick his tongue down Tipper's throat in 2000 to swoon the female Sex in the City vote, I dare not think what they may have Obama do to win over the Desperate Housewives vote. They're going to have to up the anti after John and John's metro-sexual ploy flopped.

Let's ignore for the moment that you're comparing the credentials of a man who was the Governor of the 3rd largest state in the Union for 6-years with a man who 3-years ago was arguing about the placement of traffic lights in Calumet City (no, not that precisely, but along those lines).

Let's ignore that this piece, while probably not particularly generous to OBAMA™, is hardly an exercise in character assassination.

Let's ignore that this is all likely nothing more than the run-up to the eventual announcement of the dream ticket of St. Hillary and The Rock Star.

But let's get to the meat of the matter: we've known for quite some time that Obama™ is likely to declare on Oprah. Keep up.

My only surprise is that he didn't consider declaring on The View. I wonder if it's a racial thing.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

Let's ignore for the moment that you're comparing the credentials of a man who was the Governor of the 3rd largest state in the Union for 6-years with a man who 3-years ago was arguing about the placement of traffic lights in Calumet City (no, not that precisely, but along those lines).

Where did I make a qualitative comparison between the two? I believe I specifically referred to Democrats who dismissed Bush as a lightweight in 1999 and 2000.

I have never seen a Presidential election where resumes mattered one whit. It certainly didn't matter in 2000 when Al Gore had a VASTLY better "resume".

Let's ignore that this piece, while probably not particularly generous to OBAMA™, is hardly an exercise in character assassination.

Of course it is. You guys have been hammering the "Obama is an empty suit" meme for some time now.

But let's get to the meat of the matter: we've known for quite some time that Obama™ is likely to declare on Oprah. Keep up.

Not likely. I'll give you a hint. The location will be a relatively small town in Illinois.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Where did I make a qualitative comparison between the two? I believe I specifically referred to Democrats who dismissed Bush as a lightweight in 1999 and 2000.

Look, Obama is a resume lightweight. His credentials are as thin as they get. Bush, for all his faults, looks like a governmental lifer in comparison. So dragging 1999-2000 into this is completely nutty.

None of this means he's not qualified, or cannot win, by the way. Believe me, I'm living with the reign of Governor InkBlot (D-MA) right now - a man whose qualifications for executive office were nil and his stated policies were a never ending stream of pablum. And he won 56% of the vote in a 2.5-way race.

So trust me, though I believe Obama to be the emptiest of empty suits, I will be the last person on earth who takes him lightly.

Of course it is. You guys have been hammering the "Obama is an empty suit" meme for some time now.

So calling an empty suit an empty suit is now character assassination? This from the side of the aisle that brought us the October Surprise and the 11th-hour, 59th-minute 27-year old DUI arrest? Pfft.

Not likely. I'll give you a hint. The location will be a relatively small town in Illinois.

Ah, got it. Cute. Thanks.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

Look, Obama is a resume lightweight. His credentials are as thin as they get. Bush, for all his faults, looks like a governmental lifer in comparison. So dragging 1999-2000 into this is completely nutty.

Obama has more time in government. And we both know that the Texas executive branch is a largely powerless structure. Before Bush's 6 years as Governor he had no previous political experience as an elected official. So 6 years as a mostly vestigal governor versus 4 years as a Federal Senator doesn't seem all that much different to me.

But of course my point WASN'T that the two are comparable in a qualitative sense. My point was that the dismissive attitude that Democrats had toward Bush in 1999 and 2000 seems very similar to the dismissive attitude that Republicans have of Obama now. If anything the Democrats were even MORE dismissive as they thought McCain was the real threat.

So trust me, though I believe Obama to be the emptiest of empty suits, I will be the last person on earth who takes him lightly.

So what makes him an empty suit? I hear the charge but I rarely hear the explanation. If you want to call his resume light I can understand that. But I just don't get the empty suit charge. I just don't get it. Perhaps I just a different definition of empty suit than you guys.

So calling an empty suit an empty suit is now character assassination? This from the side of the aisle that brought us the October Surprise and the 11th-hour, 59th-minute 27-year old DUI arrest? Pfft.

Of course it is. You are suggesting that he has no substance, that he is purely form with no depth. Just because the Democrats engage in cheap character assassination doesn't mean this ISN'T the same thing.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

He speaks in platitudes -- speaking and writing eloquently while artfully avoiding saying much of anything.

Some pundit recently compared him to Ronald Reagan -- because of his magnetism, charisma, etc. As a Reagan fan, I'm offended by that. Disarming as it was, it wasn't Reagan's charm that made him into what he became...it was his moral and ideological clarity.

Tell me in 6 words or less what Barack Obama's governing philosophy is. Not easy to do. Now tell me in 6 words or less what Reagan's was. Whether you agree with Reagan's philosophies or not, this isn't hard to do. And it wasn't hard to do any of the times he was running for president.

Yes, he was charming -- but he expressed a very clear philsophy about smaller government and the necessity to defeat Soviet communism.

The sense I get from Barack is merely that he wants to be agreeable -- not too offensive to anybody. I suppose time will tell us whether or not that's an effective political strategy. I'm not sure it ends up working once you start hatching out a clear and concise platform. You're going to have to take positions that some significant number of people aren't going to like.

I think the reason GWB c. 1999 should've been taken more seriously has nothing to do with him or how he spoke, etc. (because, obviously, his speaking ability has never been his strong point). It's because he was a popular governor of a large state, his name was Bush, and the presumptive Democratic nominee wasn't exactly thrilling.

I don't think much of Hillary Clinton. But I could never accuse her of being milquetoast, a wallflower, or an empty suit. She's full of substance -- just misguided substance, IMO. Her problem, generally, is that she's not likeable. Obama, on the other hand, is very likeable...but there just doesn't seem to be much there there.

Flyerhawk, we know (because you've said so) that you support Obama for President because he inspires you. There's something about the words he uses that makes you think some (unspecified) good things will happen if he becomes President. Things like "we'll come together as a nation," "America is at one of those junctures of history when there is receptivity to a new point of view," and "America is ready for an end to bitter, divisive politics." These statements and others address the dim sense that something is wrong with our country. You're entirely welcome to vote for President on this basis. (A lot of people did the same in 1976.)

Obama, unlike George W. Bush, has no significant management experience, in or out of government. My logical expectation then is that as President he would be a beloved rhetorician and an inspiring speaker. He will propose a lot of ill-begotten legislation that will rightly be voted down in Congress. (Or worse, will be enacted and create pain and suffering for the rest of our lives.) He will preside weakly and desultorily over an administration which will be allowed to go its own way.

If he cared about my opinion, I'd tell Obama that his ideal career move will be to run an inspiring (but losing) campaign for President, and then spend the rest of his life as a celebrity, what passes in the television age for a public intellectual. Or maybe a secular Billy Graham. Or a less-disgusting version of Jesse Jackson.

But I understand completely that he inspires you. Vote as you see fit.

Thanks for the comments oozing with condescension.

And I can't say that I'm terribly surprised that you predict bad things for a Democratic Presidency.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

that you always telegraph when you're weak or uncertain in your argumentation? You either take offense (as you have here) or reply ad hominem.

I'd love to negotiate against you. (I'll avoid poker because I'm bad at it.)

By the way, I didn't make any predictions about a prospective Democratic Presidency. Just about Obama's. Don't try to confuse the issue. If Hillary were to become President, I would anticipate a highly capable and well-motivated administration that would tear the country to pieces with disastrous policies, executed competently and effectively.

first off it's always easier to argue with someone when you got home field advantage. You can play to the crowd for the cheap laugh or you can substantively respond.

I would love for you to show examples of when I respond with ad hominem.

Your tone was dismissive regarding my views on Obama. I wrote several reasons why I currently support him. One of which is that he does indeed inspire. Apparently that isn't a desirable quality in a leader anymore.

Looking back on past Presidents it doesn't seem that past executive experience is any indicator of an effective Presidency.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Your tone was dismissive regarding my views on Obama.

Dismissive, no. That's your sensitivity talking. I take with the utmost seriousness the fact that a great many people respond positively to a man with little relevant experience who is unwilling to make specific policy prescriptions. Positively enough to make him President of the United States. Unless Obama goes to great lengths to explain himself in the next almost-two years, you will be voting for a pig-in-a-poke (albeit a beautiful and inspiring one).

Past executive experience: you're confusing "effective Presidency" with a presidency that's good for America. You appear to be saying here that Obama's lack of executive experience doesn't mean he won't be effective. Perfectly true. As an inspiring public figure, he's already proven that he is highly effective. But as a man without management experience, we can also reasonably expect him to be a weak administrator of the executive branch, which has enough power over our lives to make this worth worrying about. As a man with strong leftist predilections in his legislative voting record, we can expect him to propose a direction for our country that you might be in complete sympathy with, but we certainly can't say for sure. And we know nothing about his ability to actually make anything happen. Bill Clinton was (and is) a highly inspiring guy too.

As far as inspiring leadership is concerned, so much depends on what you expect from the President of the United States. History, for what it's worth, is on your side. When given the opportunity to choose their leaders, ordinary people will generally choose the person who makes them feel good. Does that make him the right man for the job? Not necessarily.

The times have completely changed. I believe Obama's inexperience should be a major issue. The presidency is not a place for amateurs. It is the most difficult job in the world and today one where freshman mistakes could have dire consequences for the rest of the country. Democratic primary voters should look beyond Obama's image and rhetoric and ask themselves whether they trust this man as commander in chief of the armed forces. An answer akin to "well he'll be one hundred times better than Bush" is a cop out.
Obama has no executive track record and no experience running a bureaucracy. He is effective in front of the camera, but he has never had to deal with real bad press before. I have not seen him exercise any real leadership in the Senate, perhaps because he has only there two years, or make any politically unpopular decisions. I am not going to say he's a bad guy or that past actions should disqualify him from seeking the presidency. I believe his inexperience should do that on its own. He might make good vice presidential timber, but I fear for what will happen to this nation if a novice becomes its leader.

In 1960, the young, charismatic, and inexperienced John F. Kennedy defeated Richard Nixon, a sitting vice president with vast foreign and domestic policy making experience. Kennedy's rhetoric and image inspired the nation, but he also brought it close to destruction during the Cuban Missile Crisis, a preventable confrontation. Had JFK not excessively interfered with the Bay of Pigs operation in 1961, moving its original target and constraining the American ability to aid the rebels, Castro would have died 45 years ago. Had JFK canceled the operation all together, the Soviets may not have felt emboldened to further test America's mettle. Kennedy admitted he fumbled the ball on Cuba, but he proceeded to make the same mistake in Vietnam shortly before his tragic death by encouraging a coup against Diem. Diem brought relative stability to South Vietnam which enhanced its ability to battle the North. Diem's removal and subsequent assassination led to two years of chaos in South Vietnam with no government able to retain power. During the interim, the North Vietnamese took advantage of the power vacuum to make further inroads into the South. The end result would be the commitment of over 500,000 American soldiers to defend South Vietnam while the beleaguered nation got its act together. Had Diem remained in power, the South might well have lost the war, but the United States need not have committed such a large force. The repercussions of that war are still felt today.

I cite Kennedy's example because I believe errors in judgment spawning from inexperience can be avoided if the public selects a presidential candidate who has a mind for geopolitics. Today's world is more complicated than ever and will require an American leader with the foresight and diplomatic acumen to understand the repercussions of American action and inaction.
Biden, Clinton, Richardson, and even Al Gore if he runs are certainly qualified to be president during a war in which the stakes are incredibly high. If the Democrats select Edwards/Obama as their presidential nominee and they win the election, the country will likely have to learn the hard way the price for choosing flash over substance.

Ok so NOW you think experience is terribly important but not so much in 2000?

I particularly like this....

I cite Kennedy's example because I believe errors in judgment spawning from inexperience can be avoided if the public selects a presidential candidate who has a mind for geopolitics.

you know how many times I said this about George Bush in 2000? The man was simply uninterested in world politics. He had never traveled abroad. And that was why he promised to build the "Dream Team" in his cabinet.

He is effective in front of the camera, but he has never had to deal with real bad press before. I have not seen him exercise any real leadership in the Senate, perhaps because he has only there two years, or make any politically unpopular decisions

Well he will get plenty of bad press during the campaign. And if he can't handle it he will be an early withdrawal from the race. Expecting the 97th ranked Senator, based on seniority, to be a leader seems a bit far fetched to me. I'm not sure what politically unpopular decisions you would like him to see. He upset Republicans by voting for a fillibuster of John Roberts and upset Democrats for admonishing Demcorats for trying to filibuster Alito. He has voted in favor the tort reform legislation and reauthorization of the Patriot Act, both very unpopular bills among his base. So what would you like him to do? Stump for George Bush? That role has already been taken by Joementum.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

Experience was not as important in 2000 because the challenges confronting the United States were not as readily apparent as they are today. I would think, given heightened public awareness on foreign affairs now, people would want a responsible steward with a proven track record. Inexperience does not necessarily mean he would be a poor president and an experienced man would not necessarily be a good president. But a man with no or only brief experience in foreign affairs is bound to make rookie mistakes which could be avoided. A man with no experience heading an executive office and a bureaucracy is bound to foul up where a veteran would understand. A man, who has not made any controversial decisions, to me, seems more apt to side with short term politically viable ones rather than swallowing sour medicine which tastes bad at first, but will ultimately cure what ails the nation. Again, I do not imply Obama will necessarily be a bad president. I simply think there are more qualified Democrats who have better odds at succeeding at the presidential level.

You are attacking my argument by citing George W. Bush as an example. I was 14 in 2000 so I did not vote and did not follow politics at all. By inference you seem to suggest that I think President Bush has done a good job despite his inexperience so the issue should be moot. I do not think President Bush has done a good job with this nation's foreign policy and everyday I grow more disillusioned with his actions. The most frustrating thing is for me is I believe the mistakes he has made and continues to make are avoidable ones. Bush needed a "Dream Team" cabinet because he knew he was deficient in knowledge on some matters, especially foreign policy. Because of these deficiencies, for better or worse, Bush has to put higher stock in the judgments of his advisors rather than his own. This causes friction within an administration, as can be seen between Powell/Rumsfeld, which is bad for moral and damages the legitimacy and ability of the president to properly implement his agenda. A president on solid footing in foreign affairs would not yield his authority to cabinet members so easily. No matter what you think of Obama, his resume cannot be an asset and would rival the thinnest in the history of the office.

Obama's senate record is flimsy due, as you note, to his brief tenure there. I cannot fathom how you can look at the 97th ranked senator and immediately see presidential timber. I do not think making politically unpopular decisions to be a necessity prior to taking office, but it demonstrates character and leadership - something that is not easy to do in the Senate. Admonishing his party for attempting to filibuster Alito is a sign of leadership, but is there any bill he spearheaded and spent a considerable amount of political capital on to get passed?
I fear the lesson the Democrats took away from 2004 was that a presidential candidate with a thin record is harder to attack. This not only says a lot about the political culture we live in, but runs abrasively against the concept of the executive office as the Founders intended it. To me, Obama brandishes his novelty and youth as assets, hoping voters fed up with Washington will select an outsider. I am as fed up as anyone with Congress and the current political parties, but I do not believe the solution is to select the most charismatic politician and entrust him with the reins of power. If you were running a business would you let the new guy take over a major four year project or would you trust the tested old hands?

But who has the "experience" necessary for leading the United States.

There is no other job like. Governors have executive and managerial experience but generally very little foreign affairs experiences. Senators have foreign affairs experience, to some degree, but little managerial or executive experience.

Every new President makes rookie mistakes. They are unavoidable. The question is whether they will learn from their mistakes and become better Presidents.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

I agree with you here. I do not believe anyone has the experience to be a perfect president and to demand that is to set the bar too high. Nothing prepares a man or woman for the awesome responsibilities entrusted into the executive. But if we are to say no one is qualified, it implies everyone is on equal footing and will have the same learning curve. I do not believe this is the case. While some people may be more endowed with leadership and charisma qualities, I do not believe one can innately sense how to run a government or "learn" it from advisors or scholarship. Here experience can help ease the transition into the office.

Someone who has spent a career on capital hill knows and understands the mechanisms which move legislation through the Congress. Lyndon Johnson, for example, drew from his decades of experience in the House and Senate effective methods of persuasion which enabled the passage of the deluge of legislation that fell upon America in the mid 1960s. The next president is going to have to get Congress to cut spending or raise taxes to cut the deficits brought on by the War on Terror, Hurricane Katrina, and curb the rapid growth of entitlement spending which threatens our long term security. Few in Congress want to raise taxes or cut spending because the positions are politically unpopular. It will be up to the next president to cajole the Congress into doing the right thing. I can tell you a President Obama need only look at Bush's attempt to reform Social Security to see the limits of a rhetorical presidency aimed at creating policy by circumventing a declaring Congress. I want a president who has knowledge of the legislative process. Obama has not demonstrated to me he has any more than President Bush does.

For foreign policy, a candidate should understand globalization and its effects on the entire world, no easy task and one only mastered after years of first hand study. A president should have familiarity with the nature of the armed forces. If Obama is a free trader that is a start, but he'll need to stand up to the protectionist wing of his party to be effective. I do not believe Obama served in the military and I fear his lack of expertise in this field could be a serious detriment - especially since we are currently and will be in a war for the foreseeable future.

You believe the capacity for growth to be perhaps more important than experience. To this I say, the less growing a president has to do, the better the country will be. The world won't stand still while he acquaints himself.

I would say Bill Richardson might be the most qualified Democrat. Joe Biden has a good resume too. But neither of them have a snowball's chance in hell of capturing the nomination now. McCain is easily the most qualified Republican, by my criteria.

that should be " a recalcitrant Congress" in the second paragraph.

Well, I knew I was inviting the "Texas has a weak executive" talking point, so I suppose that's my bad. The fact of the matter is that Bush has been an executive - he has run things, big things, inside and outside government. It's certainly an issue as to how well he ran them, but run them he did.

Obama has simply nothing - N-O-T-H-I-N-G - comparable in his wafer thin resume.

He is an empty suit because there isn't anything there besides platitude and (forgive me) skin color - 100% pablum delivered flawlessly. Whenever he speaks I'm left wondering, "Where's the beef?" And what is there, his scant yet rather well left-of-center voting record, in no way reflects his happy-peppy rhetoric of Hope!™ - leading me to believe that one or perhaps both is for show.

(And I only bring up his skin color because you and I both know we wouldn't be having this conversation but for it.)

You argue that the charge "he is purely form with no depth" is character assassination and I argue that it is merely stating the plainly obvious. We could do this all day and I'm already sick of it.

Sure, he has some nontrivial personal accomplishments. There are probably 1,000,001 people in the country right now with a comparable story, at least some of whom could probably deliver prepared lines just as flawlessly. Should we be running them for President as well?

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

So running something poorly is better than not running something at all? That is an interesting comment.

Sure, he has some nontrivial personal accomplishments. There are probably 1,000,001 people in the country right now with a comparable story, at least some of whom could probably deliver prepared lines just as flawlessly. Should we be running them for President as well?

You mean other than moving to Chicago with nothing but the shirt on his back and becoming a Federal Senator for Illinois in less than 20 years? Not sure if there are a million people that have become President of the Harvard Law Review or a professor of Constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

How much should a person be given credit for starting from very little and achieving great things? How much should a person be given credit for starting with a great deal and doing relatively little with it?

Let me ask you this. Was Ronald Reagan "qualified" to be governor of California? He was just an actor. Using your standard he should have entered politics slowly and proven his mettle at a lower level before being given the reins of the 7th wealthiest economy in the world.

How bout Teddy Roosevelt? What were his credentials before becoming Governor of New York? Riding a horse up a hill?

As I said upthread, if we based ability solely on past credentials then Al Gore CLEARLY should have been elected President over George Bush in 2000. He was vastly more experienced than George. Yet somehow I suspect you don't agree with that claim.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

So running something poorly is better than not running something at all?

And I said this where? I believe I said you could argue how well he ran them. I never said he ran them poorly. Most evidence would be to the contrary.

Moving on...

Let me ask you this. Was Ronald Reagan "qualified" to be governor of California? He was just an actor.

And President of a major national labor union - you seem to forget that.

How bout Teddy Roosevelt? What were his credentials before becoming Governor of New York? Riding a horse up a hill?

Uh, I think you might me missing some things in TR's resume, but seeing as he's my least favorite of all "reveared" GOP Presidents, I won't argue the point.

And finally, what is this hang-up with "unqualified"? I've never stated Obama is unqualified. I've stated that I believe his resume to be thin and his suit empty. That's it. "Unqualified" is your bloggy-horse, not mine.

But let me close by skipping to the central point...

How much should a person be given credit for starting from very little and achieving great things?

What. Great. Things.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

And President of a major national labor union - you seem to forget that.

I didn't forget that. If being the head of a Hollywood actor's union is a valid credential then I guess I really don't understand your point.

What. Great. Things.

Well I think it is a pretty remarkable achievement for a person to go from a low income upbringing to Columbia and Harvard on full scholarships, become the first minority to become President of the Harvard Law Review and then become Federal Senator seemingly on his own.

Does this make him Abraham Lincoln? Of course not. But to say that there are a million people that have done similar things seems unreasonable.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

You see I know a guy - the son of a low-middle-class high school gym teacher and homemaker - who managed to put himself (with schollarships and loans) through a mid-top-tier engineering school and then, with an autistic son at home to care for, work his way into a world-renoun Ivy-league engineering program where he would graduate (in record time) with an earned doctorate with honors. He would then go on to create jobs in a small business until landing a rather prestigious gig with a national research center where he is doing publishable work of international note.

All. On. His. Own. Well, with of course more than a little help from a saint of a wife and handful of wonderful children - including the aforementioned blessing of a son.

Now true, he didn't become President of Harvard Law Review and he shuns elective office with all his soul. And he's not a minority - can't forget that. So perhaps, applying your bloggy-horse, he's not qualified to be President. So much the better for him, I say.

I just don't think his life story is really that far removed from Obama's - nor do I think it to be particularly remarkable. So perhaps the flaw is mine.

My point is simple flyerhawk, there are plenty of people out there who have started from nothing and built very nice lives for themselves all on their own. I'm not at all sure that alone is enough to be President of the United States, however.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

How many others are there who have accomplished much with nothing, and in this country you CAN. At least until we become gobbled up with socialism.

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

Now true, he didn't become President of Harvard Law Review and he shuns elective office with all his soul. And he's not a minority - can't forget that. So perhaps, applying your bloggy-horse, he's not qualified to be President. So much the better for him, I say.

I would probably say that his lack of interest in running for public office probably disqualifies him from running for office but if you want to go with his race, go for it.

I just don't think his life story is really that far removed from Obama's - nor do I think it to be particularly remarkable. So perhaps the flaw is mine.

Well I know nothing of your friend. Not sure if getting an Ivy league college education and being a good father equates to becoming a Federal Senator but to each their own.

My point is simple flyerhawk, there are plenty of people out there who have started from nothing and built very nice lives for themselves all on their own. I'm not at all sure that alone is enough to be President of the United States, however.

I never said it did. Let's be realistic here. The VAST majority of the people here at RedState wouldn't vote for Jesus if he was a Democrat. They certainly aren't about to vote for Barack Obama. I know this. You know this. I'm not trying to convince you guys that he is the guy you should vote for. Quixotic causes aren't my thing. My only point was that he is not an empty suit.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

I don't care how weak the position allegedly is in Texas, it proves a heck of a lot more than being governor of some other tiny backwater southern state that doesn't border Mexico.
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.

What organization has he ever ran that's larger than the ice cream stand down the street or his own campaign?

All he's ever done is write books, go to school, run for office and pontificate his opinion in the legislature along with a few votes. In the real world most Americans live in, none of that is a "real" job where your held accountable to deliver results as an individual or as a leader. Smart, articulate and telegenic people can be very good at doing what Obama has done, but the presidency requires leading the entire executive branch of government to deliver on results. I can't keep count of all the intelligent and articulate people I have come across in the private sector that looked and talked smoothed, but couldn't deliver on a deadline or milestone.

That's who Obama is and why he's an empty suit. If I were an executive recruiter looking for the next COO or CEO of a company, the Obamam type resume is the first one to hit the trash can. He is unqualified to run the executive branch of government, much less be the commander of all military commanders. Yes political success is a requirement, but so is executive experience. The American people understand that which is why JFK was the last candidate with no executive experience elected to the White House (who's indecisiveness which comes along with a lack of big-time decision making caused the Bay of Pigs). They want to see results in a similar position at a lower level before turning over the reigns of the presidency.

You could not ask for more experienced, more credentialed folks to plan the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and tranformation of Iraq into a democracy than Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Perhaps experience and credentials are overrated.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

I am not a member of the United States Armed Forces, so I don't have to.

Of course if experience is the biggest virtue, go ahead and nominate McCain, and we'll nominate Bill Richardson, I suppose.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, in response to the question, "Are we at war, Helen?" - posed by then-White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

It's judgment that matters, not experience. The former does not always flow from the latter.

The next president is the only one that is going to be standing between you and a few thousand people that want you dead. The military is only a tool at his disposal for that responsibility.

But go ahead and pretend that only people overseas in the military and those working in embassies are at risk. Ignorance is bliss.

He's called that in many MSM reports.

But I agree with you, Obama is not a candidate to be taken lightly. He hasn't been truely tested yet, but he's also the media's current favorite and has Opra's support. Those are kind of empty reasons to support someone, but he'll get a large chunk of support from just being in People.

Frankly I think Obama is one of the best public speakers I've heard in a long time. He sounds "reasonable" whenever he speaks. The problem is he hasn't taken too many firm positions on ANY subject. The fawning we see now is all fluff. Will that fluff be enough to get him through the election? I don't know, but I won't discount it.

I also agree with your assement of Hillary, EXCEPT she has the name recognition which is 90% of winning an election.... that is how she managed to "carpetbag" her way to becoming a senator from NY. (Well that and some shady campaign financing.)

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

I also agree with your assement of Hillary, EXCEPT she has the name recognition which is 90% of winning an election.... that is how she managed to "carpetbag" her way to becoming a senator from NY. (Well that and some shady campaign financing.)

The problem is that her name recognition comes with some pretty huge unfavorables.

I would still put money down on Hillary not running. And the reason she won't run is because her inside polling will paint a pretty gruesome picture of her chances.

Her best hope is to run as someone's VP which I find unlikely to happen as well.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

I would still put money down on Hillary not running. And the reason she won't run is because her inside polling will paint a pretty gruesome picture of her chances.

I agree. Her numbers are already starting to tank, and she has been on the wrong side of the Iraq issue politically for too long. The better course of action is to become kingmaker (possibly for Richardson?) and line herself up for Majority Leader in 2008.

I had a cut on my finger and When Obama came on TV, I touched the screen and my finger was healed! Obama has the healing power! Hallelujah!

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

which is truly scary. But then, Hillary can win the White House, and that's pretty scary too.

Btw, when is someone going to be honest and point out that a lot of people swoon over Obama because he's black? There is a certain pathetic, insecure, guilty type who feels all warm inside supporting an "African-American." It shows how enlightened they are -- and, implicitly, morally superior to those of us who strenuously oppose this jackass having the power of a Senator, let alone the Presidency.

"when is someone going to be honest and point out that a lot of people swoon over Obama because he's black?"

I understood that he was of mixed heritage. But your point is taken. Those nice non-racist liberals will vote for or against someone strickly because of his race.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

Ahh the classic charge of Lefty racism.

I guess it wouldn't matter to a race warrior such as yourself when I tell you that when I see Barack Obama I think of him as an African-American. I view him as an American.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

But everybody was supposed to think of Willie Horton as an African-American, not just a horrible criminal that victimized people, right? We all know how racist that ad was, right? Or how racist the Ford ad was for portraying one of his groupies as white. That was racist too, right?

So all the sudden race goes from being a huge issue that is always looming in the background whether anyone admits it or not to being a total non-factor?
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

Only Republicans are racist. Anything a Democrat does (be it running the KKK or setting up a racial quota system) is non-racist. Anything a Republican does (especially if the racism is well hidden from normal observation) is racist. Just blow the dog whistle.

Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.

That some day you guys can understand the difference between the words RACIST and PANDER. I don't have much hope but anything is possible.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

We will stop hearing how racist Republicans are for pandering to Southern white votes?

"Nothing works like freedom, Nothing succeeds like liberty"
Kyle

n/t

I swear I hadn't seen that worldtribune article posted below before I wrote the above post. :-)
--
Bipartisanship = give + take. Republicans give. Democrats take.

your friend falsely assumes that the media is a conscious living being. It isn't. It operates more like a marketplace than a rational actor.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

...though I think she talked about the media as a single actor in a figurative way (as was also my intention). Kind of like saying, "the stock market is soaring" even though there are a considerable number of individual stocks that are performing poorly.

Her idea, I think, is just as interesting - though a bit bulkier - if you replace "the media" in my comment with "many in the media" or "the emergent personality of the complex adaptive system that is the U.S. media".

While I will certainly agree that the media is fickle and will turn on their favorite sons in an instant it doesn't happen because of some conscious choice by individual media critters.

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

that it's not conscious. The sadism is an emergent quality, not a conscious decision on the part of individual media people.

So I take back the whole thing about substituting "many people in the media" for "the media". It makes no sense to say that "many grains of sand have the tendency to form dunes". "Power addictions" and "sadism" are to individuals in the media as dunes are to grains of sand.

This sure turned out to be a strange conversation...

Just think of the media as a virtual actor. It's why you can Google or Lexis a story and get hundreds or thousands of variations of it with the same analysis and phrases, like "Rock Star".

if he's the Democrat nominee, unless he does something completely insane.

The left-wing bias of the establishment media continues unabated, and they will slant things the way they always do, in the hope of defeating the less-left candidate, i.e., the Republican.

(notice, i have no expectation that our nominee will be a real conservative or libertarian, merely somewhat less socialist and multicultural than the Dems)

Even though he was still considered their favorite son.

While I can't imagine supporting Obama, I would hate for him to get the standard treatment by the media: lift the guy up to ever higher pedestals, and then push him off a cliff.

the influence of an experience from the ages of 6-10. Children are quite impressionable at that age. Especially if the experience were intense.They have not yet developed cynicism to deflect what they are told. How many people do you suppose are given religious training in their childhood, rebel from it in their teens and youth, only to return to it in middle age? It's not as uncommon as you might think.

And if it is true, it seems significant enough to give more than a passing mention in TWO books about himself. Mostly Muslim school??? How many Christians, Jews or Buddhists were there I wonder? If you are going to confess to the world about previous drug use, why not about your experiences/impressions/insights of such a highly topical/controversial subject such as madrassas? It seems that would be something pertinent, or at least of interest to people wondering who he is. It's not the fact that it was part of his experiences that should give anyone pause, it's the fact that he wants to gloss over it.

So tell me of your deep personal religious experiences during that age.

Do you think it might be possible that it simply wasn't that impressionable an event for him and that's why he didn't write much about it?

"There are those who look at things the way they are, and ask why... I dream of things that never were and ask why not." George Bernard Shaw

sat on the bed next to me and told me about Jesus and His crucifixion and the resulting gift of life everlasting for all of mankind, and that to be a partaker of His gift, all that was required of me was to accept Him as my Savior and I would be welcomed into the Kingdom of God and that sin whould no longer separate me from God.

For you to think that four years spent in a Madrassa would not be an impressionable experience for a very young child demonstrates how little you must know of what one is.

Rudy kills the social conservatives on every single issue-you can argue federalism all you want, but at the end of the day, conservative Christians are not going to turn out in droves for a pro-gay pro-abortion candidate. With the social conservative issues dead, Obama puts the entire upper Midwest into play, especially if he does the smart thing and nominates a Southerner Edwards, which by the way i believe he would if he got the nomination. Only someone like Brownback if Guiliani does get the nod would help in states like Ohio. Obama and Edwards will play up the regional image and expect to see a lot of Two Americas ads with Obama and Edwards with blue collar guys in the Midwest and South. And with a ticket like Rudy Romney, two Northeastern somewhat liberal Republicans, it could backfire for the GOP without any reason for the Christian base to turn out. Just the strategy I see coming from the Obama camp-Personally I'm for Brownback.

Don't mess with Texas.