All the way back to Kerry - Bush?
It still makes me happy too.
The thing is, what do you mean by “charisma”? For the average voter, George W. Bush had more charisma than either John Kerry or Al Gore, because the average voter saw Kerry and Gore as elitist intellectuals. So if you’d had a poll about who was most charismatic among those in 2000 or 2004, Bush would have won hands down.
thinks about Dubya winning a “charisma” contest
head explodes
:smack: Shit, I screwed that up. I actually do think Bush is the one who is perceived as more traditionally charismatic. I think I misread the post or something.
Indeed :).
Yes, unfortunately experience is not the end-all, be-all. Especially in politics, where as noted charisma can trump an awful lot ( and let it be said I think McCain is a charismatic guy in general, if not as much as Obama ). As an example I had a supervisor who retired a couple years ago after a quarter century+ in his position. Experience up the yin-yang, but he retired an utter incompetent and had been so for all the decade or so I worked with him. Experience can’t bridge all gaps and should never be the sole criterion for picking an executive. So for example, irrespective of experience:
McCain, ran a truly shitty campaign = has some lousy executive skills ( not necessarily all facets )
Obama, ran an excellent campaign = has some good executive skills ( not necessarily all facets )
Then there is ideology. Often used a pejorative, but ideology is important in its own way. Though neither candidates ideology accords perfectly with my own, Obama’s was less inimical overall to mine. That too, has to be factored in. So do other considerations.
Experience is important and, yeah, I think it should be important than carefully crafted media images ( though in the real world it usually isn’t ). But it ain’t the whole enchilada.
It is reasonable to expect some sort of executive experience at the state or federal level to be in play when we’re talking about the CEO of the federal branch of the government.
The fact that other candidates weren’t prime material either doesn’t alter this.
Before a person stands for election as POTUS, it’d be nice if they had prior experience in the executive branch at the state or federal level. The best training may well be a couple of terms as a governor: this can give the candidate experience in working with the executive, judicial and legislative branches. Arguably, a term or two ad VPOTUS might serve as well, if the person is an active part of the POTUS team.
Serving in the Illinois House, giving a pretty speech and serving a partial term as a US Senator (campaigning through most of said partial term) does not cut it.
He might vindicate himself, but it will be despite his lack of qualifications and executive experience.
Executive experience is not the only kind. And how nice of you to dismiss him as giving “a pretty speech”. Very Rovian.
POTUS is an executive branch job - executive experience is the essential part of the job: policy, appointments and the like. It helps to have legislative and judicial experience in the mix, as that covers the other two branches.
And try to leave name-calling out of it.
Obama’s main product is
in fact speechmaking. No prior record of legislation, no prior experience leading a council or cabinet, no prior experience in federal policy making. His principal qualification for POTUS is two-fold: his campaign for POTUS and his not being Bush.
Dude, *you *came in here to threadshit. You don’t have any call to claim that others are name-calling.
Threadshit?
My initial point that Obama’s notability wasn’t his ethnicity, but his qualifications.
That isn’t threadshitting. If you want an unadulterated Obama Worship Thread, you’re not going to get one.
I justy noticed this. Although Barack Obama was the fifth African American to hold office as a US Senator, there has never been more than one African-American US Senator, as this Wikipedia list shows. So to talk about “US Senators” is wrong. In fact, since 1979 the only Senate position held by African Americans has been that of United States Senator (Class 3) from Illinois. The other 49 states have to do a bit of catching up here.
When come back, bring new arguments. We’ve already gone over the “he’s not qualified” deal- you know, before the election. It’s been pointed out, over and over, that the “qualifications” you’re looking for may not be as necessary as you insist. You just couldn’t stand the fact that there was a thread which was expressing a bit of “yay, we won!”, could you?
I mean, what did you think your arguments were going to accomplish? Did you think we’d suddenly smack ourselves in our collective foreheads and call for his resignation? “What?! No experience, no qualifications!?! Get the bum outta the office, quick!”
Hey, as long as we’re trashing Doper’s choices for President (even though the election is long over), care to share who you voted for? 'Cause I’m sure we’d all love the opportunity to tell you exactly why your guy lost.
Part of the issue is the distribution of ethnicity of the electorate among the states. Illinois has a sufficiently large black population to drive black candidates. Not every state has the “right” population mix to routinely produce black candidates. It’s more about numbers. A very small proportion of a population runs for the Senate - so if you have a small ethnic subpopulation in a state, that subpopulation yields fewer candidates.
My guy won! 
I’m stating my opinion, not arguing. I do not expect to win anyone over, but I will have my say. The fact that, in my opinion, none of the candidates on either side were optimally qualified will mo doubt fall on deaf ears.
And the fact that the election went a certain way does not change my views - elections are what they are, and the Obama election sways my views about as much as Bush’s elections swayed his opposition.
By all means, label me a Rovian monster for suggesting that a qualified POTUS should have some sort of executive experience, and I will state for fairness sake that none of the final contender had meaningful executive experience.
And since when are SD threads sacrosanct? I don’t recall that rule.
Right – so an ethnic group that is only 2% of the population of the US should not expect to have 17 US Senators, should it?
The fact is that African Americans are not elected to the US Senate in greater numbers because of historical and present-day discrimination against them. Illinois has only 15% African-American population – and there are 12 states with a greater percentage. Why don’t Mississippi (36% African American) or Louisiana (32% African American) ever elect an African American as one of their senators? (Well, Mississippi did in 1870 and in 1875, but that was part of the anomaly called “Reconstruction”).
I know the feeling. Every day when I see more inaction on repealing DADT (which repeal is supported by some 60% of the country–among all political stripes) or the Justice Department continuing to defend DOMA, I’m pretty incredulous too.
But he sure makes one hell of speech, doesn’t he?
I’m still amazed that we managed to dodge the McCain/Palin bullet.
blows whistle
The OP started a thread about what it feels like to have Obama as president.
There has been a major hijack about whether or not that is a good thing.
Stop that hijack now. If you wish to continue that discussion, take it to Great Debates or the Pit.
For now, I’m leaving this thread open. If things don’t get back on track, I’ll close it.
No warnings issued, because I don’t want to get accused of liberal bias … again.
twickster, MPSIMS moderator