- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
Kind of what I was saying!
When we elect a president or, really, anybody, we're not supposed to be rewarding someone for past accomplishments. We're supposed to be picking somebody who will do what we think will be the right things in the future. And it's always kind of a leap of faith, because we don't know what the future will bring. Past experience is valuable in that it informs us about a candidate's policy positions and strengths and weaknesses, but it's certainly not the be-all, end-all. Certainly, anybody who's young (and especially anybody who's young and NOT from a politically connected family or family of politicians) is going to have a kind of short "official" resume compared to an older, more-connected candidate.
Personally, I think Obama has the right stuff, whatever that stuff is. That's meaning no disrespect to any of the other Dems, of course.
One tiny quibble with your comment: Mitt Romney and his followers argue that he has this great long list of past accomplishments besides being governor (business turn-around specialist, Olympics chief, blah, blah, blah). I mentioned him because while that record may be good on paper, most people seem to be recoiling at him in person.
