<p>being interested and curious does not make a president </p>
<p>Solutions or ideas on how to fix or change are things I would listen to, not a sermon.
Im analytical I want concrete not flight</p>
<p>epiphany said:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Has ANYONE said differently? We’re just recognizing this has happened. I personally don’t think it’s right/wrong. It is true though.</p>
<p>Hunt; what proof do you have that he is “really, really, smart”? At the very least any smarter than the other two. And what proof do you have that the “highly educated” voters are attracted to this quality?</p>
<p>Obama doesn’t show himself as being any smarter than the other 2 on any subject. If you look at the large amount of position papers on the issues, Obama is no more educated or enlightened on any of the issues. Matter of fact, there are many issues where his OFFICIAL position is “NC” NO COMMENT. </p>
<p>His educational background is equal to the other 2. He didn’t invent anything special. There is no proof at all that he is “SMARTER”. There is absolutely “NO AVAILABLE EVIDENCE” to suggest that. There is even LESS evidence to imply the “Highly Educated” voters see it in him. Maybe you get the impression that he is SMARTER THAN YOU; and therefor believe he is. That’s possible.</p>
<p>Obama’s one and only attribute that he has going for him for attracting the majority of his supporters appears to be his charisma, personality, and ability for motivational public speaking. That is what the “AVAILABLE EVIDENCE” shows.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s funny, but hardly instructive about what would make a good president, a position that requires maturity and seasoning, some experience, intelligence, and good sense. I’d take the experience, intelligence and sense of a wise-for-his-her years brilliant 25-year-old over that of our current promoted-beyond-his abilities President. I’d take the pervasive intelligence of either Obama or Clinton over the “I don’t know anything about the economy” experience of John McCain. I’d take the personality of Obama over them all.</p>
<p>Christcorp, I don’t know, I definitely think Obama is smarter than HRC or McCain. Educational performance correlates well with intelligence. McCain’s & Hillary’s is undistinguished by comparison. I don’t get the impression that McCain has any high intelligence. He’s basically like Bush 3.0.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>They’re equal? Let’s see: Obama was president of the Harvard Law Review (which is insanely competitive) and taught constitutional law at UChicago, while Hillary failed the bar exam, and McCain graduated ranked 894/899, the bottom decile, from the United States Naval Academy. How do either of them have an educational background equal to Obama? Hillary’s close, but she didn’t make the Review at Yale, she failed the bar exam, and she never taught at a top university like UChicago.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nobody is doing this though…nobody is saying he’s not qualified because of his race. We’re simply pointing out that if he was white this race would be different, he wouldn’t be getting 90% of the black vote, and therefore wouldn’t have as big (if any) of a lead in the delegates. </p>
<p>You’re making illogical jumps when coming up with conclusions. Nobody said “Obama isn’t qualified because he is black.” I challenge you to show me where a poster in this thread said that. You’re twisting what I and others say. Nobody is saying that he’s not qualified because of his race…we’re simply saying that if he was white this race would be MUCH different.</p>
<p>What do you (individually, of course) consider to be the single most important qualification to be president?</p>
<p>Obama is certainly “smarter” in an academic sense. Just like McCain is more courageous and Clinton is…well…i don’t really know what she has that the other two don’t??</p>
<p>I think academics isn’t the best indicator of who will govern the best. Many presidents, such as Washington and Lincoln, never went to college. Hell Andrew Jackson couldn’t read before he was 14 and never learned to write until he was married (yikes!)</p>
<p>That’s what makes debates and voting so interesting. If it was Hillary against McCain; I would have to think about it. If it was EITHER against Obama; I would choose EITHER. </p>
<p>As far as education goes; John McCain graduated from the U.S. Naval Academy Annapolis. The military academies have always been noted and distinguished as a level of education in line with the Ivy and West Coast Ivy schools. Throw in another 20 years of life and professional experience/knowledge and Obama can’t even come close. I know you aren’t going to try and cut down the educational level and experience of Annapolis, West Point, or the Air Force Academy. </p>
<p>Hillary also has much more going for her when it comes to being “educated”. I assume that is what you mean by “SMART”. I’ve had Summa Cum Laude students at my college who were IDIOTS. Educated is what is important. NOT JUST officially in a school with a piece of paper, but with life experiences. Personal as well as professional. I’ve seen “C” students who are “SMARTER” than the book smart idiots who have no common sense. Educational performance may correlate well with being “Intelligent”, but intelligent doesn’t correlate necessarily well to being smart or educated.</p>
<p>P.S. What do I consider to be the MOST IMPORTANT characteristic to being president? That would be Leadership. That is the #1 job of the president. To be a leader. Lead the Democrats and Republicans in the senate/house to be able to work together. Lead our military in it’s ability to carry out it’s mission. Lead the American people to look beyond themselves, see the bigger picture, and help themselves by helping the country. Leading the world by example to those countries who are a lot worse off than we are. LEADERSHIP is the most important characteristic in my opinion. Roosevelt, JFK, Regan, were 3 of the BEST leaders in the last century. Ford and Carter are examples of 2 of the worst. I consider Clinton and Current Bush as being very neutral and not very effective leaders.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I believe this is incorrect.</p>
<p>If he was a white male he certainly wouldn’t have a 90/10 black vote advantage. His disadvantage against Clinton’s working class vote would be greatly reduced. I speculate it’d be a net positive.</p>
<p>I believe Obama has benefitted from his race is other ways (an advantage that a savvy politician would attempt to maximize). His rise has been absolutely meteoric, something never seen before. It’s hard to say that him being mix race has had no effect (or even been a disadvantage).</p>
<p>Sorry, but it all goes back to his Likeability factor. That is what has made Obama successful. Would he had been AS SUCCESSFUL had he not been black? Don’t know, hard to say. The other 2 may not have the likeability factor of Obama, so they concentrate on their experiences and accomplishments. If Obama didn’t have the likeability factor and the people weren’t so “Inspired” by him; he’d have almost nothing else to work with.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a good point, and it very well may be true. It’s harder to determine how or why working class voters happen to vote for a certain candidate. “Working class” is such a broad term. It’s a debatable point as to if he would have or would not have more support from the working class. I think it’s pretty clear that if he was white he wouldn’t have 90% of the black vote.</p>
<p>“If Obama didn’t have the likeability factor and the people weren’t so “Inspired” by him; he’d have almost nothing else to work with.”</p>
<p>No question. That’s why he gets so much of the highly-educated voting bloc. Because those people are stupid and easily persuaded by ephemeral features.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think the rebuttal to this post is right here.</p>
<p>[Stuff</a> White People Like](<a href=“http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/]Stuff”>http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.■■■■■■■■■■■■■/)</p>
<p>Posts #8 & #14 seem relevant.</p>
<p>No question. Another quality, scholarly, definitive piece of information about the internal reasons that particular voters in particular “blocs” vote precisely as they do. </p>
<p>Amazingly amateurish “arguments” here, revealing much about the level of sophistication of the posters in question.</p>
<p>If you’re “logic” if you can call it that, twisting of peoples words, and misquotations is what’s waiting for me out in the “real world” I like my chances of moving up the socio-economic ladder fairly quickly. You’ve shown very well that you can’t 1) logically put together an argument 2) comprehend what people are actually saying and 3) quote people (a simple task you would think)</p>
<p>
Going to ad hominem attacks reveals your sophistication as well. Keep up the good work.</p>
<p>Simply acknowledging that race is an important part of this election does not make one a simpleton.</p>
<p>“Simply acknowledging that race is an important part of this election does not make one a simpleton.”</p>
<p>Race is “an important part” of life, including politics (therefore obviously including elections). It’s how race is being judged, determined to be programmatic, assumed to be singularly decisive, etc., that is the problem in this case. The arguments by the supposed “trio” here reveal the breadth of the ignorance, rather than serving to illumine the debate.</p>