"His sole apparent qualification for the office is his "compelling life story" of being raised by an upper-middle class college professor..."

Boy, that was a painfully stupid thing of you to say.

Barack Obama's policy and political resume:

President, Harvard Law Review
Community Organizer
Constitutional Law Professor
8 years State Senate
1 Term in the Senate

Now, you may not think that's enough for you (in which case you should never, ever, ever have supported George W. Bush). But to say that Obama's "sole apparent qualification" is having a middle class parent and thinking about his mixed heritage is just. plain. stupid.

President, Harvard Law Review
Community Organizer
Constitutional Law Professor
8 years State Senate
1 Term in the Senate

None of these qualify him to be the Commander in Chief. He is nothing but a arrogant little piss ant with big ears.

I'm genuinely (not sarcastically) curious, Michael - what exactly does qualify a person to be president?

Out of Bush (six years as governor), Clinton (twelve as governor, two as attorney general), Bush Sr (eight as vice president, four in Congress), Reagan (eight as governor), Carter (four as governor) and Ford (two as vice president, 24 in Congress), who were qualified to be president and who were "arrogant little piss ants"?

The US government is the world's largest enterprise, with a budget approaching $3 TRILLION per year and millions of employees. To even have a chance of effectively managing an operation of such size, one needs to have some experience administering an organization.

Governors, Generals, big-city Mayors, and CEOs have this sort of experience. Beginning with Mondale, Vice Presidents have been closely enough involved with their Administrations to lay claim to experience; previously they had traditionally been completely out of the loop of power.

Mere service in a legislature doesn't qualify one to run the country.

It is interesting that Obama's supporters feel the need to puff up his scant resume. He has not "one term in the US Senate" at all; he has served only two years, which is one-third of one term.

Neither was he a Constitutional Law "Professor." He was a "lecturer" on CL, that's all.

Not that the puffed-up claims would qualify him anyway, of course. He still has never managed anything larger than his Senate staff, and that's not good enough.

Similarly, Senators McCain, Brownback, Biden, Dodd, former Senator Edwards, Reps. Hunter and Kucinich, and Al Sharpton are all unqualified in the basic requirements. Senator Clinton was probably close enough to the decision-making process of her husband as Governor and President to avoid being grouped with these.

On the "qualified" side, we have people like Guiliani, Richardson, Vilsack, Romney, Huckabee and others who have the requisite experience. Bayh would have been also, having served as Governor, had he not withdrawn.

Being "qualified" by experience is no guarantee someone will be a good President, of course. It only means they have enough leadership experience to have a chance of controlling the enormous operation our government has become.

In what other job in the world is it considered appropriate to start at the top?

Fair answer.

Don't get me wrong - I don't think that Obama is qualified at all. I mean, the guy's views are pretty well in line with mine on most issues, but that doesn't make him presidential calibre. I think I mentioned a while back that one good speech doesn't a president make. Neither does part of one term as a senator.

I do, however, take issue with the conventional wisdom that Presidents have to be former governors. Were that the case, Bill Gates would be the next president. Not to say that America should take its cues from the rest of the world, but parliamentary democracies take their prime ministers from the ranks of legislators quite happily without much in the way of ill effects. You're right in that people shouldn't start at the top - reference Obama once again - but I don't see how, to take one example, Chris Dodd's 24 years as a legislator, 6 years as a representative, and chairmanship of the Banking Committee leaves him unqualified, or at least less qualified than Carter after his one term as governor of Georgia.

The other key element that a candidate needs is leadership qualities, the ability to make the public rally around when necessary. Reagan had it. Kennedy had it. Roosevelt had it, to use just a few examples. The president is not just the CEO, he is also a figurehead and the media agent. It's the latter two that Obama does pass muster.

Addendum to top of second paragraph: "I take issue with the conventional wisdom that presidents have to be former governors OR CEOS.. were that that case... etc, etc."

Bill Gates, of course, was never a governor. Sloppy proofreading. :)

Everybody thinks they COULD be the boss!

Dodd's 30 years as a legislator no more qualifies him for President than 30 years as a carpenter qualifies one to be an architect. He hasn't RUN anything.

The electorate is pretty clear on this, if some voters are not. That's why we have elected many Governors and Generals to the Presidency, but only twice sitting Senators.

Yea, I guess though - many have been in that chair and done well without much leadership experience... It is a real crazy thing. Wonder who will go against him?

The only successful President I can recall without strong leadership experience was Lincoln, and his tenure was long before the federal government grew to be such a massive organization.

The recent Presidents without executive experience - Truman, Kennedy, and Ford - had mixed records at best.

But even they had far greater experience than Obama. Truman and Ford had long legislative records, and JFK was a Naval officer in combat and had six years in the House and eight in the Senate by the time he was elected.

The Democratic field is filled with people who boast far stronger qualifications than Obama. The impressive resume of Richardson, Hillary Clinton's proximity to power in a popular Administration, the experience of legislators like Biden and Dodd (which doesn't qualify them for the White House in my view, but will enable them to put Obama to shame on detail in debates), and the trial experience and natural instincts of Edwards will all be strong challenges in joint formats, even if the glib Al Sharpton stays out.

Being young and charismatic and full of potential are great things, but they don't qualify one for high office by themselves.

Being young and charismatic and full of potential are great things, but they don't qualify one for high office by themselves.