i don't get it

[Young Buck]

Why do people like Obama so much?

[noodle]

he's not an old white rich person.

[OROD]

Lack of critical thinking?

.

[Young Buck]

he's not an old white rich person.

but is that a reason to vote for someone? if i was homeless and ran for president would people say i want to vote for him cause we never had a homeless president before (its a stretch but u get the analogy). What is wrong with old white rich people? Shouldn't the president be the most qualified candidate despite their background? Also, if Obama was the same exact guy (same policies, gave speeches in the same way, etc.) but he was an old white rich person, would he still have your support?

[noodle]

but is that a reason to vote for someone? if i was homeless and ran for president would people say i want to vote for him cause we never had a homeless president before (its a stretch but u get the analogy). What is wrong with old white rich people? Shouldn't the president be the most qualified candidate despite their background? Also, if Obama was the same exact guy (same policies, gave speeches in the same way, etc.) but he was an old white rich person, would he still have your support?

i was only partly serious.

do your own homework about him, since there's plenty of information. if you still don't understand, why don't you answer this question: how is he unqualified?

and please note, i'm not talking about political/ideological stuff. if you're going to say "Because he's a democrat, thats why he's unqualified", then i'm done with this thread.

[mrbiggs]

but is that a reason to vote for someone? if i was homeless and ran for president would people say i want to vote for him cause we never had a homeless president before (its a stretch but u get the analogy). What is wrong with old white rich people? Shouldn't the president be the most qualified candidate despite their background? Also, if Obama was the same exact guy (same policies, gave speeches in the same way, etc.) but he was an old white rich person, would he still have your support?

Yes.

However, the fact that he's young and speaks well certainly doesn't hurt. We've seen the boring but experienced Democratic candidates lose the Presidential elections twice now.

The Democrats have a huge advantage going into the 2008 election, and I think that he's the candidate who can best take advantage of that. Meanwhile, I like his platform and I like his positions on nearly all of the issues.

I don't see what else there is for him to have...

[OROD]

do your own homework about him, since there's plenty of information. if you still don't understand, why don't you answer this question: how is he unqualified?

Yes, I suppose he's just as qualified as any other talking head with next to no experience or record upon which to base an assessment.

On the other hand, should I vote for him because he's merely "qualified"? All the candidates are qualified, so that gives no help whatsoever. How about asking, "how is he not the most qualified?"... in which case, the answers are many.

.

[noodle]

Yes, I suppose he's just as qualified as any other talking head with next to no experience or record upon which to base an assessment.

On the other hand, should I vote for him because he's merely "qualified"? All the candidates are qualified, so that gives no help whatsoever. How about asking, "how is he not the most qualified?"... in which case, the answers are many.

.

why, is my point? is it purely on the issues? if it is, thats totally subjective.
why is he objectively not qualified?

[OROD]

why, is my point? is it purely on the issues? if it is, thats totally subjective.
why is he objectively not qualified?

Because the presidency is not an entry level position. The president is the leader of the United States and by extension the leader of the free world. He/She has power to shape the course of the world for decades to come. As such, we expect the person holding that position to have significant experience, a track record showing all the qualities that are expected (intelligence, good judgement, integrity, wisdom, etc), as well as a record of achievements showing not only that he can lead on the scale needed, but that he can lead while keeping the promises he/she made. Like I said, NOT an entry level position.

Your turn, show how Obama meets those requirements? Or, am I asking too much as "subjective" qualifications for presidency?

.

[mrbiggs]

Because the presidency is not an entry level position. The president is the leader of the United States and by extension the leader of the free world. He/She has power to shape the course of the world for decades to come. As such, we expect the person holding that position to have significant experience, a track record showing all the qualities that are expected (intelligence, good judgement, integrity, wisdom, etc), as well as a record of achievements showing not only that he can lead on the scale needed, but that he can lead while keeping the promises he/she made. Like I said, NOT an entry level position.

Your turn, show how Obama meets those requirements? Or, am I asking too much as "subjective" qualifications for presidency?

.

I don't see any historical evidence that the candidate with more experience is the better candidate. Look at Nixon, for example.

[noodle]

Because the presidency is not an entry level position. The president is the leader of the United States and by extension the leader of the free world. He/She has power to shape the course of the world for decades to come. As such, we expect the person holding that position to have significant experience, a track record showing all the qualities that are expected (intelligence, good judgement, integrity, wisdom, etc), as well as a record of achievements showing not only that he can lead on the scale needed, but that he can lead while keeping the promises he/she made. Like I said, NOT an entry level position.

Your turn, show how Obama meets those requirements? Or, am I asking too much as "subjective" qualifications for presidency?

.

to counter your assertions:

he will not be the youngest, as 4 presidents, including some of the best historically regarded presidents, were younger when they were sworn in.

he will not be the least experienced in capitol hill, as 19 presidents had no washington experience before their presidencies.

your assertion that he is somehow not intelligent or wise can be disproven by his law degree and successful law career.

your assertion that he doesn't have a political track record is proven incorrect by a 10+ year record in governmental politics, both state and federal, and has an impressive professional track record before that.

your assertion that experience is an indicator of success fails on numerous presidents, the most obvious being james buchanan, who was historically regarded as simultaneously one of the worst presidents ever, and one of the most politically experienced presidents (and second oldest president ever, too).


calling him an entry-level candidate is just silly and obtuse. is he the MOST experienced ever, or on the slate of current candidates? no, but multiple decades of experience is not a necessary prerequisite to a good presidency, as evidenced by many past presidents.

[OROD]

Silly and obtuse? Really, because I'm not willing to give Obama a pass on account of his talent for public speaking?

Well lets see, I asked to know how Obama is qualified to be president. In return you gave me a rather impressive list of things he's not. Hmmm.

However, as far as I can tell from your post, he's actually qualified because he:

1) Has a law degree and successful law career with an "impressive" professional track record, and
2) Has been in politics for 10+ years

Am I correct that those are his two shining qualifications? Is that it? Was he governor of something? No? Embassador perhaps? Was he the head of some successful corporation, or international organization? Did he author and pass any landmark legislation in his "impressive" (or should I say uneventful?) 2 years in Congress? No? Oh, wait, I think I found his qualification... he gave a speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. That must be it.

.

[OROD]

I don't see any historical evidence that the candidate with more experience is the better candidate. Look at Nixon, for example.

Then maybe you're not looking hard enough. Yes you can find exceptions to almost any rule. Does that invalidate it? Would you say that experience is not a factor in being a good CEO, or engineer, or lawyer, or teacher, or anything else in this world?

All things being equal, I'll take the more experienced candidate.

.

[mrbiggs]

Then maybe you're not looking hard enough. Yes you can find exceptions to almost any rule. Does that invalidate it?

No, I'm just giving you an example of why experience isn't always a good way to evaluate a candidate. He's also an extreme example because he was very experienced and wound up leaving office in under very negative circumstances.

Would you say that experience is not a factor in being a good CEO, or engineer, or lawyer, or teacher, or anything else in this world?

Sometimes, not always. Don't try to tell me that the best teachers you've ever had were always the oldest ones? I wouldn't say that there was any correlation at all. For the rest I don't really have enough experience evaluating people in their profession.

All things being equal, I'll take the more experienced candidate.

.

Me too. But all things aren't equal; not even close.

You seem to be saying that Obama shouldn't even be taken into consideration due to his lack of experience. I disagree with that. It's a negative, to be sure, and certainly the part of Obama I'm most hesitant to vote for. But I think that there's still a lot to examine in a candidate, even an unexperienced one.

[Heavenguard]

Being that I'm Canadian and don't get a vote, I haven't given a crap about the candidates' platforms, histories, etc. (Not to say I live in ignorance; I've kept up with the current situations, but as for the things that help "decision making", I don't bother because I don't get to make a decision.)

Obama is youngER than the other candidates, but that doesn't mean he's necessarily young. Even if he were "young", that would not be a valid reason to not vote for him. Experience, in terms of time, is not an indication of a person's ability to perform. There is certainly a correlation between the two, but I would put that to each person individually. A person improves over time, given practise. But each person starts at a different base.

Is this not also true of fencing? Some people are at the basic level just more physically adept than others. You can have two people take a beginner's course together and one excel far ahead the other even if they put in the same amount of practise. The less physically able person could still lag behind the other even if he (or she) puts in more practise time, simply because physical activity is not his/her talent.

Now, I'm not saying that Obama is more able at juggling all the issues that comes with presidency, I don't know that. But what I am saying is you can't discount him simply because he's younger than the others.

I'm 21, and I'm the chair of our church conference this spring, even though there are scores of people who older than me at church. I know it's not a presidency, but it's still a lot of responsibility for my still-pretty-young self, especially being that I'm still in school and also work. Did my age discount me from being deemed as able to take on the job? Certainly most (almost all) of my contemporaries would have a very bad choice; a lot of them are still pretty immature and not very responsible, even for themselves. However, my pastor and the congregation council didn't let ageism and the stereotype stand in the way of their decision to ask me as an individual, not as a "younger person", and neither should you.

[Inquartata]

Credentials---experience---are not an infallible indicator of success. That much is true.

They are however about the best ones we've got. Certainly much better than "can give a rousing speech".

Then there's experience, and there's experience. My main dubiety about Obama is his lack of executive experience.

America, and indeed all nations, have a long track records of succumbing to the lure of demagogues and populists. This generation is not exempt. Obama is articulate, energetic, attractive, and successful. Above all, he is not, as Noodle said, old and white ( although I strongly suspect that he is in fact rich ). He is IOW not one of the class of persons which many view as the status quo, and one which has let them down, a view reinforced by the nature of the imperatives facing the modern media.

Whether this is enough remains to be seen. Fortunately, however, the inherent inertia of the American form of government will probably keep him from making any radical changes or fatal mistakes if he is elected...

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

All things being equal, I'll take the more experienced candidate.

.

Well, the election process will give you the opportunity to do just that, so what is your beef?

Personally, I like how the nomination process is going this time around - all the candidates which I saw as really unfit for the job have failed spectacularly. No matter whom of the remaining three viable candidates will win, it is an outcome which I will find acceptable.

I wonder what Bush and Cheney will be doing during the Republican convention - I can not imagine McCain wanting to be endorsed by them!

BTW: The title of this thread is singularly un-descriptive. Gosh, can´t people come up with better titles?


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Because the presidency is not an entry level position. The president is the leader of the United States and by extension the leader of the free world. He/She has power to shape the course of the world for decades to come. As such, we expect the person holding that position to have significant experience, a track record showing all the qualities that are expected (intelligence, good judgement, integrity, wisdom, etc), as well as a record of achievements showing not only that he can lead on the scale needed, but that he can lead while keeping the promises he/she made. Like I said, NOT an entry level position.

.

I note that this position has previously been filled by an Illinois state politician, who has produced a speech which has gone down in US. history as one of its great masterpieces of oratory. He also was a father of minor children during his tenure in the White House. He was also preceded by someone who has often been considered one of the weakest in that position.

Oh - looking from the outside, I can assure you that Obama will, by political/popularity capital alone, be in a better position to be a leader of the rest of the world than any of those candidates which have dropped out of the race.

Tancredo would have been even worse than Bush in that regard!


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[jeff]

If credentials and experience were the sole criteria, Cheney would be the natural candidate, eh?

[Inquartata]

No, probably George Washington or Teddy Roosevelt would be.

They are only slightly more dead than Cheney...

No one said credentials were the ONLY criteria. Just the best we've been able to devise...