Monday, May 19, 2008


Some say Obama is not qualified for the top job in the world. They say he has too little experience, too much eloquence, not enough knowledge about foreign policy affairs. YADA, yada, yada. This attack comes from both parties, but more so from the Republicans now since HRC is all but kapoot. I would disagree and I did a little sleuthing so I can prove my point:

In the past 100 years, going all the way back to McKinley, and excluding the Roosevelts (#3 and #5), the most popular president in the Wall Street Journal 2005 poll rankings was Ronald Reagan, a Republican. Regardless of what I think about how he did as president, most people would say that two terms as California governor and an acting career do not qualify you to be president. Yet, in the public eyes he is the sixth best president ever.

Now arguably, the worst presidential candidates in the past 100 years were Jimmy Carter and Warren G. Harding. Harding served as a state senator, lieutenant governor, and senator for Ohio. Carter was a two state senator and also governor of Georgia. But these guys were awful and didn't live up to potential, right?

Now, I'm not saying that experience isn't necessary, however. For example, George Bush only served a governship of Texas before becoming president, and so far he has arguably done the worst job of any president in history.

I think it's fair to say that what brings about success in the presidency is the ability to bring about change and to be bipartisan. Take a look at the top 5 presidents of all time and those common themes emerge.

No comments: