For chrissakes, the guy is a U.S. Senator and has been in the U.S. House of Representatives. He’s a Harvard lawyer that was head of the Harvard Law Review. He taught at University of Chicago. He came from behind to defeat Hillary Clinton in a long, arduous campaign. The Clinton’s are among the most politically savvy people in the country. Then you try to state that the guy is not politically astute. Wow?
Next, you’ll tell us that Lance Armstrong doesn’t know anything about racing bicycles.
Did you read my cite? If so explain to me how Carter caused:
[ul]
[li]Avionics failure in one helicopter…returned to carrier[/li][li]Fractured rotor blade on another helicopter…abandoned[/li][li]Failed primary hydraulics system on a third helicopter…grounded[/li][li]Sandstorm[/li][li]Radio silence (understandable on a mission like this and not unusual) caused delays as helicopters flew in sandstorm and could not keep unit cohesion (flying low to stay under radar…also not unusual)[/li][li]Blow up an Iranian tanker truck smuggling fuel…lights up the desert[/li][li]Iranian bus drives by filled with Iranians…they are detained[/li][li]Too few helicopters to meet mission requirements and behind schedule due to the above issues the commander on site asks for and receives permission to abort the mission.[/li][li]Helicopter attempting to refuel lands on transport plane and they both blow up.[/li][/ul]
Except for Carter agreeing to canceling the mission I am missing the parts in there where micromanagement on Carter’s part caused the mission to fail. Maybe it would have later because of him but we’ll never know since it never even got that far.
Nobody is suggesting that Senate experience is Obama’s only qualification. Like McCain, Obama can point to lots of things to show his experience qualifying him for the white house. Senate experience is just one of those things.
And the obvious counter-point is that, just because he has been thru a political campaign is not a reason to assert that he knows jack squat about being President.
By that standard, George Bush was just as qualified to be President in 2000 as Obama is today. Sarah Palin is going thru a tough campaign. Therefore, she is qualified to be President.
Anyone who complained about any lack of experience in any other candidate can be completely answered by saying, “He went thru a tough campaign. Therefore, he knows all about being President.”
Everyone who runs for the White House has gone thru a tough campaign, and therefore it is not a useful way to distinguish one candidate from another. What it is, is a weak excuse for a candidate with virtually no relevant experience.
You are attempting to conflate campaigning with the process of governing the country. Obama has no experience governing anything.
He’s served part of one term in the Senate. He was never in the House, as mentioned. He did not teach at the University of Chicago; they gave him a fellowship so he could write a book. And when you are asked what the heck this has to do with governing the country, you respond, “Well,he made it thru the primaries.”
Yes, I knew that. What does that have to do with governing the country?
This is ridiculous. You claimed he was inexperienced in the political and legislative process. What is more political than a campaign for President, especially the one he’s been through.
You say he didn’t teach at the University of Chicago. He was a Senior Lecturer.
“Obtuse” is the nicest thing thing that can be said about your posts. It must be a whoosh.
From the exact same cite:
He TAUGHT three courses per year [for eight years]. What is it about the word “taught” that you don’t understand? How is teaching three courses per year not “teaching” at UofC?
He chose not to be on the tenure track because of his political aspirations. That was his choice. UofC invited him several times.
As my Dad used to say, “Slow as molasses in January.”
Settle down and don’t let your emotions control your posts. There are any number of responses you could make that do not involve personal insults to other posters.
Yea, I know. That’s why I suggested the “whooshing”. It’s frustrating because there isn’t much to be debated about the official statement from the University of Chicago. It’s pretty clear.
Notice that when I made a factual error I immediately stood corrected.
Campaigning against heavyweights is a baptism of fire. The debates were endless and difficult for all involved. It shows the ability to react well under pressure and to keep it together. To rise to the top through that is laudable. We learn a lot about our candidates through the process.
Bush was a bad campaigner relying on dirty politics and swiftboating to undercut his adversaries. He took the low road and has not strayed from it since. His campaign showed who is and it is not pretty.
Look, why is this so hard for you? People are refuting your assertion that Obama’s first encounter with “political reality” will be in the Oval Office:
Obama certainly got a taste of “political reality” in the Illinois State Senate, the U.S. Senate, and during a lengthy primary campaign which is quite distinct, and far more grueling than the campaigns any of the other candidates has gone through this political season. Biden and Palin didn’t go through a primary process, and McCain had no real competition once the primaries started.
You’ve already been corrected on the teaching aspect (and I hope this one sticks) but when Sarah Palin can’t even name a court case other than Roe v. Wade, and Obama taught constitutional friggin LAW how is she even slightly qualified?
