|
Posted on 06/06/2008 5:37:50 PM PDT by Dawnsblood
Barack Obama was widely considered the probable Democratic nominee in March. Instead of voters rallying to him, as they often do with winners, Obama went on to lose nine of the final 16 primary contests, five by double digits.
This suggests that Democrats may have experienced a case of buyer's remorse. One reason for such remorse could be a realization that if he is elected president, Sen. Obama would be the least qualified and experienced man to hold the office in modern times. This is not a criticism or a value judgment, but rather an observation of fact.
Since the Civil War, 49 men have won a major-party presidential nomination. Only three of these nominees were less qualified, by traditional measures of leadership and experience, than Obama.
In the 1872 election, Horace Greeley, backed by the Liberal Republicans and Democrats, was a dilettante newspaper publisher. In his first presidential run in 1896, William Jennings Bryan's only credentials were two terms in the House of Representatives and the ability to give a great speech. (Sound familiar?) Wendell Willkie, who served as FDR's punching bag in 1940, was nothing but a corporate lawyer and Republican Party apparatchik.
None of those men was able to win the White House. But inexperience is not necessarily an electoral liability. Bill Clinton, a draft-dodging state attorney general and governor, bested a sitting president who had served as vice president, congressman, ambassador, and head of the CIA (not to mention being a hero in World War II).
Or consider George W. Bush, who hid out in the Texas Air National Guard during Vietnam before going on as an adult to a string of business failures. He had only six years in public life as governor of Texas, an office with relatively little executive power.
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
Obie would make a really awful President.
|
He has no ability to perceive the people he’s with.
Can;t see Wright’s racial hatred/anti-Americanism. Can’t see Phleger’s race baiting. Can’t see Resko’s corruption.
How’s he gonna get the measure of the World’s tyrants, thugs and psychos?
He can’t.. and that’s dangerous in a President.
I think he sees it clearly, it’s just that he agrees with it, but that wouldn’t go over too well with most voters from either party. I don’t doubt for a minute that he and his racist wife intend to implement the agenda of “black liberation theology” if he wins the White House-reparations “taxes” and all.
No, haven’t you heard? Bush is now the worst President of ALL TIME..that’s what they’re saying.
I am a year older than Barack Obama and have much more real-world experience (6 years in intelligence, 15 years in state government, 10 years as a business executive) and wouldn’t consider myself qualified for ANY high office, but I’m not black and Messianic...
And yet Bush somehow still dominated the Texas legislature and managed to pass one major bill after another? Amazing what a guy with a "little executive power" can do. The inherent contradiction of the criticism is so clear. The very argument they use against him is precisely what made Bush such an effective leader and appealing presidential candidate.
It will be touted as racist by the dems, to think that Obama's lack of experience is important. How could he have the experience neccessary, he's been held back by the man.
That’s exactly my reaction — ‘Oh, yeh, buddy be sure to mention some snide remark about George Bush.’ He lost me right there.
Inexperience and hanging around with terrorist and nut case America haters.
“He does have to slip some Bush bashing in doesn’t he?”
Yes, he does, but since the Obamamaniacs have little more than Bush-bashing to build up their guy, a great retort would be that Obama has “far less experience, judgement and capability than GW Bush”.
Do bush-haters want that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
