Letters to the Editor
-
@ Tim Baird
"Hillary Clinton speaks eloquently but she also says something. Her senate experience won over even her harshest repub critics. She has the skills, dedication, and work ethic to be president - Obama needs to spend a few years actually doing something and then maybe he'll be qualified to run for president."
A legitimate point, and the crux of the issue.
I despise Hillary Clinton but I recognize that she is qualified to be president. She will not be incompetent.
Yet I also think the skills you adduce are less of an argument for the presidency than they are for a more ancillary role. A cabinet post, e.g.
To me (to me) a president should have vision, wisdom, humility, integrity, etc. A president should be a leader, meaning someone who can lead.
In my judgement, Hillary Clinton has little in the way of what I would recognize as leadership ability.
This is an honest disagreement, I think.
How you answer the question of who's more qualified depends on the criteria by which you decide.
That often gets lost, as if there is one set of agreed-upon, objective criteria.
I believe Obama is qualified to be president, based largely on observing his campaign. I wasn't particularly high on him to begin with, but the campaign has impressed me in many ways, and I've been especially impressed by his learning curve.
This man has advanced light years from where he was a year ago. He is a man if immense gifts, would you agree?
I'm not shilling for him, by any means, just trying to note that there are, in fact, valid reasons to vote for both candidates. The one you choose depends on the criteria you use.