.
Sure it is. Compared to others he's no less qualified than those of the past, he may well be more qualified than some past presidents.
I didn't vote for him and don't support his policies, but I can see an honest comparison here. Perhaps that's why OS makes this point so often.
Obama served 7 years as a Senator in Illinois, 3 years as a U.S. Senator. He was President of Harvard Law Review, assisted a Constitutional Scholar while attending Harvard, was an associate at two separate law offices and taught Constitutional Law at University for 12 years. He worked on the boards of directors for several foundations and served as counsel for a firm specializing in Civil Rights for 8 years.
His background in law makes W.'s 6 years as a Governor somewhat insignificant by comparison. I wouldn't say Obama was more qualified than W. simply for having worked in the legal field extensively, but to suggest he was unqualified with such an expansive legal career is frankly, absurd.
Thank you for your thoughtful, articulate and very informative reply FNR and Happy Monday to you m'dear! :)
You don't have to like,
agree with or support someone to treat him/her fairly FNR. You have displayed that here and very well. Which I appreciate a lot. So thanks again! :)
I think the fact that FNR admits he didn't agree with Obama's policies nor vote for him but presented a substantive rebuttal to an Anti-Obama complainer PROVES that fair is possible even in the absence of liking or agreeing with someone. I like that a lot OS and I KNOW you appreciate it. Being fair...sticking to the facts ...putting preference aside. That is the stuff of really useful and thoughtful conversations. Mahalo for your reply and the link and the excellent rebuttals to those who apparently don't understand the concept of "fair" or "honest"
. Of course it falls on deaf ears but there are others of us out here who recognize and understand your point. Happy Monday OS! :)
Thank you for your reply Nelly. I am a Progressive Liberal and wish I had another choice but I don't. So I shall vote for her not because I like her so much but because I have more confidence in her than I do in him. It's as simple as that. His baggage is very heavy and some of it is quite disgusting to me. He may not be a racist or bigot or homophobic or a hatemonger but that is the crowd he panders to and riles up and they adore him in return. He is a narcissist, self-centered, selfish, greedy and the world's most famous braggart boaster. I see nothing there that would cause me to have confidence in him at all. Different doesn't mean better. Untested/untried/inexperienced doesn't promote confidence. Sometimes it leads to disaster. His mouth has a "mind" of its own. He knows nothing about diplomacy. He will have to deal with the world's Leaders on a calm, rational and thoughtful level and he won't be scripted and have a teleprompter. He does not have the temperament for it . It isn't the best of all world's for any American. I grant you that. Both candidates have plenty of warts. I think Hillary is less dangerous. Of course I could be wrong. But that's where I am now. It's the only election in which I've voted that I feel listless and unexcited and dread the outcome.
. Thank you for your reply and Happy Monday! :)
How sad is that? Whose fault is it? Thank you for your reply cargirl and Happy Monday! :)
Well. Ya gotta be 35 and have lived in the US 14 years I believe. Big deal. So much for tough requirements! Thank you for your reply FNR. We need to make it harder to be prez. We need to be more selective and demanding. We shouldn't keep settling for whatever shows up. Don'tcha think? Thank you for your reply FNR! :)
