Originally Posted by Libertine

If you honestly believe that, you're an idiot.

Clinton's proposed policies were virtually identical to Obama's, only with a better healthcare plan. By your reasoning, then, she would have won.



My argument is valid. You're simply to dull to understand it. I'm not arguing that a single quality should be the only deciding factor. That would be a ridiculous, untenable position.

Record, proposed policies, experience, qualifications - all should matter.

In the case of Bush, if he were to run again, his record and (most likely) proposed policies would clearly disqualify him. In the case of McCain, his proposed policies disqualify him.

My objection to Obama is not that there is a single all-important criterium which he doesn't pass. My objection is that out of the many criteria that matter, there are several which he simply does not meet.

Putting it in terms which you might just understand: Bush is a basketball player who is 8 feet tall and a cripple. McCain is a basketball player who is 7 feet tall and blind. Obama is a basketball player who is 10 years old, 5 feet tall, and both skilled and agile. Most likely, though, he still needs some time to grow before he'll be able to perform well in the NBA.