To: michael97123 who wrote (410265 ) 8/25/2008 1:50:47 PM From: i-node Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1587860 and bush wasnt a lightweight when he ran? He too lacked experience but surrounded himself with supposedly competent people. If obama wins i hope things turn out better than with bush, wouldnt you agree? Well, you and I disagree about Bush. I think he made some mistakes, but his successes far outweigh the mistakes. While his loyalty to Rumsfeld was a disaster, when it came down to it, he had the political courage to stay the course and win the war. For this, Bush will be remembered very favorably by history. Other than Rumsfeld, Bush's cabinet has been first rate. Condi Rice has been the best Secretary of State this nation has had in many, many years. Before her, so was Colin Powell. Bush was not a lightweight when he ran, when compared with Obama. Bush had been a governor, had run multiple businesses and had a lifetime of valuable experience. Obama has done NOTHING. NOTHING. You cannot point to one accomplishment in his past that even remotely suggests qualification for the presidency. Bush, OTOH, had the Texas Governorship behind him, military experience (although some would argue not enough, it was more than Obama has had), substantial business experience including both some failure and some astounding success, as well as a reasonably good education. Obama has a good education. That's it. 143 days experience as a Senator, installed by the political machine in IL. Close personal ties to terrorists. Close personal relationships, including business deals, with convicted felons. Oh, well, you don't want to hear it. But to argue that Obama has the qualifications Bush had is silly. Anyone who wants to objectively look at the situation can see that he did NOT.