Obama Qualifications?

So, just what has the man done to make one think he is a good choice to be president?

Here’s a post that looks at some of the accomplishments he’s tauting w/r/t housing (high on the list for a president in any case…):

http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmJjMjg1ODUwNjFjMTMxMDE4OTQxNjEwMjI3Njk2YjM=

[i]The Boston Globe Reveals the Catastrophic Failures of Obama’s Housing Efforts

I don’t begrudge Barack Obama the modesty of his accomplishments ( http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTMwYjg0ZmEyNDFiN2UzYjBjNjQyNmQzOTRlNjFhNGY= ) as a community organizer. Stemming the tide of urban decay in Chicago’s worst neighborhoods in the late 1980s was beyond even the most tireless efforts of one man.

“Sisyphian” is the term that keeps coming to mind, but I would note that what Obama actually accomplished - “a successful effort to convince the city of Chicago to locate a jobs placement office on the far South Side and his part in a drive to push the city to clean asbestos out of a housing project in the same area [Altgeld Gardens]” �?? aren�??t a ton to show for three years of effort.

As a state legislator, Obama had been in office for all of four years before he decided he was ready to replace Rep. Bobby Rush in Congress. The voters in his district didn’t see it that way.

Relatively powerless when Democrats were in the minority, Obama’s accomplishments piled up in the final two years in the state legislature ( http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/print ), as his political godfather, Emil Jones Jr., helped Obama take a lead role in just about every piece of high-profile legislation. By the end of 2003, Obama focused heavily on the upcoming U.S. Senate race.

This brings Obama to the U.S. Senate. His first general election ad ( http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjJhNDA4M2RiYThiNzQyNjE4MzUxZGRlOWYxZmQ2Y2U= ) touts a bill he didn’t vote for, his signature accomplishment in foreign policy (the nuclear nonprofileration bill) was so uncontroversial it passed by unanimous consent; and with his signature domestic policy accomplishment, ethics reform, nonpartisan observers conclude he has exaggerated ( PolitiFact | Obama's stretch on ethics reform ) his role in passage.

Two years isn’t a lot of time to bring about “real change,” and most of his supporters would concede that Obama’s accomplishments as a freshman senator have been modest. He’s been rebuked by his colleagues ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301706.html ) for taking credit for legislation he had little role in crafting.

It�??s easy to wonder whether the candidate who talks about “real change” and pledges a government that will “heal the sick” and “stop the oceans from rising” actually knows how to get big things done - or whether he had the patience.

Obama would seem to have the skills and brains to be a legendary community organizer, or state legislator, or U.S. senator. But momentous accomplishments in each of those positions take time, and at each level, Obama hit a wall, and turned his attention to a position of greater power.

I note this as the Boston Globe takes a comprehensive look at Obama’s efforts at housing as a state legislator and as a U.S. senator, and comes to devastating conclusions ( Grim proving ground for Obama's housing policy - The Boston Globe ).

The policy changes Obama pushed have been catastrophic failures for the public, but lucrative for his donors.

[quote] As a state senator, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee coauthored an Illinois law creating a new pool of tax credits for developers. As a US senator, he pressed for increased federal subsidies. And as a presidential candidate, he has campaigned on a promise to create an Affordable Housing Trust Fund that could give developers an estimated $500 million a year.

But a Globe review found that thousands of apartments across Chicago that had been built with local, state, and federal subsidies - including several hundred in Obama's former district - deteriorated so completely that they were no longer habitable.

Grove Parc and several other prominent failures were developed and managed by Obama's close friends and political supporters. Those people profited from the subsidies even as many of Obama's constituents suffered. Tenants lost their homes; surrounding neighborhoods were blighted.

Campaign finance records show that six prominent developers - including Jarrett, Davis, and Rezko - collectively contributed more than $175,000 to Obama's campaigns over the last decade and raised hundreds of thousands more from other donors. Rezko alone raised at least $200,000, by Obama's own accounting.

One of those contributors, Cecil Butler, controlled Lawndale Restoration, the largest subsidized complex in Chicago, which was seized by the government in 2006 after city inspectors found more than 1,800 code violations.[/quote]

Obama has said that his preference for private companies acting as landlords of these developments rather than the Chicago Housing Authority was inspired by his experience with Altgeld Gardens. I can understand that instinct. But one of the problems of constantly moving on to the next promotion is that you never get to see the consequences and ramifications of past actions.[/i]

And McCain has done…? And Bush did…? And Clinton did…?

We’ve had plenty of politicians win the Presidency without really proving anything. It sucks, but a lack of experience OR a big chunk of crappy experience can be easily ignored by the American people.

Racist.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
And McCain has done…?
[/quote]

Long term Senator. Instrumental in many significant laws being passed as well as influencing policy.

Governor of TX

Governor of AR

[quote]

We’ve had plenty of politicians win the Presidency without really proving anything. It sucks, but a lack of experience OR a big chunk of crappy experience can be easily ignored by the American people.[/quote]

I cannot think of any serious candidate for the office that has as little experience as Obama.

As in life, sometimes a person’s experiential background can be outweighed by their ineptitude…not everybody gets where they are based on their level of competence.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
And McCain has done…?

Long term Senator. Instrumental in many significant laws being passed as well as influencing policy.

And Bush did…?

Governor of TX

And Clinton did…?

Governor of AR

We’ve had plenty of politicians win the Presidency without really proving anything. It sucks, but a lack of experience OR a big chunk of crappy experience can be easily ignored by the American people.

I cannot think of any serious candidate for the office that has as little experience as Obama.
[/quote]

Being a governor is about as congruous to the job of President as being a community organizer is. POTUS is a unique position, and I don’t think most non-incumbent Presidents knew what they were getting into.

Only high level cabinet positions, IMO have viable experience in the executive field. So the only truly “experienced” President we’ve had in awhile is Bush Snr. Congressmen especially have jobs that are terribly different from the POTUS.

Plus, it is the experience of the advisers they will surround themselves with that matters MUCH more than the actual Presidents experience. And in that, they are probably about equal.

There are A LOT of reasons to not like and not vote for Obama. I don’t experience is as viable a reason as most people think. POTUS is a job no one can be prepared for without actually holding the position.

Read any Presidential memoir. Almost all of them will talk about how they didn’t understand the position until they held it. Even Jefferson, our second VP, didn’t understand the pressure until he took office.

[quote]Jimmy the Saint wrote:
As in life, sometimes a person’s experiential background can be outweighed by their ineptitude…not everybody gets where they are based on their level of competence.[/quote]

Another good point.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
And McCain has done…?

Long term Senator. Instrumental in many significant laws being passed as well as influencing policy.

And Bush did…?

Governor of TX

And Clinton did…?

Governor of AR

We’ve had plenty of politicians win the Presidency without really proving anything. It sucks, but a lack of experience OR a big chunk of crappy experience can be easily ignored by the American people.

I cannot think of any serious candidate for the office that has as little experience as Obama.
[/quote]

Lincoln.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
And McCain has done…?

Long term Senator. Instrumental in many significant laws being passed as well as influencing policy.

And Bush did…?

Governor of TX

And Clinton did…?

Governor of AR

We’ve had plenty of politicians win the Presidency without really proving anything. It sucks, but a lack of experience OR a big chunk of crappy experience can be easily ignored by the American people.

I cannot think of any serious candidate for the office that has as little experience as Obama.

Being a governor is about as congruous to the job of President as being a community organizer is. POTUS is a unique position, and I don’t think most non-incumbent Presidents knew what they were getting into.

Only high level cabinet positions, IMO have viable experience in the executive field. So the only truly “experienced” President we’ve had in awhile is Bush Snr. Congressmen especially have jobs that are terribly different from the POTUS.

Plus, it is the experience of the advisers they will surround themselves with that matters MUCH more than the actual Presidents experience. And in that, they are probably about equal.

There are A LOT of reasons to not like and not vote for Obama. I don’t experience is as viable a reason as most people think. POTUS is a job no one can be prepared for without actually holding the position.

Read any Presidential memoir. Almost all of them will talk about how they didn’t understand the position until they held it. Even Jefferson, our second VP, didn’t understand the pressure until he took office.
[/quote]

Right.

It’s just something the nazis on the other side will throw out there in order to attempt to discredit him.

It’s alright… the GOP is sinkin’, they’ll grab whatever they can before they realize Mr. Born Last Century ain’t gonna win.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
… before they realize Mr. Born Last Century ain’t gonna win.[/quote]

Genius, they were both born last century.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
And McCain has done…?

Long term Senator. Instrumental in many significant laws being passed as well as influencing policy.

And Bush did…?

Governor of TX

And Clinton did…?

Governor of AR

We’ve had plenty of politicians win the Presidency without really proving anything. It sucks, but a lack of experience OR a big chunk of crappy experience can be easily ignored by the American people.

I cannot think of any serious candidate for the office that has as little experience as Obama.

Lincoln.[/quote]

Lincoln failed so many times that he had to win.

[quote]doogie wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
… before they realize Mr. Born Last Century ain’t gonna win.

Genius, they were both born last century. [/quote]

Don’t interrupt my propaganda.

[quote]ukrainian wrote:
Lincoln failed so many times that he had to win.[/quote]

You’ve either made a serious error, or a hilarious joke.

Experience has to count - otherwise, on what basis would be hire a president?

Good looks? The ability to read a speechwriter’s script from a teleprompter?

Deeds have to matter at least as much as words, else we’ll be beset by an Elmer Gantry figure.

Oh wait.

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Lincoln.[/quote]

Any idea that Obama is somehow a Lincolnesque figure is stupid beyond parody.

Lincoln had great practical experience, and limited public service experience. It served him well.

It also formed an amazing depth of knowledge about the Constitutional crisis he would face, which he needed far more than years in Congress or something similar.

The notion - however fleeting - that Obama’s experiential deficiencies can somehow be overcome because he has the “Lincoln touch” is manure.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

Being a governor is about as congruous to the job of President as being a community organizer is. [/quote]

You have set new thresholds for speaking out of your ass.

Service as a governor is one of the most natural avenues and training grounds to the Presidency - easily understood because a President is a governor writ large. You deal with the other branches, you oversee the administrative law departments, you sign bills into law, you negotiate trade deals with foreign countries even.

Seriously, Beowolf.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Any idea that Obama is somehow a Lincolnesque figure is stupid beyond parody.

.[/quote]

Don’t forget the JFK comparisons the media’s already hailing at THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD himself.

:rolleyes:

I’ll be laughing in 2 years when we see the bumper stickers and t shirts all over that say “don’t blame me, I voted for Barr”

[quote]gatesoftanhauser wrote:

Don’t forget the JFK comparisons the media’s already hailing at THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD himself.

:rolleyes:[/quote]

It is weird - about all that JFK and Obama have in common is that they are both considered style icons. Notwithstanding the above as evidence contrary to that, Obama wears off-the-rack at Burberry and JFK was well noted in his sartorial choices.

Beyond that, JFK was a tax-cutting, Communist-despising uber-hawk, and, of course, Obama doesn’t compare well to that.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
ukrainian wrote:
Lincoln failed so many times that he had to win.

You’ve either made a serious error, or a hilarious joke. [/quote]

No, I am serious. He ran for different offices multiple times, and he ran for president multiple times. I remember reading a story about his failures before he became president, but there were many.

I was just saying that after all that he went through, he deserved to win. I know I ruined my joke (that I didn’t know was a joke), but I had to explain myself.