Experience is not only irrelevant, it's impossible to attain. The presidency is a unique job. Serving decades in congress doesn't prepae you. Running a major corporation doesn't prepare you. Serving as governor of a state doesn't prepare you.

There is, in this vast economy, only one job that puts you somewhat in charge of the largest economy and military in the world but that also has you answering to the judiciary and legislative branches.

Since we have one president at a time, for a four year term, not many people have been able to do that job. Yet, it is so unique that the only qualification for it would be... to have been president. And many of the people who have been president were either not re-elected or were re-elected by a quite narrow majority.

Basically, there is no relevant experience for this job. There is knowledge, curiosity and intellectual ability. I'm not sure whether or not Obama has those qualities but if he can prove he does, he has my vote. His resume isn't the issue. As you say, his abilities are.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I think the only two things a President brings to the job are judgement and the ability to persuade others that his judgement is good. It isn't possible for any one person to know enough to handle the job of President based on his own knowledge and experience. He has to have the judgement to select the right advisors and other staff. When a problem arrives at his desk, and that must happen many times every day, he has to be able to judge which of the options his staff finds for him to consider is the best one.

Then, having made that choice, he has to be able to persuade not just the Congress and the cabinet to accept his choices, but to persuade the American people that he has made the best choice, so they will buy into it too. Lately our Presidents have handled that last part of the job in reverse - trying to guess what the American people will like and accept, then pretending to lead them in that direction. So, we get wars and tax cuts.

Of all of the candidates now running Obama is the only one I see being capable of persuading us to do things we would prefer not to do - like negotiating before shooting, like paying for what our government must do instead of just printing more money to pay for it.

As far as I can tell, both from reading his books, and from what he has done so far, Obama has the good judgement to pick his staff with the interests of our country in mind, and not his reelection as a primary focus. Best of all, I don't see him being in this primarily for personal enrichment or the further enriching of corporate "friends".

Hoppy in Sacramento

Well, I'll tell you after Bush everybody I've ever met in my life is overqualified to be President.

Tom

"I think the only two things a President brings to the job are judgment and the ability to persuade others that his judgment is good." I meant that he also brings beliefs and an agenda. I don't want the purist, wisest man on earth. I want someone who shares my hoped for direction for American government and politics. That and not his struggle with his wife's cancer are why I prefer Edwards (or Obama) to Clinton. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

 . But of course Clinton had a great deal of relevant experience as the chief executive of the State of Arkansas.

So did Bush as the chief executive of the State of Texas ..lot of good that did us.

Managing a large and complex organization, whether a company, a government bureau, a foundation, a military organization or the executive branch of a state government or national government, requires specific mangerial skills. While each organization is different, many of those skills are transferable.

Bush transferred everything he had and it was totally insufficient.

As with all things in life, it is the job title that creates the experienced man. Rather it is the character the man brings to the job title that determines his experience.

Bush's track record in every job he had was consistent...a total failure and unparalled incompetence.

It is character and judgement that count. Not job title experience.

"because, in my opinion, you do not need experience to be President. What you need is intelligence, character and humility"

I'm curious, is there any other jobs where experience is not needed?
For example, does experience helps to be a good
Real Estate Agent, Doctor, School Administrator, CEO of a company,
Car Salesman, Teacher, Cabinet Secretary, General
What's so special about the job of President?

Can anybody point me to a high paying job employment ad that say:
"No experience necessary."

He is known to listen to advisers.

 Is this a good thing?

Bush listens to his advisers.

What we need is a president who will at times overrule his advisors.

For that you need a president who is confident in his knowledge of the world, history and vision.

.> So did Bush as the chief executive
> of the State of Texas ..lot of good
> that did us.

My understanding is that the government of Texas is set up like a parlimentary democracy: the Governor is the head of state [= President of France]; the lieutenant governor is the head of government [= Prime Minister of France]. While the head of state has some say in the direction of the whole shebang (particularly through jawboning and veto power) it is the lt. gov. who actually does the day-to-day executive work of the TX government. Correct me if I am wrong on that.

sPh

I can only assume that John meant that Bush gave off an aura of being ordinary and virtuous. He is, of course, neither. I would, however, argue that he is more ordinary than virtuous.

Given the nature of the Presidency there seems to be no training for it. It does seem that those who have been governors tend to do a better job than those who have only been legislators. The latter, as we saw with Kerry, can take all sides of any issue because of all the different votes they have. Governors also have to produce real things for their constituents. It is not clear that Senator ever really has to accomplish much if they provide constituent service.

Obviously not every former governor was a good President. Carter being a rather inexperienced governor was a terrible President who's ineptitude gave us Reagan. Clinton on the other hand seemed to understand that governing is about making choices and getting things done.

The biggest problem with Obama and H. Clinton is, so far, they make nice atmospheric speechs but say nothing. Both of them seem to put every utterance through a focus group before it leaves there lips. It would be nice to have a Democratic candidate who believes in something, more than we should all get along, and says what they believe as if they actually believe what they are saying.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Clinton and Giullani both seem to me to be the triumph of resume over character. Yet Obama's resume ain't nothin' to sneeze at.

There's this ineffable thing called "judgement", and Obama's got it, and she doesn't, despite all her experience. She's not an inspirational figure to more than half of the US public.

Obama's personal history is part of this. As is his skin color and his name. To the rest of the world, which has looked on in horror and fear at the way our government has behaved in the past 6 years, it will be an enormous advantage to the United States to have a president who looks more like the rest of the world, has actually lived in another country (albeit as a child), who has family connections into other cultures and countries (giving him an insight a patrician white boy could never have), and a history of working to empower ordinary people. We will need a president who can have the personal credibility necessary to reassure our friends, make some new ones, and repair damaged relationships. Hillary and Bill could do some of this, but he could do more. Plus, his judgement about this war was spot on from long ago, and she was wrong. There's no getting around that.

Judgement matters. Character matters. Now, more than ever.

"I can only assume that John meant that Bush gave off an aura of being ordinary and virtuous." Yeah, thanks, Ben.  I assumed one would guess I wasn't dismissing Democrats as elitists and adulters either, especially as I was more explicit about the Giuliani myth. Oh, well.

My father used to talk about Americans as still having a longing for kings.  It's part of this whole image thing, although now fed through a culture obsessed with partisan-created and media-created images.  If we believed enough in government by the people, we could start asking ourselves not who we want out of government but what we want out of government, then finding leaders with the same conviction.  

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Ben, your photo, if current, implies youthfulness compared with myself and some of the others here.  Clinton was somewhat charismatic, I assume you know.  Ray-Guns was very charismatic, much to the horror of the geezers on this site.  For reasons I do not understand, it appears that publicans find Bush charismatic, seems a dullard to me.

Charisma is a useful political (or, if you are in the preaching business, evangelical) trait.  It moves people.  It doesn't communicate.

The "great communicator" (Reagan) communicated very little.  Great with the sound bite, but the sound bite had little content.  His skill was with seeming profound and sincere when saying the most trite of things.  He probably was sincere as only trite things resonated with him.

Obama's charisma will do him well, but it is not a way to communicate information.

Hillary doesn't merely seem to lack sincerity, her record justifies doubt in here ability to be sincere. 

I'm a little leery, too. That's what people were saying about Dubbya before the 2000 election, so the Grand Old Party ponied up Cheney to cover their "boy's behind." Well, we can all see how well that "team" has turned out to be. I'm looking for a candidate who not only has the goodwill of the people to formulate sound policy but also has experience working with other politicians and, more importantly, has a plan to get this country back on track. Charism is great for the media, but our country is too diverse and too polarized to find a Great Leader we can all rally around. If a president can't work with the people in Congress to bring about effective change in this country, s/he is just fodder to chew on. I'm waiting for the "cream" of a candidate to rise to the top of this bucket of bull who can show proven leadership skills.

Not knowing these things forces him to rely on advisors (like Cheney) who have consistently given bad advice.

This is the big difference between Bush and his father.

Many of the people working for Bush such as Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams and the rest of the neocons also worked for his father. The difference is his father knew enough to overrule them when he had to. They were not able to hijack his father's presidency because there was no question who was the boss. Bush Sr for all his flaws was well informed about major issues, especially foreign policy. The neocons in his administration were not able to manipulate him.

Is Richardson your choice for President over all the other Democratic nominees?

And Clinton, after all, had no national experience whatsoever before he became President.

Apples and oranges.

Clinton had been a governor for 10 years. He had spent years debating, formulating national policy. In 1992 Clinton was fluent discussing pretty much any issue, from North Korea to farm policy. You could ask him anything and he would give you a detailed answer that showed he had thought about and studied the issue and had come up with answers on his own.

Obama OTOH relies on homilies and generalites. You get the sense he has not thought through these issues and instead is relying on talking points.

It doesn't mean Obama is an empty suit like Bush. It just means he hasn't spent enough time thinking through national issues and formulating solutions.

Thanks for the compliment as the photo is reasonably current. :) I'm 36, which I assume puts me more or less in the middle of the pack in terms of median with respect to this site.

Charisma can be a powerful tool. In the hands of an otherwise good candidate, it can make him a great candidate. I would argue it is related to how one communicates (at least for me), but it's also very closely tied to movement, as you suggest. I suppose I would say that an ability to communicate improves one's charisma, and one's charisma improves one's ability to motivate others. Communication skills might not be a strict necessity for charisma, but it definitely aids it.

I also agree with you that I don't quite get Bush's "charisma", in that he doesn't seem very charismatic to me. I've really tried to understand how people think Bush was the right person to vote for in 2004, and I still can't wrap my head around it. The thing is I know quite a few otherwise intelligent people who voted for Bush in '04. I do think most of them are in that 15% or so who voted for him in '04 but don't think he's doing a good job now.

Frankly, I blame Bush on Clinton.  If he is gonna get a blow job in office, he doesn't need to lie to prosecutors about it.  Gore, in all of his woodeness, would have been too far ahead for the sneak behavior in Florida if the Dem's hadn't had the burden of Clinton to carry around.

The reelection of Bush is more of a mystery, although the constant promotion of fear was certainly the theme of the times.  I avoid the tube, so I don't know what happens there.  But in the real world, Bush was worse than a loser.

The Dems don't fight hard enough.  Bush's initial flight from Florida away from the capital should have been immediately grasped as evidence of cowardice.  The Dems should have promoted that from Sept 12 through the 2004 election, our cowardly president.

The word "experience" has really been overused at this point.

The standard for President of the United States should involve demonstrated success in either a position of leadership (i.e. Governor) or with a successful legislative record (i.e. Senator, House leadership). For those with less public sector experience, they should accomplish something substantial in the private sector (i.e. Romney was just a one-term governor, but he was extremely successful in private equity and rescued the 2002 Olympics, that's a track record. Mark Warner was a successful venture capitalist before becoming governor, again, that's a track record).

Obama doesn't offer any of this. My concern is that support for Obama tends to be a relative judgment versus other candidates. I don't think any of them are great and we're only in APRIL 2007. We have 300 MILLION people in this country, shouldn't we agree that we expect more from our candidates that what Obama offers? There is time for others to join the race, but not if people like Obama's current supporters are content with someone who doesn't really offer much demonsrated success in his own career to date.

The standard for President of the United States should involve demonstrated success in either a position of leadership (i.e. Governor) or with a successful legislative record (i.e. Senator, House leadership). For those with less public sector experience, they should accomplish something substantial in the private sector

Hillary doesn't offer any of that either.

Hello?

Did you read the last paragraph of my post? I already said Hillary was in the same boat and the fact that justification of Obama is only done on a relative basis.

If I didn't know you weren't an Obama supporter from prior posts, I would have thought this post was a joke.

Instead you are the joke.

Yes.

Wisejerk,

I am not sure why you have your shorts all in a knot but this post of yours that I replied to, does not mention Hillary. Get a grip. geeez!

wisewon,
Your posts are not adding anything to this thread at all.

As someone who is strongly opposed to Clinton, you don't need to convince me that Obama is better of the two. But I don't see the personal credibility you want him to have, and I don't see his judgment. Obama will have to demonstrate more than mere opposition to the war in Iraq.

I understand that he gets a lot of people excited. For the life of me, I can't see why. If you're someone who is excited by Obama, I'm not going to get in your way. But let's not pretend he is the perfect candidate. And we should remember that he ran essentially unopposed to get his seat in the Senate.

That's not exactly correct, but I can't say I understand it fully either. The Lieutenant Governor doesn't run the day to day operations of the state, but he or she does control the direction of the state legislature through (apparently) very strong control over which bills come up, are debated, voted on, etc. I also could be wrong. I live in Texas now, though I'm not from here, and let me state for the record that the political system is beyond fucked up. So, I too can certainly be wrong. Feel free to set me right.

Sorry whiterose,

I thought you had some intellingence in reading this statement from my post:

"Obama tends to be a relative judgment versus other candidates. I don't think any of them are great"

That obviously refers to Hillary, among others.

At least I can finally understand your support for Obama.

Just like the Bush supporters, but a different ideology.

"Then in the state senate..."

Nothing about US Senate in the post (we're not actually going to start holding up state senator accomplishments for PRESISDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, are we? Maybe a faulty assumption on my part, but perhaps Obama's supporter's standards really are that low.)

Try again.

First of all, if you want to understand Obama, it does make sense to look at his entire track record. His track record doesn't start in the United States, so your implication that it does seems odd.

Secondly, if you want to see his Senate track record just go to his Senate site. There you will find that he currently serves on four committees, including the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. At that same site, you can see where he stands on a variety of issues. If you click on the detail for each of those issues, you can read about bills he has sponsored (and/or drafted) to address those issues, such as the Working Family Child Assistance Act, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act, the Transparency and Integrity in Earmarks Act, and many more. I just picked the first three on his site, since I don't know what's important to you. If you want to educate yourself, instead of acting like the typical Bush supporter ;), you should really visit his site yourself.

"Obama would have difficulty making the short list to run any of America's top corporations."

You just gave Barack Obama his best recommendation yet.

Think about this argument before making it again, please. A corporation does not compare in the slightest to running a country, a democratic republic, with a constitution, now, does it? Such illogical, unthinking arguments come directly from George W. Bush and the Republican National Committee--who have used the conflation to sell their candidates to voters for 3 decades now. Indeed, that has been Bush's argument all along--that he is like the CEO. So, if you're not a Bush supporter, you really shouldn't be buying into this thinking to make any arguments about Obama or any other Democratic candidate.

A corporation is a top-down structure, certainly no democratic structure, in most instances. Even stock-holders in a corporation don't have the right to vote on CEO payouts--which is determined by a board of directors.

Running a corporation is NOT the same as being the President of a country like the United States.

I have relevant data - your comments. Your comments seem to suggest that you're quite ignorant of Obama's record. Also, just for the record a State Senator is a Senator. So, David Hamerski technically did discuss his accomplishments as Senator - just as you did not mention Hillary Clinton at all before lashing into whiterosebuddy about how you had already mentioned Hillary Clinton.

Is there a particular candidate you have in mind who does have 12+ years in the Senate, or are you just having fun tearing down people?

Sort of like a Bush supporter, I guess. ;)

Good luck to him, and good luck to all thoughtful politicians where firestorms over haircuts and bare chests can divert an electorate whose ignorance is cultivated by the punditocracy.

And pantsuits. Can't forget the pantsuits. Those are important, too.

Corvid

I would strongly urge Obama fans to consider other aspects of his "experience," namely who he associates with and gets money and favors from. Illinois, after all, is one of the triple crown of state government corruption, right up there with Louisiana and New Jersey. For instance, Obama is strong for the Daley-Stroger circus of calamity here in Chicago and Cook County. He even has a corrupt property developer as a best pal, a bread-and-butter feature for sleazy pols in the windy city. Check out a Chicago blog, beachwoodreporter.com, for details. Just do a search for Obama. And then google Obama and Jared Abbruzzese and ask yourself why in the world the noble Barack would be taking money from one of the funders of the Swift Boat ads.

I think I would favor an "American Idol" format, myself. There's a panel of 3 judges, perhaps Bush Sr., Bill Clinton, and Ralph Nader that whittles a large group of people down to 12 contestants (or how ever many there are in American Idol). Then, each week America votes off one of the candidates based off of some criterion (knowledge of international affairs, ability to install Gentoo, speed at solving a system of ordinary differential equations, etc.) Finally, the winner faces whoever the Democrats and Republicans pick in the November election.

Really?

What data in my comments shows I'm ignorant of Obama's record?

Bush's supporters are known for tearing other people down? Huh?

Again, jumping to conclusion without the data.

I could know everything that Obama has done, and just simply not value it that highly, as I've made clear. Your first post was saying that I didn't know Obama's record, and you've provide no evidence from my postings that its true.

FYI-- I didn't say "so much about Obama"-- I wrote a total of around 10 sentences, half of which didn't discuss Obama at all.

The "1/100th of 1 percent of that population has close to the experience of Obama."

Yes-- that's EXACTLY what Bush supporters DID say when he was running for President.

Except that I have actual data proving that I do. Look at my prior posts on Obama-- this isn't the first time I've engaged on this issue-- and we discussed the exact legislative accomplishments you highlighted.

So you're clearly wrong-- at least admit it when the facts are there-- unless you really do want to show that you're the same as Bush supporters.

You want constructive criticism-- here's verbatim a post that I wrote last month. Not surprisingly, the content was not responded to by Obama supporters then-- probably because they don't know much about the people below. FYI-- for context, read my first post here, as it will help you understand my point of view.

"Look, I love the legislation itself, but to hold this up as his key accomplishment as a Senator such that he should run for President, is laughable.

War in Iraq, habeas corpus, wiretapping, the are so many issues that are SUBSTANTIALLY more pressing than that. How about-- where is his legislation on Iraq, given that he has demonstrated such good judgment on this issue?

Similarly, professor of law and community activist: that's a nice profile for someone who is looking to be mayor of a small town, not President.

You want examples of people that have demonstrated success?

Governor: Janet Napolitano, Bill Richardson, Ed Rendell

Senator: Russ Feingold, Ron Wyden

Mix of public/private sector success: Mark Warner, Jon Corzine

This is without even really thinking about the potential candidates, just obvious ones. I'm not looking into doing an analysis of each of these or others to determine their potential or viability. The point is that its March 2007, no prior Presidential election had ever started this early, and Obama supporters seem committed to him even though he has a SIGNIFICANT dearth of experience and we have serious problems because of our current president (who was similarly inexperienced).

As I said before, we should expected vision and demonstrated success from our Presidential candidates-- Obama falls woefully short in the latter."

Wow.

So what job DO you need experience for?

I'll assume people like doctors, lawyers, engineers, scientists would be in that category.

But it sounds like all people at management level jobs --- being president is a management job, isn't it? --- all managers don't need experience.

The manager with experience will be no better than the manager off the street, with the perceived "character" benefits you describe.

Of course, how do we know a person's character, without their having any experiences by which to judge it?

But I digress.

So if we replaced all of the management level positions in government --- FEMA anyone? --- with people we judged full of character but no qualifications....we could expect that to be an improvement.

Maybe that's a bad example, because isn't that exactly what Bush did? Didn't he replace people with experience with his friends --- those without experience, but no doubt filled with "character" in his opinion?

It always depresses me when I see that the supposedly smarter, rationality-based liberals that I support are just as willing to toss reason aside as conservatives.

Any black man who, with no family connections or wealth, catapults over some 300 million fellow Americans to the US Senate and to the top rank of Presidential candidate has what it takes to be President.
Like Lincoln, he started with no advantages except himself, his brains, his character, his ambition and his ideals.
And look where he is.
John Edwards is also self-made and I admire him for it.
But his advantage of a white skin cannot be overlooked.
Obama's achievement is awe-inspiring, at least it is to me.
Does this mean one has to support him? Ofcourse not. One decides who to support based on all kinds of variables and, above all, stands on issues.
But I utterly disagree with anyone who says that this man has not already demonstrated amazing ability and talent.

No, Mike, the modern President has to deal with a half-dozen potential foreign flashpoints every week, as well as attend the domestic agenda. The Irish Prime Minister, for example, doesn't have to worry about a shooting on the North Korean DMZ last night. The American President does. It's a far more complex position with a lot more balls to juggle.

Corvid

Gee, did Lincoln do legal work for a slum lord? The only reason Obama is anywhere politically is that too few people have looked into precisely how he got there. The Chicago Sun-Times has a nice feature today on Obama's links to Tony Rezko, an infamous figure here in the city. Curiously, Obama and his people are exceedingly reluctant to answer any questions. Check it out.
.
This barreling Obama bandwagon is beginning to remind me of the press in the runup to the Iraq war. The dramatic story line (aluminum tubes! yellowcake! WMD! vs. a black who came up from nothing! Harvard Law Review! community worker!) is just too good to put at risk with even a prudent measure of skepticism.
.
On the other hand--with the occasional exception of a handful of journos here in Chicago--it might be a good bet. Our official, black-tie national press corps is such a collective farce, it's highly unlikely anything untoward will come to light on a scale that matters.

I disagree with the assertion "There is no relevant experience for this job". For any job that a person takes, "experience" is understood to mean something a bit different than "having done exactly the same job before".

Many Presidents have had experience that has exposed them to some of the challenges that a President faces. Governors have very similar experiences, without the unique challenges of foreign policy. Eisenhower commanded and coordinated a vast alliance of troops which surely helped develop his leadership ability.

Knowledge, curiosity and intellectual ability are not to be downplayed, but experience really is relevant. Our current President came to the job with a resume that consisted of three things: 1) running a number of family businesses into the ground, 2) being the governor of a ultra-Republican state where the governor's office is very weak, and the governor himself is not blamed for much, and 3) being the son of George HW Bush.

W. had never demonstrated much ability other than being a family partisan and a practitioner of dirty politics. His lack of experience, compared to pretty much every other candidate running in 2000, needed to remarked upon a lot more than it was.

Nitpick:

There are plenty of us NON-DLC types who consider Clinton the worst DEMOCRATIC president of this century.

Um...

THE 20th CENTURY IS OVER!

Seriously - this is a problem a lot of people have to come to grips with. In a lot of ways. The US had a lot of good fortune in the 20th century and there is no reason to believe it will repeat itself.

Wow! Clinton the worst Democratic President of the 20th century.
I couldn't disagree more.
But how could anyone over look Woodrow Wilson, one of the 4 worst Presidents we ever had (W, Buchanan and Nixon are the other 3).
But I give first prize to the racist Wilson.

I confess to making this error.  I even wanted to fix it, but people had already commented.

Wilson did not turn back the clock on his own time.  At least, I am unfamiliar with any evidence of that.  Clinton did as much to advance the Reagan revolution as Reagan did.  I suppose I should start the clock on my critique with the New Deal, but it isn't a big deal.  Reagan, Bush I and Clinton all moved us back toward 1932.  Bush II tried to shove us past, but he had lots of help.  Clinton is not innocent in that regard.

I'm not in disagreement.  I allowed that the situation today is more complex.  I don't think it is more sophisticated.  Lincoln, too, was not without international complications to worry about.  Would England, dependent upon southern cotton, recognize the Confederacy and fight the blockade of southern ports?  It seemed a near thing at the time.  What about copperheads operating from safety in Canada? 

I like to think that Lincoln could acquit himself well in today's age:  certainly as well as GWB who is neither sophisticated nor understanding of the complications of complexity.  But until time travel is invented we'll just have to speculate about that. 

aMike

There is a very good reason why we are only lukewarm in supporting a candidate nowadays. It is that America's problems are both complex and numerous, and we all have differing opinions as to which of the various problems is primary andd which of the possible solutions to those problems are the best ones. So, each of us has hot button issues that we tend to judge candidates by. But, that prevents any one candidate from appealing to anywhere near a majority of us unless he takes moderate positions on most issues, and, at most, takes a more progressive position on only a very few issues. So, if my hot button issues are global warming and global trade, the odds of finding a single candidate who emphasizes those two issues above all other, and takes the same position on both as I do, are very slim. That means the candidate I have to pick is most likely only lukewarm on the issues that really matter to me. Or, I can chose to support someone like Kucinich, knowing I am in reality just opting out of the selection process.

Now multiply my situation by several million and you end up with most of us feeling that the really good guys (gals) just don't seem to want to run. It is our own human failing, not that of the candidates.

Hoppy in Sacramento

You mean Reagan helped lower unemployment, increase economic growth, expande home ownership? Reagan did get along with Thatcher but did he really get along with as many countries as well as stopping genocide in Bosnia and tried to quell anarchy in Haiti?

1932 was the middle of the Depression what does that have to do with any time in the last sixty years?

Reagan got elected to two terms and is still seem by many Americans as an excellent president, I am not exactly sure why. However, he was able to hammer on the point that all those large bureaucratic programs were allowed to grow like topsy without any evidence they worked. Meanwhile large numbers of Americans were fed-up with their tax money going to programs that were on automatic pilot and did not help them.

Clinton showed that government is not going to wave a magic wand and make poverty and all the worlds ills go away. At the same time goverment can be a partner in helping people move their lives forward. Not only is this the message of the various urban developement corporations around the country but without Clinton I can't imagine another Democrat being elected for years if not decades.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

If you're someone who is excited by Obama, I'm not going to get in your way. But let's not pretend he is the perfect candidate. And we should remember that he ran essentially unopposed to get his seat in the Senate.

OK. I am a supporter of Obama but I do not think he is the perfect candidate. I think he is the best candidate.  Now that you have identified that you prefer Richardson. Let's compare and contrast, in terms of what you think a Presidential candidate needs to bring to the table.

You think that the candidate needs foreign affair or world affair mgmt skills, and that is what Richardson has. I think that Obama had to be able to mold consensus from divergent views in order to be elected President of the Harvard Law Review. Specifically, he had to convince conservatives that their views mattered and would be weighed seriously in terms of his judgement during the process of decision making. This was critical because everyone knew Obama was a staunch liberal.  He successful conveyed that to his law school peers and collegues and was elected President of the Law Review.That is a significant achievement. I beleive that type of skill and experience is as relevant to him being adept at managing world affairs particularly when coupled with his diverse background that exposed him to multi-cultural views. How do you think Richardson brings more than that in terms of world affair management?

In regard to ethnic background we can say both Richardson and Obama are diverse candidates in terms of upbringing and challenges they faced to succeed. Would you agree?

How do you think they compare on domestic issues when it comes to universal health care, education, jobs, immigration and free trade policys?

One of the biggest drawbacks for Richardson is that he is a womanizer and cannot keep his hands to himself. He is a Hispanic Clinton. His top female aide in NM remarked that she simply had to get use to him touching her inapproriately in public.  To me that is a serious problem for a man to be representing America in foreign countries. He could be killed for that and as our President that act would have the real possibility of thrusting us into a world war.

You want constructive criticism-- here's verbatim a post that I wrote last month. Not surprisingly, the content was not responded to by Obama supporters then-- probably because they don't know much about the people below

O, I responded. I simply felt no need to discuss non-candidates.

I love the legislation itself, but to hold this up as his key accomplishment as a Senator such that he should run for President, is laughable....You want examples of people that have demonstrated success?

Governor: Janet Napolitano, Bill Richardson, Ed Rendell

Senator: Russ Feingold, Ron Wyden ....I'm not looking into doing an analysis of each of these or others to determine their potential or viability.

Really? Well what have these 2 long-tenured Senators:

Senator: Russ Feingold, Ron Wyden 

done that are key accomplishments that you point to them as successful, other than legislative pieces? Feingold lacks leadership for sure. His 'bold' initiatives seldom have votes.

Richardson's background as Governor and foreign affair management experience while notable is squandered when it comes to success because he isn't successful in keeping his hands off of females who work for him and in his professional sphere. Which means he will have no moral or political authority at home when it comes to driving policy and will also be a significant national security risk.

As when you raised these assertions previously, you decline to engage in analysis and discuss viability since they are solely points of objection without merit when held up to the scrutiny of political analysis and detailed consideration. Nevertheless you keep throwing them out there, hoping somehow they will stick. Perhaps, you need to do more than superficially name folks who have significant personal baggage and less than stellar success when opposing someone who  does have a record of good judgement and  demonstrated integrity coupled with extraordinary political skills as well as legislative success when it comes to building alliances and exercising diplomacy to achieve common goals.

Neither Richardson, Rendell, Napiltano, Wyden nor Feingold  bring that unique set of variables to the table as  individuals.

For someone who consistently makes quips about others intelligence your lack of engagement and avoidance of detailed analysis smacks of  a glib superficial intelligence harboring such profound cognitive dissonance it masquerades as shallow wit.