Why is "demonstrated accomplishment" NOT considered above "experience"? Barack Obama's accomplishments are just amazing. Sometimes experience doesn't really mean much. Hoover was very experienced, but a really lousy president. Barack Obama's "lack of experience" is used as a key issue in the election. Yet few have really addressed all the things he has accomplished. I am just putting this together off the top of my head. Where are real experts on this?
In a little over 20 months Obama has, at the very least, changed and probably revolutionized the election process. He put together a team that has raised more money, without being totally beholden to "big money", than anyone in history. His contributions actually represent the "people". He did this with the baggage of African genes, a Muslin name (which he didn't change) and little backing. I call that damn good political and economic experience, quite an accomplishment, great courage and honor to his family and country.
He defeated experienced political opponents with major money backing but still managed to keep the "self-destructive" democrates together. That is great leadership experience, probably on the par of herding cats or being a Democrate 'whisperer'. I believe that he has fundamentally changed the Democratic party. It is about time that happened and something no one has been able to accomplish. After dismissing him he came back pulled them up by the scruff of their neck and said "Now you will listen to reason." He may keep them from "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory". Call it experience call it accomplishment, but it is all Barack Obama.
(more in extended post text)
