Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
We've been over this before, Cali. Obviously experience is not the sole predictor of Presidential success.
To TripletDaddy's question ... are you serious about McCain's credentials? Have you familiarized yourself with the man's history at all? Listen, I'm no McCain fan as anyone here can tell you, but there's no question he understands the military. Let's at least be real here.
Thus the comparison is obtuse. Obama has none of this. He has no gravitas. He has no credibility. Earlier in the campaign he sounded more like a Code Pink protestor than a responsible adult commander-in-chief. Obama isn't Reagan. He's Kofi Annan.
|
Again, do me the favor and outline what his credentials are. Your response is simply evasive and non-responsive. Being a soldier, spending a chunk of it as a POW, does not give you "national security credentials." Please walk me through what you feel are his top 3 or 4 specific traits or credentials that give him a clear advantage over Obama. I am pretty clueless as to these obvious characteristics to which you refer. Sounds like you are too.
To everyone else who has responded, Reagan actually proves my point....he had ZERO national security experience when elected...yet his charisma and his oratory (tear down this wall) was very effective...as was the accumulation of silos all over the globe. Arch mentioned California as a redeeming quality on Reagan's resume, but I am sure he was joking, as being the Governor of California has nothing to do with establishing "national security credentials."