[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by HDL66

If anyone thinks that this:
Obama is a three-year senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name, a former Illinois state senator who voted "present" nearly 130 times. As president of the Harvard Law Review, as law professor and as legislator, has he ever produced a single notable piece of scholarship? Written a single memorable article? His most memorable work is a biography of his favorite subject: himself.
describes a robust set of qualifications for president, we will just have to agree to disagree. My initial point was, indeed, that his resume was thin. The point about his arrogance is an additional point, but does not negate the clear conclusion that I have that he does have very limited preparation to be the leader of the free world.

But that doesn't describe the sum total of his experience or qualifications. It also by implicitly downplays the listed accomplishments.

Originally Posted by HDL66

It is true that John McCain did not have gov. executive experience, but the choice was between two candidates that did not. The American people typically elect someone with that experience, at least in recent history. This time that choice was not available after nominations were made. But McCain was still eminently more qualified than Obama, IMHO. He had a vast amount of experience with the military and foreign affairs, which we have not even touched on (except for the "corpsman" comment). Obama, to the best of my knowledge, has no military experience and precious little foreign policy exposure. McCain has years of experience in the Senate and reached across party lines--some Repubs would say way too much--to try to achieve legislative ends. In what way did Obama prove himself to be an effective legislator either at the state or federal level? Can you think of any?? I guess this goes back to my point about the breadth of experience and package of preparation. Obviously you'll never find someone who has everything (ie also exec experience and private sector experience.) While Obama was distinguished in his education and legal career, he was not well rounded in his preparation for the job that he now finds himself in.

There's a fundamental difference between being a Congressperson and being President. Also, it's not like McCain had a variety of experiences going for him when he ran - he had been a Senator and in the armed forces.

Originally Posted by HDL66

Second, with regard to Obama's high opinion of himself. When you elect a president, it's kind of like hiring a surgeon. They'd better have a little bit of a swagger, or you don't want to put your life (or country) in their hands. Reagan and Churchill would be examples. Krauthammer's point, which I agree with, however, is that there [has never been] a presidential nominee with a wider gap between his estimation of himself and the sum total of his lifetime achievements? Self confidence is one thing. Obama's narcissism without corresponding achievement is another.

I still think that your (and by extension Krauthammer's) definition of "corresponding achievement" is far too narrow. Look, he may not have had a laundry list full of decades of service, but his resume included some darn impressive accomplishments, which can't really be downplayed.

I also think that Krauthammer's opinion shows a stunning lack of historical awareness. There are certainly other nominees with a larger gap between their self-perception and reality.