Sometimes my incredulousness hits me all over again.
What I enjoy even more is how much I take it for granted. “The White House announced today …” no longer has me flinching in anticipation. "President Obama today … " – yup, sounds good to me.
Truly, it is sometimes remarkable just how unremarkable it has become for a black man to be president of the United States. Of course, some people will never be comfortable with it but you no longer hear “our first black president” prior to every mention of his name.
I look forward, in another generation or two, to people being amazed that this was ever considered remarkable at all.
Barack who? Sounds ethnic. Was he born in another country?
And I, to when ‘Our first Atheist President/Prime Minister’ a: happens, and b: is considered remarkable.
It isn’t remarkable at all. We’ve had by now: US Reps, US Senators, SCOTUS Associate Justices, Governers, Mayors, Generals…If anything, what is remarkable is that the first President would have such minimal preparation and experience.
Yes, we HAVE had reps, senators, governors, mayors, generals … We’ve also had earthquakes and tornados. And a salad for dinner last night. So, um, what did you mean?
I dunno that all of our previous POTUS’s “preparation and experience” did much of squat, either.
My incredulity (thanks for not pouncing on the made up incredulousness) isn’t because he’s black - at least mostly not. He was the junior senator from Illinois, a Democrat, a moderate liberal…it’s similar to the euphoria in 1992 when I had finally had voted for a candidate who won. It was weird.
The last US Senator elected as President of the US was the then junior senator from Massachusetts, a Democrat and a moderate liberal – and also was the first Catholic elected as President, at a time when being Catholic was regarded as a political liability. But the election of 1960 seems like ancient history …
(And Jack came from a much more privileged background than Barack did).
Experience counts. You can’t wash away all the standards with Bush 43. Reagan 40 had two completed terms as governor. Clinton 42 had two completed terms as governor. Eisenhower had years in service at the 4/5 star general level. Contenders like Robert Dole and Hilary Clinton had one or more completed terms in the Senate. Experience counts, both in crafting legislation, writing budgets, managing cabinets and appointments. We’re long past the point where political charisma and idealism is enough.
Yep, thanks to that last election, I don’t think it is going to be a big deal if another black person, or a woman, runs for President. Sort of a “been there, done that” event now.
I have noticed that Gay people who got married before it was repealed are still legally married in California, and so far the world has not collapsed. Perhaps someday this too will be a non-issue.
At any rate, it is nice to see the Obama family in the White House - even kids and grandma - and life goes on.
Depends what you mean by that. Should be what counts? Yes ( I won’t argue whether Obama is qualified or not, I voted for the guy, so I guess I found him compelling enough in context ).
Is what counts? No. Less and less the case. In these days of media saturation, image and image-control is THE deciding factor. Not the only one, but the most crucial. We will never, ever again have a relatively uncharismatic president in this country, no matter how experienced or brilliant. Just won’t happen.
You want a pretty, shiny President, fine. But you have a pretty,shiny, qualified and experienced President. It’s not one or the other. Pretty and shiny isn’t enough.
As I said before, what makes Obama’s election remarkable is his utter lack of experience and qualifications as an executive.
What was the option? McCain?
I think you misread my post. Unless you were using a more general “you”, in which case never mind ;).
Historically, experience has little to no correlation with success as a President. James Buchanan had served in various areas of government for decades, but he’s regarded as one of the worst Presidents; Abraham Lincoln had very few years in elected office or civil service, but he’s on Mount Rushmore, and regularly ranks in the top 5 or 10 Presidents ever.
Also, please don’t claim that Obama is utterly inexperienced. It’s a ridiculous load of crap and you know it.
Well, after four years in the position that won’t be a problem any more, will it?
There is no test for experience regarding nomination of a Presidential candidate. Feel free to propose one, and then we’ll see whether it’s worth adopting.
This is not impressive. What would be impressive is if this devolved into a evolution/creationism shouting match.
My test is to go back thru the elections and pick the candidate with the most charisma. Compare that candidate to the actual winner. How far back do you have to go before they don’t match?
Obama - McCain
Kerry - Bush
Gore - Bush
Clinton - Dole
Clinton - Bush
Dukakis - Bush
Mondale - Reagan
Carter - Reagan
Carter - Ford
McGovern - Nixon
Humphrey - Nixon
Johnson - Goldwater
Kennedy - Nixon
Yes, both alternatives to Obama had served as senators – McCain for much longer, but still just as a senator. Clinton had some additional political experience from serving as First Lady of the U.S. for 8 years, and First Lady of Arkansas for 11 years, and McCain had been a congressman before he was a senator. If I was on a committee choosing someone for a job, I’d see these as giving them a bit of an edge on Obama as far as political experience goes, but not a big enough difference to outweigh other factors.