First, the fact that this is at all true is a testament to the level of FAIL of the last administration and the tactics of the 'conservative' party then and since. Second, are you seriously saying that no one was willing to criticize Obama? Aside from all the critics, I guess. Maybe that is true. Seems to me, he's gotten his share of criticism and then some. I agree many blindly supported the guy as well, but see the above paragraph for that reasoning. Sadly, I suspect it will go one for the rest of eternity. Kudos to the GOP for their talent with a microscope, tactics of diversion and tenacity at the expense of progress in the hopes of some magic renewed respect for a party that has acted like a spurned 5th grader since before the last election was over.
Yes, I'm saying the media was reluctant to criticize him, with the exception of some on Fox, because of his AA status. When you consider how fickle and uninformed American voters are, the strategy of media manipulation was executed to perfection. It's the herd mentality and popular culture packaged together in an effort to generate the perception of widespread support. How else could someone so indisputably unqualified be elected President? Without this perception and validation by the media, Obama gets a few percentage points in the primaries and calls it a day. Seriously, a lot of Obama voters couldn't even name his Vice President. I'd say over half of Obama's voters couldn't tell you what state Biden was a Senator in. Seriously. Obama also did much better in the caucus format because the public nature of the process caused Democrat voters to feel shame for not voting for an AA. The private ballot removes that shame, and statistically removed Obama's advantage over Hillary.
I like to think of it as an incredibly successful coup d'etat. To the victor go the spoils. SCOREBOARD
LOL at anyone who is so foolishly partisan that they cannot remember that GWB had a MUCH weaker resume than Obama before being elected (using the loosest possible interpretation of that word). NO CRED!!!
What qualifications for President did Obama fail? According to that pesky Constitution, you have to be 35 and US born. Unless you are one of those nutty birthers, what qualifications are you referring to? There is no rule that says one must serve for 'x' years in an executive capacity to be elected Prez that I am aware of -- if there were such a rule we never would have elected the supremely unqualified Lincoln or FDR. By any objective standard Obama was more qualified when he ran than half of the faces on Mt. Rushmore were during their campaigns. This is not to say he will have the success that Washington or Lincoln had -- merely to point out that arbitrary qualifications to run for President have no relevance on the success of their terms. This is further supported by the many spectacular failures we have had in the Oval Office who met whatever standard is being advocated here. Carter had plenty of executive experience. Buchanan had a long impressive resume including both Senator and US Rep for 20 years as well as Secretary of State. Did these qualifications make either an effective President?
unqualified FDR? more qualified than "half the faces on Mt. Rushmore?" which of the faces was he more qualified than? Washington, Jefferson, (Teddy) Roosevelt, or Lincoln?
that you would post such a "scorecard" just serves to demonstrate how much you value party affiliation above all else. I would guess that most of the "conservatives" here could give a flying **** about the republican party. they certainly don't represent my views, except in contrast to the alternative. I vote the man, and the issues, not necessarily in that order. party affiliation be damned.
As I said in the post, Lincoln and Washington had far less executive experience than did Obama at the time of their election. Lincoln was a one time House Rep that left politics entirely for 5 years and then had two failed senate bids prior to election. What were his qualifications prior to election? Washington had never been involved in politics and many have argued he didn't even want the job at first. FDR was a state senator, asst Secretary of the Navy, and served less than one term as NY Governor -- hardly a novel length resume. Any thoughts on the main thrust of my post -- that there is no correlation at all between experience and success as a President? Considering that probably our two most successful Presidents (the aforementioned Lincoln and Washington) had virtually no qualifications (not to mention other hugely successful ones with no governmental record such as Jackson or Eisenhower), and that some of our most impressive Presidents on paper were also widely considered the biggest failures (Carter, Buchanan, Nixon, Fillmore, Pierce), I think it's hard to argue that an impressive resume in any way correlates to a successful Presidency.
That's nice to know, I thought in the past you compromised your beliefs at the altar . WIth this in mind, and considering that you regularly support people who want to enshrine discrimination against gays into the Constitution, I guess we know where you really stand on that issue and how important it is to you...and the answer is not at all, which makes you a big ol' lying hypocrite. Which we already knew, but it's nice to crystallize it.
You make some good points but I would say that being head of a wartime military in the case of Washington and Eisenhower counted as pretty good executive experience.
and washington was head of the continental convention that drafted the constitution prior to becoming president.
