Redstate

As a white male first termer, he would have been just another wannabe President in the back of the Senate line. As a first term black senator, he jumped close to the head of the line. You have to say his talent has taken him the rest of the way but at some point, Obama's lack of qualifications have to matter. I hope.

What the hell is going on out here? - Vince Lombardi

A white male first termer ran well enough to get the VP nod 4 years ago. Not as well as Obama ran this time, admittedly, but it's not like it's unprecedented for a first term Senator to do fairly well.

(JFK doesn't count; he was young but he had a lot more time in office, both in the House and the Senate.)

Turn that around and think Dan Quayle. If anything Edwards hurt the Kerry ticket. His professional conduct was a giant turn off for many.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

Still, he did better then the more lauded Dean and Clark.

The point is that Edwards was essentially a less talented, white version of Obama, and did fairly well. It's not about Obama's skin color.

"I ain't never votin' fo another Democrat so long as I can draw breath! I'll vote for a dog first!" - Leola Thomas

The next thing I know I will be seeing the hatter about something in tinfoil (Nahh everybody knows tinfoil only strengthens the rays ;-)).

Seriously Dean was doing very well then flamed out. I really don't buy the scream did it. Lets face it I was and am predisposed to not liking him and my reaction was "so what". It was if the democratic electorate collectively decided the single most ridiculous candidate they could conceive of was the pick.

There always seem to be a certain portion of the electorate that will vote for empty telegenic guy. Maybe Edwards would have done better if he ran wearing a letterman sweater.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

It's now about race. If Obama does win the nomination, "they" will turn the racism charges directly on McCain - forgetting his adopted daughter.

And McCain, for all his faults, is too good a man to bring her into the campaign

McCain is being scrupulously careful to avoid anything negative thus reducing the impact of Obama's carefully painted claim to be a clean pair of hands. If he steps of the pedestal and gets down and dirty he'll make it easy for Obama and his friends in the media.

As it stands Obama won't look good attacking McCain the man, but will be forced to debate on policies, and I'm not sure they stack up for him.

Obama's ability to stimulate many of his devotees to Obasms surely also helped erect his current standing among the Democratic candidates.

And Rightly So!

You state you want him to win, so he must be qualified in your eyes no ?

I could make references to precedent and that results that followed but I am certain you have a good idea what they are. I also have an idea that if I were to raise them it stands a good shot of provoking negative reaction.

So let me also ask just what might the results be of putting someone without the qualifications into that job ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

If Obama does pull it out, we certainly will see a different race than we have over the past 20 years, since we wouldn't have a Bush or Clinton running.

While many of us find Obama's policy statements disturbing and consider that his policies will likely have injurious effects on our nation (after all, we are Republicans), what is clear is that he has run a good primary campaign. As we all know, you don't run the same campaign in the general as you do in the primary, since your opponent and voting population is different.

Thus I think it is premature to know whether Obama will and can continue to talk about hope and change alone, or whether he will articulate more specific policy prescriptions - and premature to know how the voters will respond to him and to McCain and to the dynamic between them. Plus, lots of unpredictable events may occur in the interim, both in the economy as well as in foreign/defense matters.

But at least it should be different and hopefully delineate a clear divide between liberal and conservative governance - whereas a Clinton-McCain face-off will be overlaid with the personality issues and conflicts of the past 20-odd years.

So I too would welcome an Obama-McCain face-off, although I will be rooting for McCain. And if you stick around and can pick out and read the more thoughtful analyses here, you should be able to understand more clearly the assumptions and values and thought process behind a variety conservative position and see how they stack against what is coming out from the Democratic side of the aisle.

And Rightly So!

Look, here's the thing about *true* Republicans and *true* Democratic ideals. I'll use taxes as the most obvious example.

The true Democratic philosophy is this: Democrats believe that, *properly managed*, Government is better at doing a lot of things than private enterprise. Therefore, they believe the government requires more money to do those things. Therefore, they feel people should pony up a few more bucks in order to pay for those things.

The true Republican philosophy is this: Republicans believe that Government is only good at doing a few things. Therefore, the government doesn't need as much money to do those things. Therefore, they don't need taxes to be as high.

These may be two diametrically opposed philosophies, but both of them are at least logical and strong arguments can be made either way. There's no need for hatred or emnity over it.

The post above yours wants to start into a discussion of what Obama's qualifications are--but that's not what I came here to discuss. The reality is that there IS no specific preparation for being President of the United States--being Governor of a large state may come closest, but even they don't negotiate with foreign governments (aside from on a very limited level). On this basis, NONE of the three candidates--McCain included--has any true EXECUTIVE experience, to my knowledge.

If I understand his biography correctly, he was a pilot in the Navy, served honorably in Vietnam, became a Representative, then became a Senator.

All of these things are fine and worthy of respect...but none of them involves any executive experience. A one-term governor of the smallest state (Wyoming, I think?) has more "executive" experience than *any* of the three contenders.

So no, I'm not going to get into a pissing match about "experience" vs. "judgement", but I don't mind discussing the state of the race itself with reasonable Republicans from a purely objective POV.

McCain commanded a squadron in the Navy and that is very much an executive job.
I will grant you that it isn't the same as running a business or a state, but it is executive experience. Experience that neither Hillary! or BHO can hold a candle to.

And yes, please, let's do discuss qualifications. Because Obama's resume is quite thin and needs to be exposed.

And was trying to stay far away from that.

I would agree that there isn't a specific checklist of qualifications for the presidency but you want to see qualities and experiences. You may favor impressionist or realist paintings but in either case a blank canvas is not acceptable.

I further have to ask why you felt the need to turn a question about the qualifications of your candidate into a debate about the relative merits of the candidates. I am very familiar with McCains qualifications and they are very, very impressive by any standard.

When you speak of judgment, there are other words that come with that like honor and integrity. McCain is a man of proven merit. When it comes to experience he has both command and executive experience as well as legislative experience. You forget he ran the largest squadron in the navy. Then there is the matter of his extensive foreign policy and national security experience.

So I'd like to ask again what qualifies Obama to be president ? Please don't say its his supernatural powers of judgment. That is at best in question.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

...and it's impact on the stock prices of AAPL and MSFT, and someone starts talking about the relative merits of OS X vs. Windows, wouldn't you be right to explain that the topic at hand is sales figures and stock performance?

Again, I'm not here to debate which candidate is More Qualified--if an impressive resume was the main qualification, either Bill Richardson, Joe Biden or Chris Dodd would be the nominee.

However, FWIW, here's a comparison of various Presidents' "experience" according to your criteria (scroll down):

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Mar10.html

As you can see, years of "official" experience doesn't seem to have a whole lot of connection with performance, at least not in any sort of reliable way. Abraham Lincoln, generally considered to be one of our greatest Presidents (also from Illinois, and a Republican, I might add) had exactly the same elected official experience as Obama--8 years in the state house, 2 years in the U.S. Congress (house, not Senate). His only military experience was as a Captain in the Illinois Militia. He also had only 1 year of formal education, although of course that differed back then.

I should also note that FDR--you know, the guy who helped win World War II in less time than we've been in Iraq--had no formal military experience (he was appointed Assistant Sec. of the Navy, but that's about it).

I'll leave it at that. I don't plan on chiming in here too often; I mainly wanted to express my appreciation for a rational, well-stated analysis of what Obama's appeal *is* instead of what it *isn't*.

Especially regarding the differences he and Churchill had in their approach to Stalin.

I would also be curious about your opinion of FDR tapping every international call made all without a warrant ? Or his detention of entire populations based on race ?

Oh and I can't resist Germany and Japan are quagmires no blood for sushi and weinerschnitzel. Pull out now.

______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

We can show ours works
We can show it mathematically.
We can show it by results in this nation.
We can show it by history.

Yes you can have a difference about it, but it isn't grounded in reality. Which is why your side only manages about a 50/50 result despite having 85% of the media in your camp and most of the government employees as a voting block.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

In fact she interrupted her interviewer at the start of the interview to make the point that if her name were Gerald, she'd never have been picked.

HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater