Politics is just about the only employment where you don't need any previous experience and you can be wrong.

Oh... and forecaster on the Weather Channel.

C'mon RJ. Aren't you bieng a little tough on Barry?

Don't forget his experience as a community organizer in Chicago. The time he spent organizing bake sales, helping young girls obtain abortions, and starting pickup basketball games has surely prepared him to deal with Islmaic extremism, get the economy on the right track and deal with our energy issues.

You said that Obama only has 4 years experience but what about his 8 years in the State legislature and 2 years in the Senate? Not sure how you came up with 4 years....
Check his record.

John McCain wins on experience but he is losing his mind.....what good is experience without a sharp enough mind (e.g. George Bush)which is required to think through complex issues and make decisions based on facts not gut for the country. Just this past week Mccain was asked about why viagara should be covered vs. birth control. He couldn't answer that softball question...It was excruciating watching him squirm and wriggle and reach for some answer which in the final analysis was ridiculous..."Ill check my record and get back to you!". I have seen this happen to him over & over.

He went through a lot being a POW. We respect & honour him for his service. I really down want to see his notoreity & character melt before our eyes.


Repubs. lost their chance; Americans need to vote in a new party.

I want a president with more experience in science. Could you please recalculate everything based on that RJ ?

:-)

This is an interesting idea, but there are some flaws in the criteria being used. As someone pointed out earlier you do need to give some consideration to state or local government experience. Being a mayor or a state legislator should count for something. You also give no credit for appointive offices, and that should certainly count. Being an ambassador or head of the CIA as GHWB was, should count for something - maybe quite a bit. And business experience ought to have some value.

You should also weight different kinds of experience. Actual executive experience as a governor or running a business or running a military base or heading a government department ought to be weighted higher than legislative experience, and because so many presidents are weak in the area, any kind of overseas experience ought to count extra, especially ambassadorships or a term as secretary of state.

Rather than being two of the least experienced, Dewey and Stevenson are really two of the MOST experienced people you have on your list. Dewey had 7 years as a successful prosecutor and as a DA followed by 11 years as governor. You have his years as governor wrong, since you say 2 and it was actually 11. Stevenson should get credit for his 14 years working in various branches of the government as well as his 4 years as governor.

Think about it. Using your criteria Teddy Roosevelt, who you might well agree was the best president of the 20th century, would get credit for 2 years as Governor of New York and 1 year as VP and then 1 year for his military service. That's 4 years. Yet he ought to be credited something for his time as Undersecretary of the Navy, his 7 years on the Civil Service Commission and his 2 years as Police Commissioner of New York. That would give him a total of 15 years of relevant experience and he ought to get bonus points for diversity.

Of course, even using my more diverse criteria, Obama still comes up as the least qualified. In fact, he'd be the least qualified for almost 150 years, going back to Lincoln with his 2 years in the militia, 2 years in the House and 4 years as a state legislator.
Dave

jubadeedoda:

Obama actually has three-and-a-half years experience in the Senate (elected in November 2004; sworn in January 2005); I rounded up to get to four. (I'm a generous kinda guy, what can I say?)

And I explained in my article why I did not include service as a state legislator. I'm assuming you read my article about as closely as you did your math?

Repubs. lost their chance; Americans need to vote in a new party.


I thought we did that in 2006 when we gave the Dems a mjority in Congress after they made a litany of promises.........What have they done to deliver on any of those promises?

It's interesting that using your criteria, the less qualified candidate has won in each of the last four elections. Prior to that, it was usually the more qualified man who won.

We can argue till the cows come home about whether Daddy Bush or Dole would have made a better president than Clinton, or whether Gore or Kerry would have done a better job than Dubya. But in every election since 1960 (which featured the first televised debate), it's been less about experience and more about who was able to sell themselves better to the electorate.

McCain, therefore, is in deep, deep kaka.

When it comes down to it, there really is no experience - in government, in the military, or in the private sector which truly prepares one for the American presidency.

As for the military experience you noted above, you just slid by noting Nixon's short term of active duty. Being in the reserve for several years counts as only barely hands on experience of any kind.

But, enough of that. John McCain, as juba... properly notes above has trouble remembering what he had for breakfast. He made a number of gaffs just in the last week that should put into serious question his ability to absorb and maintain an adequate level of knowledge and understanding of all the issues with which he is likely to be presented during a 4 year term in office.

While most who post and comment here take great pains to note just how much the MSM favors Obama, I find it curious that, for the most part McCain has been given a pass regarding his mis-speaks and maloprops. Are they really going to handle the old man with kid gloves in deference to his quasi-holy status as a former POW and war hero?

Obama gets dragged through the coals over a fucking flag pin. McCain gets the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers confused. McCain can't deal with a question about Viagra. He can't seem to remember whether or not he knows anything about economics. He maintains Phil Graham as a policy staffer after his rather repugnant comments about our being a country of whiners and our supposed "psychological recession." I suppose from Graham's POV, if you are reasonably wealthy and the straining economy is having but little effect on your financial status, the rest of us who are feeling the brunt of job losses, home foreclosures, $4.00+ a gallon gas, and/or are reeling from the effect of recent floods and/or tornados or wild fires, do probably seem like a bunch of whiners. We should all just get over it.

Many here have concerns regarding Obama's lack of experience, and maybe - just maybe - doubts about his particular shade of skin. Concerns about having a "Harvard elitist" in the White House who just might plant a watermelon patch on the grounds.

My concern regarding McCain is that I would prefer a president who has a mind that maintains at least a nominal amount of recall, someone who has at least a nominal grasp of economics, and isn't given to scathing, angry outbursts at odd moments. McCain's age isn't an issue for me. His physical and mental health are. That's not to mention his apparent preference for maintaining the "Bush" status quo.

B-tone

Oh Archie, you really should know better...

I accept that you're unlikely to have found any of these measures palatable, but click here for a list of Democratic legislation and initiatives in the first 100 days of the 110th Congress.

I don't feel experience is necessarily the most important qualification to be president. It's like going to a physician who has 30 years of experience, but has no bedside manner. Bedside manner cannot be learned, it something natural that some doctors have and others, no longer how long they've been practicing, will never have. I want someone who has self-confidence in themself, yet reassures me that they're looking out for my welfare, not for their own personal gain. All of the experience in the world, if not handled in the right way, can be the ruination of a country.

Dave:

Thanks for your comments.

Everyone is certainly welcome to make their own judgments about what experience is relevant for the job of President based upon their own criteria, along with their own arbitrary weighting system.

Just how such a weighting system should work is tricky, however, and everyone is likely to have their own opinion. Five points for each year as Vice-President, three for Governor, two for Senator, one for mayor of a city with over 100,000 residents, and half a point for prosecutor or judge? Or Four points for Vice-President or Governor, Three for Senator, two for corporate CEO or House member, one for state legislator, and half a point for ambassador or city councilman?

See, I avoided going down that road precisely because such judgments would inherently be subjective, and I wanted purely objective numbers. Vice-Presidents are considered credible Presidential candidates, regardless of their other experience. Same with Governors and Senators. Occasionally, military experience is also seen as being, by itself, a qualifier for the Presidency.

But it is unheard of, at least in the modern era (WWII - present), for someone to become a major-party presidential nominee without any of the above four criteria being met. That is to say, no one in this era has gone straight from Secretary of Labor or Mayor of New York City or Ambassador to New Zealand, etc. directly to becoming the Republican or Democratic nominee for President.

That's why I considered the first four criteria qualifying experience, and ignored all the rest. I was attempting to be objective as possible.

As for Thomas Dewey, he actually served as Governor of New York for a total of 12 years. However, at the time he ran for President in 1944, he had only been Governor for two years. (Actually, a little less.)

"Many here have concerns regarding Obama's lack of experience, and maybe - just maybe - doubts about his particular shade of skin."

Very classy.

Nixon - Terrific on experience, a paranoid fruitcake in the Oval office.

LBJ - very effective in Congress, lost as a wartime president.

Baritone in #9 well summarizes the serious concerns that McCain may not(actually, almost certainly will not)be up to the physical and mental stresses of the job. (And his choice of running mate doesn't add one thing to HIS suitability for the office.)

Obama lacks experience. More importantly, does he possess the judgement and integrity to surround himself with a capable and honorable administration?

"McCain, therefore, is in deep, deep kaka."

En español (y es palabra española), se deletrea caca.

De nada.

"his rather repugnant comments about our being a country of whiners"

Repugnant, perhaps. But also truthful.

Whiners and entitlement addicts.

My comment regarding Obama's complexion was not meant to be "classy," but to indicate that it is my belief that many of his detractors still harbour a bit (or, perhaps, a lot) of racism in their opinions.

I know Clav, these whiney bastards with no jobs, no homes, forced into bankruptcy, etc., should just suck it up and not bother the rest of us who, frankly, just don't want to hear it. It's really just too much!

As to the supposedly Dem control of Congress and their lack of accomplishments: Why do you suppose that is? Could it be owing to the fact that the Dem majority in either house is not large enough to counter the Rep's opposition to everything the Dem's have attempted to do?

I am chagrined at just how easily the Dems keep folding to the wishes of GWB. I can only hope that given a Dem president and a greater Dem majority in both houses come January, there will be far less of that kind of weak kneed response from the left side of the aisle. It might be interesting to see just how much the minority Reps suck up to a Dem president when push comes to shove.

B-tone

"I know Clav, these whiney bastards with no jobs, no homes, forced into bankruptcy, etc."

At least they have some reason to whine, B-tone, and yet most of them aren't.

No, I was referring to the people whining about Obama's remark about teaching Spanish to kids, the academic whiners who restrict the students' speech, the whiners who wring their hands and cry about the high price of gas, yet do nothing (because it's not high enough yet) to reduce their consumption, the whiners about the sad state of our schools, but who abdicate their parental responsibilities to those same schools.

Whining is a American as apple pie these days. Practically everybody whines about something and wants the government to fix it for them.

This from the most pampered, coddled, and richest society in the history of the world.

It's probably because the largest single population cohort is the boomers :>)

Good catch, Baritone. RJ's article was obviously racist. That's why he kept mentioning race, and didn't provide any numbers or systematic approach for comparing candidates' experience. But the most obvious over-the-top racism of RJ's was the watermelon comment.

No. You know what? I was going to make my little snide comment and walk away, but that's not enough.

Baritone, your accusation is shameful. Racism is a horrible thing, but you discount it by crying wolf about it. What have McCain, RJ, or I said that you can really call racist? Your fear of American anti-black racism isn't enough for you to assume that it exists.

Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine that Bob Kerrey was wearing a microphone, and said that he wanted to cut Obama's nuts off. There would be an outcry that the white man was trying to castrate the black man, and that all politics is racist. But it wasn't Kerrey; it was Jackson. The moral of the story: sometimes people are jerks who want to cut off other peoples' nuts. You can criticize a black man for reasons other than race.

I've found that the kind of people who talk about Obama's skin color are politically on the left. They're usually that particular type of liberal who sees Obama as an RFK-type. These people don't know the difference between the future and a guy who was shot 40 years ago. They also don't understand that whites don't lynch any more. And they still think they're on the cutting edge of society.

Baronius, please spare us your ignorance on matters of race in this country. If you've "found that the kind of people who talk about Obama's skin color are politically on the left," then you are either disingenuous or ill-informed.

When conservative Grover Norquist recently remarked "John Kerry with a tan," do you want us to believe that wasn't about skin color?

"They also don't understand that whites don't lynch any more."

The family of James Byrd Jr. would like to know the timeframe you mean?

Not everyone who is against Obama, whether Republican or Hillary supporter, does so because of his skin color, but to claim no white person takes issue with it is false.

Bar,

My comments regarding racism weren't (necessarily) targeted at RJ or any specific person. However, if you believe that no one here at BC or that a significant number of the US population at large don't remain, at least tacitly, racist, then it is you who are not accepting reality.

My comment wasn't in the least shameful. It was, rather, mindful of the racist culture that still exists in this country.

Of course, had Jesse Jackson's comments been made by a white person, charges of racism would be ringing out everywhere. It would be assumed, rightly or wrongly, that the root of such a comment coming from a white would be racist in nature.

Jackson's comments were no less objectionable, but certainly no one could claim that the roots of it were racist.

No, lynchings are way down. But hanging someone by the neck is not the only way in which racist hatred manifests itself.

The security net surrounding Obama has been and is generally much tighter than that around McCain, Clinton or any of the others, Why? Because Obama has received death threats at a rate something like 10 times that of the other candidates. Most such threats are couched in racist diatribes.

So don't lay that "shameful" crap on me. Racism will be a constant throughout this campaign, even if it's rarely if ever spoken of, and it will doubtless be on the minds of many voters as they fill out their ballots.

B-tone

@ #15: Yes, thank you, Clav.

I was of course referring obliquely to the Brazilian soccer player Kaká - implying, as you will by now have guessed, that McCain is going to get kicked off the park in November! ;-)

I wasn't aware though, that the word was specifically borrowed from Spanish. The word in Welsh, for instance, is cachu (pronounced ka-khi). Since Welsh is the oldest extant Indo-European language, I reckon the Spanish got it from them.

"My comments regarding racism weren't (necessarily) targeted at RJ ..."

Why do I get the feeling that, if Obama is elected, any and all criticism of the executive branch will be deemed "racist" for the next four to eight years?

BTW, Baronius, comment #19 was well played. :)

Bar - How do you know? What proof do you have that there's some great underlying racism which is going to drive the subtext of this election? There are only two people who've judged Obama by race this election, and they're both named Clinton. You're assuming it's out there, but there's no reason to.

The Left is obsessed with race, because it's an opportunity to look down on people and explain why they get crushed in the South. Also, because it's the last fight they fought that was truly honorable. But it's over now. Most everyone in the US agrees that racism is wrong.

Why can't you let it go? Why do we have to pretend that Obama is qualified, out of fear of being labelled racist? Why do we get accused of racism anyway? If you don't see that as shameful, well, I don't know a better word for it.

I'm the last guy to think that human nature changes much. I know the sins that I'm prone to are the same ones I've always had a weakness for. But I genuinely don't believe that anti-black racism is a factor in American life any more. In the 1940's, we saw was racism can lead to. In the 1950's and 1960's, we saw decent black people struggling for rights, and we did a lot of self-examination. By the early 1980's, there was a Polish pope, and an anti-Communist union movement in Poland, which took all the wind out of racist jokes. Now, NOBODY CARES. Race is passe, except among the few who relive their glory days as civil rights crusaders, and inmates with swastika tattoos.

The thing we have to get past now isn't racism, it's fear of racism. The last 60 years have been like chemotherapy, necessary and important, but at this point the chemo is just poison.

Clav,

I would suggest to you that the market for such "whining" is not cornered here in the U.S. Just about anywhere you go, you will find open dissent because of perceived failures of respective governments. They do it in Britain, Germany, France and other countries which are pretty much equal to the U.S. as regards quality of life. It often has a good deal to do with what is promissed during the election process.

Here in Indy we have a new mayor who campaigned largely on a law and order platform. He was, by god, going to rid the streets of violent crime, drugs, etc.

We have had no less than 12 murders in the city during the past 2 weeks plus a city officer shot in the head by an assailant, an old man beaten to death in his home by the same guy, another police officer physically dragged down the street by a guy trying to avoid arrest and any number of other violent occurrences.

I knew well enough that no mayor or any other individual was going to "rid our streets" of crime and violence, but that was the promise made. That is what the electorate expects. So they whine. The whining is NOT all about entitlements. There are a number of very legitimate things about which to bitch in this country, often owing to the failure of government. Are we not to expect ANYTHING of them? Can't we be pissed off when they so obviously fail to produce results they had specifically promissed? Hell, that's the way it all works, isn't it?

B-tone

"They also don't understand that whites don't lynch any more."

The family of James Byrd Jr. would like to know the timeframe you mean?

So, the last lynching of a black person occurred ten years ago? And it was such an oddity that it made national news for years, a law was passed in the victim's name, and it even played a role in the 2000 presidential election campaign?

Wait - were you trying to argue against his point?

Wait again - what does lynching, or racism, or even race for that matter, have to do with the topic of my article?

Objective: Derail the discussion - Mission Accomplished!

#5. "Of course, even using my more diverse criteria, Obama still comes up as the least qualified. In fact, he'd be the least qualified for almost 150 years, going back to Lincoln with his 2 years in the militia, 2 years in the House and 4 years as a state legislator."

And yet, Lincoln is widely regarded as the greatest of all American presidents.

Go figure.

"And yet, Lincoln is widely regarded as the greatest of all American presidents."

He's widely regarded as among the top three, but that's solely because of the Civil War. And all it took to win the war was an unconstitutional income tax, the suspension of habeas corpus, the closing of antiwar newspapers, the ignoring Supreme Court rulings, and 600,000 dead! ;)

So what did w's experience get us.
I prefer judgment.

"He's widely regarded as among the top three, but that's solely because of the Civil War."

Replying to myself here. Obviously, there was also the Emancipation Proclamation and the 13th Amendment (which was passed by both houses of Congress with his support while he was alive, but was only ratified by the requisite number of states some months after his death). But I consider those achievements to be linked to the Civil War. Sorry for any confusion.

Anyway, trying to get back on-topic here, I think it's fair to say that Lincoln was successful in spite of, not because of, his inexperience. For example, he's an excerpt from a column in the NYT, written by a history professor at Harvard:

The first months of the Lincoln Administration demonstrated the costs of inexperience. After his election, when the states of the Deep South began to secede, Lincoln at first dismissed the crisis as "artificial" and insisted that "nothing [is] going wrong." But by the time he reached Washington in February 1861, the Confederates had already set up a government in Montgomery, Ala., and installed Jefferson Davis as President.

...

Once hostilities began, inexperience in military matters further handicapped President Lincoln. His only military service had been in the Black Hawk War of 1834, in which he saw no action but, as he said later, fought "a good many bloody struggles with the musquetoes."

...

So if there is a lesson, it is that an inexperienced Chief Executive can cause the country immense heartbreak, but that with time and good common sense even an inexperienced leader who has sound principles can grow into greatness. [emphasis mine]

whatzit:

If you read the whole article (yes, I realize it's long), you'll see that Dubya was actually an example of an inexperienced candidate.

In 2000, if you exclude his service in the National Guard, Dubya had a grand total of six years of qualifying experience. Obama has four. McCain, on the other hand, has twenty-six (and that's excluding his military service).

RJ, back on point, I agree with Dave that you've got to weight experience differently. But that does complicate things, doesn't it? Military experience should count, but probably not Reserves experience, but then again in WWII the Reserves were as active as any Active Duty military has ever been. And while military service reveals character, probably only command experience prepares you for the presidency. But how do you rate McCain's leadership role as a POW?

I think Cabinet Secretary and judge should count toward preparation for the presidency. But there haven't been a lot of judges to become presidents, which is kind of odd when you think about it. Oh well. Keep up the covert racism.

W as governor of Texas had limited executive powers compared to the president and the governors of 47 other states. So I think we should chop 2-3 years off of his 6.

*Policy Powers of Governors and the U.S. President

Baronius:

Both you and Dave are correct that some types of experience are more valuable than others. For example, eight years as a President's VP should be worth more than eight years serving in the House of Representatives from Idaho. However, as I wrote in comment #12, once you get into weighting different kinds of experience differently, you necessarily enter the realm of subjectivity, which I was doing my best to avoid in this article.

As for McCain's military service, I think it qualifies him as a national hero and certainly gives him some added gravitas over a guy like Obama who never served. But I do think McCain kinda overdoes the whole "vote for me, I was a POW!" thing a bit. It's eerily reminiscent of John Kerry's "reporting for duty" shtick from four years ago.

Oh, and as for race affecting people's votes, here's the latest polling data from Rasmussen Reports:

Overall, McCain leads by nine among White Voters. Obama leads 94% to 3% among African-American voters ...

[snort]

Yeah, experience has really worked out well in the past.

America hasn't had a truly great president in over 200 years (give or take!) and the experience factor is more often a case of sticking a rotting Washington corpse in office than it is injecting someone with an understanding of the world and its people. Time for some new blood, I say.

Off-topic, but interesting:

From that Rasmussen Reports link in comment #35, I found an interesting statistic:

"Twenty-four percent (24%) of the nation's voters are both fiscally and socially conservative. Twenty percent (20%) are both fiscally and socially moderate. Fifteen percent (15%) of all voters are fiscally moderate and socially liberal. Two groups of voters each include 10% of the voting population--those who are fiscally conservative and socially moderate along with those who are fiscally moderate and socially conservative. Nine percent (9%) are fiscally and socially liberal."

So, being a numbers dork (can't you tell?), I mapped this out, and here's what I got:

Econ-Conservative + Soc-Conservative = 24%
Econ-Conservative + Soc-Moderate = 10%
Econ-Conservative + Soc-Liberal = ?

Econ-Moderate + Soc-Conservative = 10%
Econ-Moderate + Soc-Moderate = 20%
Econ-Moderate + Soc-Liberal = 15%

Econ-Liberal + Soc-Conservative = ?
Econ-Liberal + Soc-Moderate = ?
Econ-Liberal + Soc-Liberal = 9%

As you can see, three possible categories have been left blank, presumably because fewer than 9% of respondents chose that particular combination. (88% of respondents chose one of the other six categories.)

Breaking the numbers down further, we get the following:

Econ-Conservative = at least 34% (but no greater than 46%)
Econ-Moderate = 45%
Econ-Liberal = at least 9% (but no greater than 21%)

So, we can conclude that economic liberals (socialists?) comprise a small minority (between about one in ten and one in five) of the American voting population. A likely plurality of people are economic moderates, but economic conservatives make up more than a third of American voters.

We also get this result:

Soc-Conservative = at least 34% (but no greater than 46%)
Soc-Moderate = at least 30% (but no greater than 42%)
Soc-Liberal = at least 24% (but no greater than 36%)

This is considerably closer, but it still shows a likely numerical advantage for the "conservatives" over the "liberals."

Finally, let's compare the groups with conservative leanings with the groups with liberal leanings:

Econ-Conservative + Soc-Conservative = 24%
Econ-Conservative + Soc-Moderate = 10%
Econ-Moderate + Soc-Conservative = 10%
Total = 44%

Econ-Moderate + Soc-Liberal = 15%
Econ-Liberal + Soc-Moderate = ?
Econ-Liberal + Soc-Liberal = 9%
Total = at least 24% (but no greater than 36%)

The conservatives and conservative-leaners have a sizable numerical advantage here over liberals and liberal-leaners. However, three groups are missing:

Econ-Moderate + Soc-Moderate = 20% (moderates, the classic swing-vote)
Econ-Conservative + Soc-Liberal = ? (libertarians)
Econ-Liberal + Soc-Conservative = ? (populists)

I suppose the conclusion to be drawn from the above data (and my analysis of it) is that the United States remains a center-right country, but that a conservative (i.e. Republican) Presidential candidate needs to attract a good number of moderates in order to win. So, nothing we didn't already know. :-/

I don't know what to make of the fact that the category in which I consider myself to be is a question mark:

"Econ-Conservative + Soc-Liberal = ?"

Hmm.

Econ-Conservative + Soc-Liberal = NORMAL, Clav. Welcome to the real.

Strictly speaking, Jordan, it's actually rather abnormal, since apparently fewer than 9% of Americans fall into that category...

I now feel assured that we can all rest easy as Baronius, in one swell foop, has eradicated racism in this country. What a relief!

As with all other "whiners" all you supposedly poor blacks (and presumably, and and all other minorities) are hereby on notice that racism is no longer an issue here so complaining about it will gain you no traction. A white, middle class male has made the definitive declaration.

Bar has also declared all so called bleeding heart liberals basically liars and no more than nostalgia buffs longing for the good old days. I picture Bar hanging with baited breath on every word Ann Coulter spews forth. They seem nothing less than true soul mates.

Every time anyone (especially me, it seems) even hints at the existence of racism in this country, particularly as regards Barack Obama, Baronius comes barreling off his high horse in self righteous sanctimony with a diatribe angrily dismissing the possibility and then artfully turning the argument against me (or whoever) deflecting any such feelings back onto the left side of the fence.

I suppose it serves the purpose of aiding him eradicate his long bottled up guilt for ever having uttered the "N" word or joining in and/or enjoying racial jokes and slurs as a kid. If it accomplishes something for him, then, I guess, in the end, it's okay.

Oh, I know, it's a cheap, probably inaccurate, shot, but I figured I should write something to really be ashamed of as I've now been told repeatedly that I have written shameful things.

B-tone

It's bated breath by the way.

You're not fishing with your breath; you're holding it.

"Main Entry:
1 bate
Pronunciation:
ˈbāt
Function:
verb
Inflected Form(s):
bat·ed; bat·ing
Etymology:
Middle English, short for abaten to abate
Date:
14th century

transitive verb 1: to reduce the force or intensity of : restrain [with bated breath] 2: to take away : deduct 3 archaic : to lower especially in amount or estimation4archaic : blunt"

regards,

Your lovable neighborhood grammar Nazi :>)

BUSH WAS IN THE NATIONAL GUARD BECAUSE HIS FATHER MOVED HIM TO THE TOP OF THE LIST TO AVOID BEING DRAFTED AND GOING TO VIET NAM. BUSH WAS AWOL WHEN HIS UNIT WAS TRANSFERRED TO ALABAMA. BUSH GOT INTO YALE BECAUSE HIS FATHER PAID THE TUITION AND HAD GRADUATED FROM YALE. BUSH LATER TRIED TO ENTER LAW SCHOOL IN TEXAS BUT DID NOT MEET THE ENTRANCE REQUIREMENTS. IN 2000 BUSH WAS ONE OF WEAKEST CANDIDATES FOR PRESIDENT IN RECENT HISTORY.

Obama just rocks, infact his inexperience (if any ) is the change we can believe in.

Clav,

I knew that. I did. Really. I knew that. :<(

B

B-tone.

I knew you did.

One of my vices is I can't resist teasing; especially the people are obviously bright and informed.

Bad habit, i know, but I have so few of them...:>)

Bar, thanks for calling me artful. To be fair, though, do you consider watermelon references to be a mere hint of racism? And what in this article, which systematically quantifies relevent experience, compelled you to hint that race is a factor in the election? This article is the least racist thing you'll ever read: it sets up objective criteria, and compares people without reference to race. You can argue about the criteria (as I've done), but you can't find them racist.

"So, the last lynching of a black person occurred ten years ago?"

RJ, I was trying to get Baronius to clarify his comment, "They also don't understand that whites don't lynch any more." To no surprise he couldn't, apparently believing he doesn't need to have any proof to back up his statements because his thinking something makes it true. His equating of the treatment of blacks and Poles in this country clearly shows he doesn't know what he's talking about in regards to this issue.

But before you strain yourself patting the white race on the back because you haven't heard of a lynching in 10 years, a number I find embarrassingly low, you might want to do a little research before jumping into areas you know nothing about, even though I understand that prerequisite would severely put a crimp into your participation here.

Jan 2006, five SC white teenagers, ages 17 to 18, pleaded guilty to the lynching of Isaiah Clyburn, a 17-year-old boy who didn't know them.

Maybe Baronius should change his statement to "They also don't understand that whites haven't lynched in months."

"you might want to do a little research before jumping into areas you know nothing about, even though I understand that prerequisite would severely put a crimp into your participation here."

Did someone just hear a cat hiss?

BTW, the victim in the story you linked to lived. From the article:

"South Carolina legally defines lynching as a mob attack against an individual where the victim survives."

Hmmm. So I guess, using that rather broad definition of the term (the more common definition of lynching is a mob attack on an individual where the victim dies), the Jena Six were also an example (and a more recent one!) of a black-on-white lynching?

Too bad this is an area I know nothing about, two university degrees later... :-/

To offer a bit more clarity as regards lynching. Upon hearing the term, for me it always evoked an image of a hanging. But, the term is much broader than that.

The history of New Orleans includes a horrific incident which came to be known as the "Crescent City Lynchings." In 1891 eleven Italian immigrants were "lynched" by an angry mob after a jury found them innocent of the shooting death of the New Orleans police chief, David Hennessy the year before. However, none of the eleven were hanged, rather, they were all beaten to death in their cells from which they had not been released despite the verdict. All of the "lynchers" were subsequently exonerated.

B-tone

"Too bad this is an area I know nothing about, two university degrees later... :-/"

Yeah, but they're only from UCF. Now, if you'd gone to USF...

Go Bulls!

He maintains Phil Graham as a policy staffer after his rather repugnant comments about our being a country of whiners and our supposed "psychological recession."

His name is spelled "Gramm" not "Graham". You may have him confused with McCain's pal Sen. Lindsey Graham.

And Gramm was an economic advisor, and has now apparently been exiled. Gramm, of course, is an actual economist with extensive private sector experience who actually knows something about the economy, unlike Obama or anyone he's working with.

BTW, I've just written up my thoughts on the silly Phil Gramm scandal in a new article.

Dave

Nope, no confusion. This is just my day to mis-spell things.

B-tone

No offense intended, Bicho. I honestly just missed your comment.

I think you missed the point about "John Kerry with a tan". The insult isn't about skin color; it's about being like John Kerry. The idea is that Obama is no different in policy than Kerry. He just looks a little different. The line would have worked just as well if he called Obama "John Kerry with a normally-proportioned head". Actually, it would have been a lot funnier that way.

No doubt there are lynchings. No doubt there are people decapitated by elevators, too. They're equally common events. The idea that either would have an impact on the presidential elections strikes me as laughable. I know, I know. Even one is one too many. But you're not going to find a country of 300 million people without any psychos.

The difference in the last few decades is that racism isn't respectable any more. That's why I mentioned Polish jokes. Racism used to be excusable in some circles. No longer. Even the Democratic Party has hardly any Klansmen in the Senate.

Yeah, but they're only from UCF. Now, if you'd gone to USF...

Go Bulls!

No, Clav...

Go Bulldogs!

Doc,

Saw 'em play (on TV). As I'm sure you know, U of Miami is one of the better collegiate ball clubs; past National champs, etc., so I was watching.

Those youngsters (Fresno State) are awesome!

BTW when did Fresno (the city) get promoted?

Promoted to and from what, Clav?

Promoted to state from city, of course.

Yo, Doc,

There's an open tag (mine, I think) on this thread...

Baronius, sorry to break the admirably optimistic cloud you have about racism and America, but things haven't particularly gotten better. It is alive and well.

The fact of the matter is that Americans remain uniquely confused about issues of race. Incidents of hate crimes have increased according to the FBI. The highest incidence of hate crimes are still anti-black by a considerable margin.

According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are actually 888 hate groups currently operating in the United States. That's a 48% increase from 2000's numbers. There are 20 chapters of the KKK in Texas alone and 21 skinhead groups in California. Of course, those are just the groups the Southern Poverty Law Center is aware of.

Now there's the possibility that the instances of hate crimes are up as reported because the definition of "hate crime" has been increased to include more criminal activities, but the reality is that there is still an increasingly disturbing trend of hate crimes, bigotry, racism, and prejudice of all kinds across America that many people try to sweep under the rug.

It is an issue that has not been dealt with effectively. Many Americans suffer from an ideology that imagines racism to be a part of their distant past, but it is interesting to assert that the first time a black person and is a serious candidate for office is 2008. And we still can't get away from media outlets continuing to point that out. Is that progress or simply the rumblings of a greasy machine not quite ready to roll on to the next station?

@ #58: Har-de-har-har.

"BTW, the victim in the story you linked to lived."

Yes, I read the story. While the vast majority have, not every single person who has ever been lynched has died, although I am not clear how you think that helps your argument. They didn't use rope either, but what's the difference in the motivation for the attack?

The lawmakers in SC don't see any, but if you are unhappy with their use of the term, why don't you head north, run for office on that platform, and see if you can get it changed? It would no doubt be an interesting campaign.

I have no problem with equating what the Jena Six did with lynching, although it is curious you were so quick to find black-on-white crime, but not the other way around.

"Too bad this is an area I know nothing about, two university degrees later"

That we are in agreement on.

Baronius, the insult is that he's a black John Kerry. I will give you that Grover thinks sharing Kerry's beliefs is bad, but you cannot really expect me to believe that you are think "tan" has nothing to do with skin color.

If you don't think race "would have an impact on the presidential elections" then why would Bush supporters in SC in 2000 make reference to McCain's illegitimate "black" baby?

What's laughable is that you equate the American experience of slavery; Jim Crow laws; and Selma, AL with someone foolishly being told they are so dumb they would bring a car door to the desert so they could roll down the window if it got too hot. The Poles unfortunately suffered greatly in Europe in the last century, so at least do them the courtesy of pointing to equitable atrocities they have suffered.

Jordan,

With all due respect, it strikes me that "racism" is racism regardless of by or against whom it is practiced. And no, racism seems not to be less pervasive now than a few years ago.

To some extent, of course, a lot depends on how one defines "racism." Is it no less racist to vote for someone because of his race than against him for the same reason? It strikes me that the percentage of Blacks who will vote for Senator Obama during the coming election (notwithstanding the recent remarks of the Reverend Mr. Jackson) will be remarkably higher than the percentage of Whites who will vote for Senator McCain. Is there perhaps just a tint of racism in this?

Dan

With all due respect, it strikes me that "racism" is racism regardless of by or against whom it is practiced.

Without question, this goes without saying. I merely meant to frame my remarks in the current context of this discussion and focus almost entirely on the black/white issue, as that is the current issue of discussion. There are several examples of hate crimes against other groups and races, including a fairly significant increase in the incidents involving Jews and a modest jump in anti-white hate crime incidents.

Is it no less racist to vote for someone because of his race than against him for the same reason?

I'm tempted to quote Jerry Seinfeld here ("If I like their race, how am I racist?"), but I do see your point. If somebody wins an achievement because of their blackness, their whiteness, their woman-ness, and so on, there is a lack of inherent fairness. It is the exact same thing as people voting for a candidate because he/she is the Christian candidate. Unfortunately, voting is done largely on image. Voters are more likely to vote for a candidate with whom they feel a sort of kinship or even personal closeness, which often equates to racial, religious, or other issues that are about as far from policy issues as you can get. That's just a democratic reality.

The racism discussion does depend largely on how we define it. The US Civil Rights Commission defines racism as:

...any action or attitude, conscious or unconscious, that subordinates an individual or group based on skin colour or race. It can be enacted individually or institutionally.

While the United Nations Convention defined it as:

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

(Bold emphasis mine, of course).

I think the latter is a pretty good guidepost to start defining racism in our world.

As far as blacks voting for Obama and that argument, I think it has more to do with the party and less to do with the man and his skin colour, although there's no real general way to draw this out objectively other than to say that black people tend to not vote Republican.

Jordan,

You say that without question, it goes without saying that "racism" is racism regardless of by or against whom it is practiced. That, I submit is the problem. It does go without saying, far too often.

Second, you say

As far as blacks voting for Obama and that argument, I think it has more to do with the party and less to do with the man and his skin colour.

At risk of sounding completely ridiculous, I flat-out don't know what you're getting at. Instead of floundering around aimlessly like I'm prone to do, I'll try and cut to the chase:

You say that without question, it goes without saying that "racism" is racism regardless of by or against whom it is practiced. That, I submit is the problem. It does go without saying, far too often.

What, specifically, is "the problem?" That it goes without saying? Racism, period, goes without saying? Or racism only seems to be an issue when it is against blacks and that other forms of racism "go without saying" and thus go unreported or under-reported? I'm having trouble simplifying what you're saying. I apologize.

I would only call your attention to the recent Democratic Party primaries.

And this will tell me that black people are more prone to vote Republican in federal elections? Once again, I have to plead ignorance. I'm not really sure what I'm going to be looking for here that refutes my point. Black people voted more for Obama in the primaries than they did for Clinton? Women voted more for Clinton than they did for Obama and, after Clinton lost, threatened to vote for McCain for spite?

I think we largely agree on the majority of this issue. Black people voting for candidates merely because the candidate is black isn't good, to put it rather simply. But I still posit that black people are more prone to identify with the VALUES of the Democratic Party than they are with those of the GOP. I'm not sure how looking at the Democratic Primaries are going to refute this, nor am I quite sure what, specifically, I'm looking for.

Sorry for not understanding, Dan.

Jordan,

First, permit me to apologize for any lack of clarity. What I meant to say too often goes without saying that it is just as bad to vote for a candidate because of his/her race or sex as it is to vote against a candidate for that reason. In a recent article, I touched on this. I consider it to have been pernicious to to have voted, during the Democratic Party primaries, for or against Senator Obama because of his race, or for or against Senator Clinton because of her sex. Yet many people did just that.

During the Democratic Party primaries, the Black vote seems to have been overwhelmingly in favor of Senator Obama, while the female voters tended (less strongly) to have supported Senator Clinton. Some White women who supported Senator Obama were castigated by other women as traitors to their sex. I hope that we agree that these are not helpful attitudes.

Dan

Thank you for clarifying. It seems we are entirely on the same page.

Moral of the story, there is a lot of military service among Democrats and a lot of reserve ACTION among Republicans.

Thanks for that stats kiddo.

RJ,

You are a kid just like I thought. Awe look at that baby face. OMG. LOL. IDK think we can be bffs LOL?

What youngster would be Republican in this era? L . . ser maybe?? I'm just say'n. Instead of "Yes We Can" it's a corny litany of irrelevant stats about fake military service while an imbecile sits in the White House. L . . serville

Doc,

While I post this with ears plugged, finger pinching nose and singing to drown out the gross nature of it all, the word kaka is also Zulu and a bunch of other languages. Probably comes from the sound babies make when trying to do "it".

Gosh I feel light headed. YUCK how could I. Boys are so gross. Think nice thoughts.... Sense and Sensibility, flowers, pink, Jane Austin, ruffles, la la la la laaaa. WWMMS. What would my mother say...!!!!

Can we use the word "gender" instead of "sex". It's sort of icky and awkward.

Words have gender - animals have sex. Hillary Clinton does not have a gender.

If memory serves, the lead character in Gogol's The Overcoat was named Akakei Akakeivich.

The network media who, in concert, came up with the term "gravitas" in the last election have lost it from their lexicon. Moreover, the networks overlook Obama's "misstatements." They may not want people to get the idea.

Gogol? Did I hear someone mention Gogol? Is someone nosing around among the dead souls of Russian Literature?

Moreover, the networks overlook Obama's "misstatements."

Then where did you hear about them?

Gogol? Did I hear someone mention Gogol?

Yes, Bliff, but no-one knows why. I imagine that Baronius was referring to the mini-debate about 40 comments ago as to the linguistic pedigree of the word caca.

It's rather strange. A bit like when old Wilbur (who sleeps a lot more than he used to) abruptly chimes in with an answer to a trivial question you asked him an hour ago and had forgotten about.

;-)

What's that, Dread? My pudding was right over there. I met Jack Paar once.

Obama beats McCain.

Obame wins on judgmemt and intelligence.

I would rather have Obama making critical decisions of importance to the country.

McCain's military experience is commendable but it is insignificant in selecting a president, and it may actually be a detriment. His long-suffering in Vietnam may may have left him grieving to vicariously win a war with Iran because of the Vietnam war in which he participated in and we lost 35 years ago.

McCain is too old. His inadequate and hesitant answers to questions is obvious. The last thing the country needs is a senile president.

Which raises the question, how in the world did McCain get to be the Republican candidate?

"Which raises the question, how in the world did McCain get to be the Republican candidate?"

Umm, lessee...oh, I dunno...hmmm.

Wait, wait, don't tell me!

How about...because millions of Americans apparently don't agree with you and voted for him?

"How about...because millions of Americans apparently don't agree with you and voted for him?"

It's simply one more example of millions of Americans being senile along with McCain.

But we already knew that.

Proof: George Bush got re-elected in 2004.

I love Russian literature! What you talk'n bout Biff?

----

Ah I've spotted a fellow goober! Way to go Independent.


----

Doc,

I'm hurt. It took a lot for me to post about "you know what". You ignored me. You've just lost an eigth of a cool point, hmph!

I couldn't figure out whether it was the caca itself that freaked you out, Zedd, or the mental picture of John McCain drowning in it.

Your old-fashioned squeamishness on the topic is oddly charming. You remind me of my younger nephew, who when he was little was scared shitless stiff of his own poop. It made fatherhood quite an interesting experience for my brother, I can tell you, especially when travelling by train...

You'll have to forgive me since I find the whole subject of output from that area, whether it be solid, gaseous or liquid, utterly hilarious, and will continue to laugh about it until I get colon cancer, and serve me right.

:-)

George Bush got re-elected in 2004 because John Kerry is a douchebag, no other reason than that...it's called the lesser of two evils.

Most people voted to keep bush in office because we didn't and DON'T want a tax and spend liberal running the country, unfortunately, the republcans found one of the only living tax and spend republicans on the planet!

it's funny, but you'd think that the presidents' approval rating would hurt McCain, but the fact that the democrat controlled congress has an, as bad, if not worse, approval rating as the pres makes that a moot point!

And how the hell you figure Obama has shown any judgement or intelligence is beyond me and a lot of other folks! He hasn't been around long enough to show anything!

Boys are gross. Sigh.

And proudly so.

Obama has been around long enough to show he has both better judgment and greater intelligence than McCain.

It should be obvious.

Who was in favor of invading Iraq?

Who was NOT in favor of invading Iraq?

That by itself, is sufficient to separate the real boy from the real man,

Keep in mind that the Iraq war which McCain fully supported has irreparably damaged the US in more ways than one.

The Iraq debacle has exacerbated the economic problems building up for the past several years and which are now out of control.

And McCain wants to bomb Iran, a country that has not started a war in modern history. That bit of lunacy would most likely push the price of oil so high that the US economy would completely collapse.

It is ironic that McCain and his warmongering buddies have been losing the war against bin Laden who sits in a cave watching the US economy self-destruct. And the warmongering McCainites want to make bin Laden happier by continuing to create unrest in the Middle East, the primary source of the energy that keeps the US economy from collapsing.

The US badly needs a change in direction and McCain is hardly the one to do it.

Looks to me like some of the most experienced are also some of the biggest criminals!