<p>did you see those shirts that say</p>
<p>obama bin laden?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think so. I actually think it’s a pretty strong field. James Carvelle gave a speech right before Christmas talking about how excited he was because there are so many heavyweight candidates: McCain, Guiliani, Clinton, Obama…all of whom could walk into a room and change the temperature. These are all larger than life figures in a race with no incumbents.</p>
<p>As he put it, even the second tier candidates (Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Newt, Romney, etc.) “aren’t exactly chopped liver”.</p>
<p>I disagree. </p>
<p>What a sad commentary on the state of affairs in this country that these are the candidates that we’re supposed to consider for the most influential office in the world.</p>
<p>I would argue that most of the folks who post here on CC know individuals that would be far superior for running this country than the annointed ones.</p>
<p>Anyone who has a lick of sense wouldn’t even consider running for President so we’re left with the slick, the wealthy, and those who hunger for power.</p>
<p>And if you step back and think about it - what kind of person would even want to be President?</p>
<p>This crop - like previous crops - is full of a bunch of losers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Are you sure you aren’t letting the mudslinging of politics blur your assessment?</p>
<p>I mean, look the resumes:</p>
<p>Clinton: Star student at Wellesley, Yale Law, staff attorney for the House Judiciary Committee impeachment proceedings against Richard Nixon, partner in an Arkansas law firm, first lady of Arkansas, first lady of the United States, US Senator. I mean…really…that’s a pretty solid background.</p>
<p>Obama: Harvard, Harvard Law, Harvard Law Review, activist lawyer, state rep, US Senator.</p>
<p>I mean, it’s not like these are guys stocking the produce section at the grocery store suddenly running for President. It’s not even like they are gentleman’s C, slacker rich kids. As far as I can tell, none of them are certifiable nutjobs like Ross Perot. They are larger than life public figures whose ambition and talent has made them stand out from the crowd at every stage of their careers.</p>
<p>Look, I’m as cynical as the next guy about politicians. I understand the game they play. But, most serious Presidential candidates are pretty accomplished folk. Really accomplished if they successfully run the gauntlet. Are they perfect? No. I’m not aware of a President who ever has been.</p>
<p>What resumes? Barack Hussein Obama, 6 years state rep (woooo), 2 years US Senate. No executive experience at all. Lets get maybe a couple of full Senate terms at least under your belt before you think you can become the leader of the free world.
Edwards: One Senate term. NOTHING else. No executive branch experience.
Hillary: 1 US Senate term. Again, no elected executive branch experience.
Not even as mayor or even dog catcher.
Kucinich: mayor of a city that went bankrupt.
Biden: Small state US Senator. Many terms. How many times has he run for President and failed? No executive branch experience.</p>
<p>Gulliani: had (has?) cancer. Big city mayor. Bailed on his Senate race. Did not run for governor.</p>
<p>The only real candidate with gobs of experience is Richardson (talk about a resume!).</p>
<p>McCain: Nut. Centerpiece of his Senate agenda: dumb campaign finance reform predictably falling apart.</p>
<p>Lets get more Governors and other state and federal leaders from the executive branch of government. The Senate is for debators. The Senate is for grandstanding without accepting responsibility. Not a place to groom anyone for President. Ideally, you’d want someone with real international experience (not just junkets to Iraq). Real leadership. Not saying “I can’t recall” 98 times. Not “I was for it before I was against it” types. </p>
<p>Usually the candidates that are media-annointed shoe-ins at this early stage (Gore, Kerry, Howard Dean, Gephardt, Ted Kennedy) fall apart later.</p>
<p>Again, a poor crop.</p>
<p>^^^Good summation, mrego.</p>
<p>You left out Nader, though. Looks like he may run.</p>
<p>“actually think it’s a pretty strong field. James Carvelle gave a speech right before Christmas”</p>
<p>Still licking his wounds from supporting a rightwing nut in Bolivia… All in a day’s work.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please. I have to laugh everytime says that two-bit state hacks are more qualified than professional national-level hack politicians. Most state governments are a joke. State hacks do well in campaigns because they can manufacture a record unchallenged by media scrutiny (see Carter, Reagan, Dukakis, Clinton, Bush, Romney). They may or may not be good presidential material, but it’s not the result of their state government experience.</p>
<p>“…two-bit state hacks.”
“…professional national-level hack politicians.”</p>
<p>^^:p: funny.</p>
<p>Oh, and don’t forget Chris Dodd!</p>
<p>BTW, without regard to whether I like them or not, I would rate the experience of this years crop as follows:</p>
<p>Obama: Light on experience, but oozes charisma and leadership. I think he’s running 4 or 8 years too soon.</p>
<p>Edwards: Not great experience, but a full Senate term and a V-P run is not bad. At least as experienced as Carter, Clinton, or Reagan.</p>
<p>Hillary: No qualms about her experience at all. Been in politics her entire life. Second term major US Senator on the Senate Armed Services Committee. Major political advisor in the White House for eight years. In many ways, the most politically battle-hardened candidate in the field.</p>
<p>Kucinich: not a real candidate</p>
<p>Biden: Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Tremendous experience, particularly in foreign affairs. He is the definition of experience and a very knowledgeable smart policy wonk guy. He actually has one of the few Iraq plans that actually makes sense (it probably wouldn’t work, but at least it is intellectually valid). See the video of his recent appearance at the Brookings Institute website. I personally like a President who is intellectually curious enough to learn the major issues and consider the options. Not doing so has been George Bush’s greatest failure.</p>
<p>Dodd: Son of a US Senator. Three terms in the US House, fifth term US senator. Has now served in Congress for 30 consecutive years. </p>
<p>Gulliani: Interesting case. Personally, I would say US Attorney and NYC mayor is borderline as for experience, however I give him major bonus points for the exceptionally motivating leadership he demonstrated following 9-11 – leadership that was sorely lacking from George Bush. One of the important roles of a President is that kind of inpirational leadership especially in times of crisis.</p>
<p>Richardson: Tremendous experience</p>
<p>McCain: Long-term US Senator. Plenty of experience.</p>
<p>Newt: House majority leader.</p>
<p>“Obama: Harvard, Harvard Law, Harvard Law Review, activist lawyer, state rep, US Senator.”</p>
<p>Nitpick: Obama got his undergraduate degree at Columbia.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Not only was Obama on the Harvard Law Review, he served as its (first black) president: <a href=“http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/[/url]”>http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/01/28/at_harvard_law_a_unifying_voice/</a></p></li>
<li><p>Upon graduating from law school, instead of going with any of the big corporate law firms that had lined up to hire him, he went to a small civil rights law firm: <a href=“http://p221.news.mud.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_el_pr/obama_attorney_at_law[/url]”>http://p221.news.mud.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070220/ap_on_el_pr/obama_attorney_at_law</a></p></li>
<li><p>For about a decade, he taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School (where they reportedly would have been only too happy to have him as a full-time law professor): <a href=“http://www.tnr.com/blog/openuniversity?pid=40757[/url]”>http://www.tnr.com/blog/openuniversity?pid=40757</a></p></li>
</ol>
<p>If “been in politics” all your life counts, then any Mrs. Dodd, etc. could just as easily qualify. What a joke. Being related to an office holder or having campaigned for an office you never got hardly qualifies you for much of anything, certainly not for governing a superpower country. </p>
<p>“Edwards as qualified as Carter, Clinton, and Reagan” LOL! Carter was in the US Senate TWO terms (not just one), PLUS was a Governor of Georgia.
Clinton was an Attorney General and a 12-YEAR Governor. Reagan was also a TWO term Governor of our largest state. How in the world does each of those in any way compare to a one term junior Senator (Edwards and Hillary) or a 13 month junior Senator+state senator representing a mere 200,000 people (Obama)?<br>
Evan Bayh has had much better preparation to be a President. But unfortunately, it is all about raising money or inheriting/marrying a fortune.
I think the Governor of Iowa dropped out today for that reason.
Mostly a poor group of candidates.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Jimmy Carter was never in the US Senate. He was Georgia State Senator – a part time job with about as much political impact as being a pooper scooper. </p>
<p>In his first run for the Governor’s seat, he finished third in the Democratic Primary to the evenual winner and his predecessor as Governor, Lester Maddox of axehandle fame.</p>
<p>Don’t get me wrong. I campaigned for Carter in the New Hampshire primary. But, let’s not rewrite history about his experience.</p>
<p>Let’s not overstate Bill Clinton’s experience either. He had spent his entire life running for President. But, being governor of Arkansas is roughly equivalent to being the pooper-scooper’s patronage boss. I would rate Hillary’s experience today as much more substantial than Bill’s when he became President. There is no substitute for experience in the White House. Likewise, I think Hillary has a much stronger sense of how Congress works than Bill did in his rookie season.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If Bayh and Vilsack were stronger candidates than Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, they would be able to raise the money. They aren’t. Neither one of them have a name recognition or a national base. It’s politics, not a debate team contest.</p>
<p>Who loves Pat Caddell? He is so clear-sighted on what the Democrats have become. Tonight he said that the Democrats have “the moral consistency of a doorknob.” Gotta love it.</p>
<p>Caddell is a hired by Fox to provide “Democratic balance”, but has made a career for many years bashing Democrats. Perfect paid shill for Hannity & Colmes.</p>
<p>I don’t think he’s been hired by a Democratic candidate in more than 20 years.</p>
<p>I don’t supposed Pat touched on Rudy Guiliani’s “moral consistency” did he?</p>
<p>Heh. He needs to work on his metaphors too. I never saw an immoral doorknob, but what do I know? :)</p>
<p>"Tonight he said that the Democrats have “the moral consistency of a doorknob.” </p>
<p>Actually, I don’t think the Dems even approach the Party of Appeasement and Family Values in moral bankruptcy.</p>
<p>Intellectual bankruptcy is another matter entirely.</p>
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>You’ll probably be glad to know that Ralph Nadar showed up on CNN tonight. Amazing how he crawls out from under his rock every four years to get another 15 minutes. </p>
<p>Of course, he said he wasn’t ready to announce his candidacy yet. Mumbled something about evil corporations making it impossible to run for President because you have to raise $90,000 for a ballot filing fee somewhere or another.</p>