LL, I wasn't referring to 'paper' qualifications, nor the (rather minimal) requirements of the constitution. And I'm not sure there really is any previous role which could really be counted as 'qualification'. I was referring, rather, to those aspects of character which being leader of the richest, most powerful and dominant country in the world might involve.
That's things like understanding of foreign policy - and of foreign opinion (not necessarily agreement - but understanding); an ability to take the long view, rather than act by expediency or lobbying pressure; choice of officials by merit and ability rather than contributions to party coffers or sheer length of service; and the capacity for independent thought.
More useful traits? Honesty in negotiation: diplomacy: patience: resilience: a sense of what is appropriate, and when: charisma: political balance and objectivity (rather than, my side is always right): and so forth...
I don't claim Clinton was perfect on *all* the above, BTW (yes, I did notice you mentioned him, as predicted): but he was strong in most. His undoubted personal flaws? They did not, IMO, have any bearing on the requirements of a President, unless you seriously look to him as a personal role model... did you? (Did many??) I doubt it.
And, most importantly, Clinton's not the issue now.
I do believe that Bush is rather conspicuously lacking in nearly all the above. And I noticed you avoided mentioning his abilities (or lack of), too...
(Good name, BTW - Heinlein-inspired, I presume? did you change the spelling, or do I misremember?) |
