List Obama's qualifications for President

[75center]

I personally believe that foreign policy experience for the next president is much more critical than any in the past. Ever since 9/11. JMO.

[oldrambler]

And you think McCain is? Where have you been the last 8 years? You have to gain access to a newspaper every now and then.

 

:thumb: Mccain has went against W. on several issues.

[oldrambler]

That is simply an idealogical difference. You certainly can disagree with any policy, but that doesn't mean the policy is a lie. For example I think it is much worse that the republicans have been running on platforms that they don't match there actions.

May not have but that sounds like it came straight out of a liberal college professor's mouth to me. Possibly a liberal arts professor at that . Maybe not though, anyway we just disagree and that is fine with me as well.:thumb:

So is Tony Robbins, does that mean you would vote for him?

:laugh::laugh::laugh::thumb:

I find it very interesting that not one single legit qualification has been listed.

Maybe it is bc there isn't one..........:sssh:

Adolf Hitler was a great communicator and brought about change and unity in his nation when they were in desperate need.

:thumb: Isn't B.H.O. wanting to negotiate with Cuba??

OR, help me understand that mentality. I understand that McCain's policies don't match up 100% with yours; mine either for that matter and I am a McCain supporter. But the only person on this green earth that has the same policies as me is me and I wouldn't vote for me as the President, as Governor or as Dog Catcher either:D.

 

When I look at the voting decision I carefully weigh each candidates positions. Generally I vote for the person that most often agrees with my positions. I've never voted for None of the Above as that constitutes a vote for the candidate that disagrees with me the most.

 

I truly hope you examine both candidates and vote for the one that agrees with you the most. If that's Obama, then fine. If its McCain, well, that's even better , but please vote. I truly believe this election may become one of the most important elections in our country's history to date. Way too important to sit it out.

 

I certainly will and I hope that I can as well. I would just rather not to just vote "against" someone as I would be Obama. One solid decision I have made is that there is no way in the place down below :fire:that I vote for that man.

I can agree with what you are saying and probably will have decided to vote by the time November gets here.

[leatherneck]

I personally believe that foreign policy experience for the next president is much more critical than any in the past. Ever since 9/11. JMO.

 

God bless you my friend. While the President obviously has an impact on domestic issues like taxes, etc., on foreign policy, intelligence and national security issues the President has so much more impact that it becomes absolutely critical that the most qualified person win the Presidency. For those posters whom have long criticized Bush for being lead around by his nose by Cheney, Rumsfeld and other advisors on foreign policy, intelligence and national security issues, it should be very difficult to now support Obama. While every President has to some degree rely on his advisors, I would only think it logical that a President without much experience in one area, is more dependent on his advisors in that area and thus more likely to be lead around by the nose. As a result I want someone that knows enough about foreign policy, intelligence and national security issues to be able to intelligently tell his advisors "no" when they give him bad advise. With McCain's experience on foreign policy, intelligence and national security issues I would not be nearly as worried about him acting on bad advise from his advisors. OTH, Obama is as green as Spring grass on those issues and that would scare the bejeezus out of me.

[Clyde]

McCains -

 

Here is McCains -

 

McCain graduated from the United States Naval Academy in 1958 and retired from the Navy in 1981

 

He spent five and a half years as a prisoner of war, experiencing episodes of torture.

 

Elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Arizona in 1982.

 

Committee on Interior Affairs

 

Select Committee on Aging

 

Chairmanship of the Republican Task Force on Indian Affairs.

 

Elected to the U.S. Senate in 1986, winning re-election in 1992, 1998, and 2004.

 

Senate Armed Services Committee

 

Commerce Committee

 

Indian Affairs Committee

 

Chairman of the board of directors of the International Republican Institute

 

Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs

 

Chairman of Senate Commerce Committee

 

Let me state that I am truly undecided at this point.

 

However, all we hear are complaints about inside-the-beltway politics. Would not that include the Senator from AZ? He's been that same guy we complain about for 26 years. Now its an asset?

 

Being tortured for five years is a qualification?

 

"Select Committee on Aging?""" -

[H]

For those posters whom have long criticized Bush for being lead around by his nose by Cheney, Rumsfeld and other advisors on foreign policy, intelligence and national security issues, it should be very difficult to now support Obama. While every President has to some degree rely on his advisors, I would only think it logical that a President without much experience in one area, is more dependent on his advisors in that area and thus more likely to be lead around by the nose.

 

 

I'm not going to claim that Obama has the foreign policy experience that McCain has, BUT there is no reason to think that a President who relies on his advisors will necessarily be led around by the nose. Let's face it, Bush's lack of intellectual curiosity is so well-documented as to approach legendary status. Obama is an intellectual. With intellectual curiosity comes a healthy dose of skepticism. So almost by definition, there should be little reason to expect a repeat of what happened five years ago. Someone willing to ask questions and reason through the responses is infinitely more qualified to make important policy decisions than a hip-shooter.

 

Is McCain more experienced than Obama? Certainly. However, in the eyes of many voters, that experience edge has not served McCain well in his position on Iraq. For those voters, that policy position difference outweighs concerns about experience.

[True blue (and gold)]

I personally don't think you can cancel out anyone's time in the Senate or for that matter Obama's time in the Illinois legislature. What one should do is consider what positions and experience each gained in elected office and determine how germane those positions and experience are the office of the President. Likewise, voting record means a lot to me. In examining the voting record, I will caution, one has to dig into the bill actually voted on. For example a vote against a bill, even if the bill was on its face for something wonderful, maybe have been the correct vote if it was laden with pork or other nefarious things.

 

This is one of the best posts I have seen in a while. You are correct. One of my favorite quotes - "Leadership is not position, it's action".

 

Additionally, I agree with you on needing to look at the actual bill to determine WHY it was voted for/against. For example, the thread that we had not long ago on McCain NOT voting for some funding for military vets. I mean, come on! Why would McCain NOT vote for money for veterans, based on his experience? There were other reasons attached (though I didn't look them up - I didn't have to) as to why he voted the way that he did.

[True blue (and gold)]

I would prefer a governor to a senator. A governor must be a good administrator. A senator must be a good bureaucrat. While I didn't always agree with his politics, I thought Bill Richardson was by far the most qualified to be president.

 

Congressman

Secretary of Energy

Ambassador to the United Nations

Governor of New Mexico

Positions in both education and industry

 

He was my pick. I would LOVE to see either candidate choose him for VP. My voting decision would be a lot easier!

[True blue (and gold)]

I understand qualms about Obama's qualifications, but what qualifications did these people bring to the presidency?

 

Ronald Reagan, actor, president of Screen Actors Guild, spokesman for GE, California Governor 8 years.

 

George W. Bush, oil company executive, baseball team co-owner, Texas Governor 5 years.

 

Abraham Lincoln, lawyer, Illinois state legislature (8 years), U.S. House of Representatives (2 years).

 

 

Here is an interesting link:

Presidential experience

 

So...with Obama's 8 years in the State legislature, four years in the US Senate AND because he is a lawyer...on paper, he is more qualified to be president than Abraham Lincoln? Hmmmm...interesting connection.

[the mathemagician]

Not a supporter but...

 

8 years in the Illinois Senate

3 in the U.S. Senate

Law Professor

Civil Right Attorney

 

That's about all I got...

 

Anywho, If W. has the right to become president then so does Obama.

 

 

 

Thank you...

[cch5432]

On the topic of Bush's qualifications, he and Bill Clinton had similar qualifications, except that Bush was governor of a bigger state. Both of whom are at least as qualified as Senator Obama.

 

HHSDad brought up a good point that maybe it is better to be a governor then President rather than a Senator, although I do like a candidate who has been in DC.

[True blue (and gold)]

On the topic of Bush's qualifications, he and Bill Clinton had similar qualifications, except that Bush was governor of a bigger state. Both of whom are at least as qualified as Senator Obama.

 

HHSDad brought up a good point that maybe it is better to be a governor then President rather than a Senator, although I do like a candidate who has been in DC.

 

On the bolded part, though, Clinton had more years of experience as a governor and served as attorney general of Arkansas.

 

I, like you, do think that weighing the experience as governor vs. time in DC is hard to do.

[leatherneck]

I just watched an add two nights ago with McCain and Bush shaking hands and walking into the white house together. The last line was can you tell them apart. I know McCain isn't a big fan of W, but I would guess I'm a little more informed than many people that will vote in this election, so a simple add like that can be harder to dissprove to some. He will be tied as closely as possible to Bush and I really don't think that's going to help him.

 

 

That isn't the point you were trying to make and you know it. You stated Obama's biggest qualification was that he wasn't a buddy of W (which is in and of itself not a qualification to be the President and if that is his biggest qualification, then Obama is not qualified to be President). I pointed out that McCain is not a buddy of Bush either. Anyone that supposedly is informed about politics knows the bad blood between the two going back to 2000. They know that Bush and McCain have differed, sometimes very strongly on many issues over the last 8 years, including but not limited to the Iraq situation. If shaking hands and walking into the WH together makes two people buddies, then W is buddies with Pelosi, Kennedy and a host of far liberal Democrats that you would be hypocritical in approving of. I know the Democratic Spin Machine will and already has tried the Third Bush Term total garbage. And I'm sure some ignorant voters will actually believe the garbage. And Obama, while knowing its garbage, will probably allow the DSM to continue to run those ads. I hope not. I may not vote for him, but I'd least like to still be able to respect him after November.

[leatherneck]

I'm not going to claim that Obama has the foreign policy experience that McCain has, BUT there is no reason to think that a President who relies on his advisors will necessarily be led around by the nose. Let's face it, Bush's lack of intellectual curiosity is so well-documented as to approach legendary status. Obama is an intellectual. With intellectual curiosity comes a healthy dose of skepticism. So almost by definition, there should be little reason to expect a repeat of what happened five years ago. Someone willing to ask questions and reason through the responses is infinitely more qualified to make important policy decisions than a hip-shooter.

 

Is McCain more experienced than Obama? Certainly. However, in the eyes of many voters, that experience edge has not served McCain well in his position on Iraq. For those voters, that policy position difference outweighs concerns about experience.

 

 

Obama is a bright young man. No debating that. But if you equate high intelligence with being a good leader and good decision maker, I need to introduce you to some very intellectual, egg headed partners of mine that need someone to lead them out of a conference room from time to time. If the demands of the Presidency weren't as great as they are, perhaps I'd be more willing to accept your hope. But there will be many, many circumstances facing this President that will not allow the time to sit back and carefully analyze things on which he knows little of. And when that happens, faced with little or no experience, he IS going to have to rely on those advisors and he'll end up in the same position that Bush was in, albeit for different reasons.

[leatherneck]

On the topic of Bush's qualifications, he and Bill Clinton had similar qualifications, except that Bush was governor of a bigger state. Both of whom are at least as qualified as Senator Obama.

 

HHSDad brought up a good point that maybe it is better to be a governor then President rather than a Senator, although I do like a candidate who has been in DC.

 

 

At this point in our country's history, I definitely want someone who knows the buttons and has the experience McCain has. At other times, perhaps I'd be more willing to agree with HHSDad. Not in 08 however.