Raise your hand if...

you're a Harvard Law grad and were first Black editor of the law review, who eschewed a lucrative career to advocate for the poor, then rose through the political ranks to become the first Black president of the United States by an overwhelming electoral margin in one of the shortest time spans in U.S. history.

I just want a reality check regarding the presidential qualifications of those posting on this website, so that I can determine how to compare their opinion versus that of Barack Obama.

Thanks!

:hand conspicuously not raised:

put him on a pedestal with the "He knows better than we do so let's just shut the heck up" stuff.

Yes, I am sure he knows a heck of a lot given the resources and teams he has to work with but that still doesn't preclude him from making a bad decision, which is why some of us are concerned (yes, I said it :P) about some of his decisions.

it's you. I know his qualifications. What are yours? If I am going to accept a policy or political position from someone, I want to know his or her qualifications first. We asked no less of him.

his iffy choices?

Yeah, I get it, he knows more than I do but does that really mean I and many other DUers know nothing? We have nothing to contribute after casting our ballots? How is this still America if that's the way things work?

I want to have all the facts, including who's is saying what, before I decide between you and Barack Obama.

in choosing between us since the choice was never offered in the first place. :crazy::silly:

I learned a long time ago that putting other people on a pedestal almost always results in disappointment. Others are neither inferior or superior to me. We are equals. I don't have any beef with Obama but that does not mean I will not question his decisions and policies.

FWIW, I am more educated than Obama. I have a law degree and two master's degrees. And I've been published. Not that any of that should make a damn bit of difference whether or not my opinion has any value.

At least with regard to your chosen profession and your area of published expertise, how can it not make a difference as to the value of your opinion.

I don't think the OP said it was binary. Either an opinion has value or not. I think the OP was asking for credentials to determine the weight, on balance, of one opinion vs. another.

Do you really think that your opinion in your area of expertise has the same value as that of someone who knows far less about the subject matter?
GAC

a qualification to validate a political opinion - and if we took that to its logical conclusion - then the only folks allowed to vote just might be those who are credentialed in political science.

The issue here isn't one of technical expertise. Instead it is the very pragmatic issue of how to lead a government of the people, for the people and by the people - in a nation where all people are presumed to be created equal. That suggests to me that the political views and needs of all citizens should be considered equally - as should the services provided to the people.

Yeah, I know some people are ignorant, uninformed and focused on single issue concerns. Still, it is incumbent on them to be informed. An uninformed electorate may necessitate that a leader substitute the views of subject matter experts for those of the people. But, ideally, that should not occur. And it should definitely be the exception rather than the general practice.

. . .going in polar opposite directions.

All i was asking was how could someone's opinion not carry more weight if you knew that opinion was rooted in education, study, and expertise.

I was objecting to your statement that your education and expertise doesn't add more weight to your opinion.

Merely having a law degree and two other masters would suggest that you are well-versed, studious, serious, and have depth of thought.

That would AUTOMATICALLY add weight to your opinion. You suggested it doesn't matter at all. (Your original post.) I disagree.
GAC

and have no real world element of leadership. If being president were just a matter of having the right opinions, we would not need a representative democracy, we could have a direct one. We elect our president with some degree of understanding that the position is a trusteeship, if only for four years.

I'm not putting anyone on a pedestal. Neither am I counting degrees.

"I just want a reality check regarding the presidential qualifications of those posting on this website, so that I can determine how to compare their opinion versus that of Barack Obama."



With all due respect it appears to me that the intent of your OP was to determine whether or not you found the views of others here at DU worthy of consideration. You have implied that those who do not have Obama's credentials are not permitted to question his decisions, policies and actions. If that were true then there would have been no need of any of those folks to vote - seeing as how they lacked the credentials to be able to make a good decision.

I might also suggest that "presidential qualificantions" encompass the qualifications of some forty-four different individuals in our nation's history and cannot be defined exclusively by the qualifications of Barack Obama.

I call bullshit on your elitism and on your efforts to denigrate the opinions of others here..

We hire politicians to work for us, and when they fail to do so, it is our responsibility to hold them accountable..no matter what their "qualifications".

to have a political opinion. An informed opinion is gold, but because we're a Democracy, by definition, we all have political opinions. Now let's see if Mr. Obama's ears are more open than those this last decade.

I have worked and paid the taxes that keep this nation going, and that pay the salaries of people like Obama. I have a Constitutional right to vote, and I exercised it when I, along with millions of others, chose to HIRE Barack Obama as our nation's next Executive. He submitted his name for consideration, but ultimately, the decision belonged to We The People. And now that we have hired him, it is both our right and our duty to collectively oversee and comment upon what he does, including giving him feedback (both directly and indirectly) in order to ensure that he is doing his job in the best possible way.

This is a democratic republic, not a monarchy. We question our leaders here. If you choose not to listen, or to exercise your own right to *refrain* from questioning--why should we care? By right of birth, I don't have to justify my political opinions, or temper them unnecessarily, just because someone else disagrees with me. What are YOUR credentials? What authority do YOU have to imply that your fellow American citizens are not "qualified" enough to publicly question and/or disagree with what their President does?

Having carefully weighed your presidential qualifications versus Mr Obama's, I respectfully choose him. No offense. He's just the better candidate, and considering that a president serves at least 4 years, I cannot afford to choose lightly.

nt

and PE Obama is a good one of them. He'll make mistakes as all leader do and until he makes the big blunder that I just can't forgive him for I will support him.

:shrug:

unless we stack up.

Maybe that's what you want?

...and please pardon my French, but what the hell?????

He's a smart, accomplished guy with amazing credentials, so we're not allowed to say anything else about him -- does that about cover it?

You know what: most of those geniuses who just brought the world's financial system to its knees had a lot more credentials -- and a lot more native smarts -- than most of us. So I guess we ought to just shut up about them too.

you evaluate opinions on their merits rather than on the resume of the opinion holder.

I just want a reality check regarding the critical thinking skills of those posting on this website, so I can determine if they are conformity trolls.

Thanks!

:hand conspicuously raised:

does that mean he's not the most imcompetent dimwit to ever walk into the White House?