Qualifications

[filkertom]

I think it's way too freakin' early to be in the 2008 presidential campaign. But here we are.

The Republican candidates are, one and all, jokes. Mitt, Newt (and if you think he isn't a candidate you just aren't paying attention), Sam, Rudy, Tommy, John (oy, John, how the mighty have fallen...). And, honestly, a number of the Dems aren't much better. I have little confidence in Clinton, as we have disagreed on policy a few times too many and, thanks to the incessant attacks of the right wing, she has almost no hope to win. Obama is promising, but is more of a campaigner than an actual leader from what I can see, and he Just Plain Needs More Experience. I am leaning towards Edwards, and I think he's giving me lots of reason to do so.

I know almost nothing of Bill Richardson. But his new ad makes me interested. And, Bill? Whoever came up with it -- keep that person on your team.

Comments

[wolfger.livejournal.com]

I think the "inexperienced" complaint for Obama is really cheap. *None* of the candidates has any experience at being president. It's all equal footing there. Plus, I generally dislike anybody who's made a long career out of being elected.

As for the Republicans, you completely skipped their one and only good candidate: Ron Paul.
Of course, it's kinda cheating... he's a Libertarian in Republican clothes.
http://www.ronpaul2008.com/

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I've heard good things about Paul, and intend to investigate him more closely. Likely won't vote for him, as I'm not all that fond of the Libertarian agenda either, but I will look.

There's a strange balance in being a career politician. Someone like Ted Kennedy, who's been in there since before dirt, will in fact get a bunch of stuff done. I want actual leadership, not talking points and catch phrases, and I want someone who wants to actually be a public servant -- work for the interests and people of the United States.

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

I don't think wanting someone to have a certain amount of political experience before holding the highest political office possible is "cheap."

I think it's smart.

[wolfger.livejournal.com]

But you completely sidestepped my explanation of *why* I say it's cheap. Being governor is not being president. Being senator is not being president. The job descriptions are not the same. So how can you call any candidate "experienced", unless they are running for a second term.

Actually, Hillary's probably got the closest thing to experience, being the wife of a former president. Nobody else in the field has a better idea what it's like than she does. I still don't think I want to vote for her.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

Being governor is not being president. Being senator is not being president. The job descriptions are not the same.

The job description of governor is actually quite similar in many ways to that of President, only on a smaller scale. That's one reason so many governors have been good Presidents (and most of those that haven't, have had serious questions raised about their governance at the state level). On top of that, Richardson has worked in the White House AND in the legislative side of government, so he's familiar with the process three different ways. I'd say that qualifies him at least as well as anyone who hasn't yet held the office, and far better than the current guy in the White House was when he was running as an incumbent (or ever will be).