Would you hire me?

If I only had 143 days of experience, Would you hire me
to fix your car? Would you hire me to run your company? If I only
had 143 days experience would you hire me to Run the country?
Something America might want to think about.

Just how much Senate experience does Barack Obama have in
terms of actual work days? Not much.

From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United States
Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential
exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the
Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session
and working (??).

After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was
ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill
the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan.
143 days -- I keep leftovers in my refrigerator longer
than that.

This isn't taking into account the days he has missed.
In contrast, John McCain's 26 years in Congress, 22 years
of military service including 1,966 days in captivity as a POW in
Hanoi now seem more impressive than ever. At 71, John McCain may
just be hitting his stride.

Think about IT!!! A great many people in this country have obviously gone stark raving mad!

This is an email I received that has been circulating on the web. Perhaps some of the figures aren't correct, but the general message is clear. Obama is in over his head.

After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was
ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill
the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan.
143 days

I like "Leader of the Free World". Kinda reassuring for us in the Free World to know that , whichever candidate makes it to the White House, leadership will still be provided to us.

Leader in that we're the nation that other free nations call out to when in need or danger. Leader in that we saved France, your nation, in two world wars. And as you and your fellow countrymen know we'll be there for France again if the need arises.

Who is Georgia calling out to right now? France? Italy? Germany? No, Georgia is begging the United States to come to her rescue as Russia invades. Our ships are heading in that direction now under the guise of coming for humanitarian assistance. But we all know that the US is going to drive Russia from occupying Georgia either through diplomacy or military force.

So I'd call us the leader of the free world without reservation.

Chris OConnor wrote:This is an email I received that has been circulating on the web. Perhaps some of the figures aren't correct, but the general message is clear. Obama is in over his head.

You are still going to let the fear rule your decisions huh? The threats are overplayed...not non-existent mind you, but overplayed. Having Bush in office did not stop us from experiencing the biggest attack on our coutry.

Tell me...what international EXPERIENCE did Bush have when he became president? None. He was a Governor. What Bush did was have a team around him that had experience with international matters and security...and look what a mess they made. Presidents survive or fall based on the teams they choose to surround themselves with. I am tired of the experience card...fact is, no one has experience to be President until they get elected.

Chris OConnor wrote:Would you hire me?

If I only had 143 days of experience, Would you hire me
to fix your car? Would you hire me to run your company? If I only
had 143 days experience would you hire me to Run the country?
Something America might want to think about.

143 days is less than half a year. What is this number referring to? Is this all Obama has served to date? Anyway...yes I would let someone fix my car with 143 days experience, for I assume they were trained as a mechanic before hand. Run my company? Depends on the character and knowledge of the person. 143 experience? Again, in what? The specific company I own? What about other life experience that may lend itself to the task at hand. They might not know leatherwork like I do, but they may have great skills at running a business.

These email/forwardy things on the net are usually garbage...this seems like one of them.

Chris OConnor wrote: Think about IT!!! A great many people in this country have obviously gone stark raving mad!

Yep...you got that right. Hopefully the election does not go their way this time.

Mr. P.

Chris OConnor wrote:Leader in that we're the nation that other free nations call out to when in need or danger. Leader in that we saved France, your nation, in two world wars. And as you and your fellow countrymen know we'll be there for France again if the need arises.

Lets not forget that without France, we might not even be a nation.

Mr. P.

Chris OConnor wrote:Leader in that we saved France, your nation, in two world wars. And as you and your fellow countrymen know we'll be there for France again if the need arises.

While WW I and WW II are notable examples of US leadership and sacrifice on behalf of Europe, The Cold War is just as important and much more recent.

When the Soviet Empire was looming over Western Europe for more than 40 years, it was American military power that kept them in check. Back then, Europeans were more than happy to call the US "the leader of the free world", because it was a dirty, dangerous, and expensive job that they themselves were completely unwilling to shoulder. From 1950 to 1990 America was well-loved in Western Europe, because Western Europe was terrified of the Soviets.

Now the Soviet Empire is gone and Europe's need for a strong, interventionist America is gone with it. When they needed us they spoke conveniently of "friendship" and "brotherhood"; now theat they don't, they call us "cowboys" (which they only think is an insult) and "imperealists". With the notable exception of the UK, Europeans have turned out to be fairweather friends for the most part. As a good buddy of mine who works for CentCom puts it "we can count on Europe to be there every time they need us".

The US is the leader of the free world because we're pretty much the only ones willing to spend blood and treasure to protect freedom. If France or Germany would like to assume that mantle, they are more than welcome to start doing so right now. Afganistan would be an excellent place to start; increase your troop and support levels to at least match that of the US and we'll re-evaluate who's leading and who isn't.

On the world stage, leadership is not about who's been around longer or who makes the most polished speeches. It's about who accepts responsibility and does what needs to be done, regardless of how ugly, expensive, or unpopular the task might be. The US - and to a lesser degree the UK and Australia - have filled that role since the end of WW II, almost without exception. So yes, the term "leader of the free world" applies to us. Not because of ethinicity or wealth or demographics, but because we have been consistently willing to shoulder the responsibilities that come along with such leadership.

Presidents survive or fall based on the teams they choose to surround themselves with.

I'll agree with you on this. To be honest I'm still somewhat on the fence with Obama and McCain. Neither gets me too excited, so I'm enjoying exploring the pros and cons of each candidate.

Some of my concerns with Obama.

1. He's black.

Just kidding! Hey, if I can't be politically incorrect around here who can? And I am seriously just kidding.

2. His stance on drilling.

Obama is starting to change his tune with regards to domestic oil production, but in my opinion it should not take the fear of losing an election to get him to make the right choice. I'm not at all impressed with his statements about the need to Americans to inflate their tires as a solution to the crisis.

3. He opposed the surge in Iraq.

This isn't that big of a deal to me, despite the Republicans continual reference to it. I can understand the assumption that more soldiers on the ground in Iraq simply meant more targets for terrorist snipers to pick off. But Obama is against the use of force by default and as much as I'd love to live in Utopia I strongly believe that war is sometimes essential.

4. Obama hangs out with racist and disgusting people.

I'm summarizing because someone is on the way over my house, but I'll elaborate as much as time allows. Obama stayed with a church that preached some horrific things. Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a racist and the opposite of what the black community needs, IMO. The fact that Obama sat through those sermons says something about where his head is. Obama also was friendly with William Ayers, a man with terrorist ties.

5. Obama's wife doesn't appreciate our country

We all know the things she said repeatedly about not being proud of the United States. Our nation has a bloody history, but so does just about every nation of our planet. I take into consideration our history and mistakes and don't march forward with blind patriotism, but I am damn proud of our founding documents and what the US has contributed to this world. I could never have spoken the words Michelle Obama spoke even though I'm not pleased with much of our history. I don't like her and don't feel she deserves to be the First Lady.

6. The world considers Obama as a pacifist.

I don't think Russia would stop their occupation of Georgia if Obama were in control. But they know damn well it is a matter of time before the US acts militarily. Is this a good or bad thing?

---

What I don't like about McCain...

1. His unwillingness to speak to our enemies.

Sometimes an enemy is an enemy simply because the two sides don't understand each other, don't communicate with each other, and don't empathize with each other. I disagree with the long-held Republican stance on having talks with our enemies. To me the goal should be to turn enemies into friends and reduce the tension, misunderstandings and hostility in this world. Not speaking to them pisses them off.

2. He is pretty damn old.

I never looked at McCain as being too old for office, but the media has made such a big deal of it I am starting to question his ability at his old age. McCain looks like a man that could kick some ass. There is nothing feeble about him.

3. McCain might be too much like Bush

Living in a world filled with nukes and crazy leaders means that we have to be extra careful about who we piss off. I think we can all safely say that McCain has a MUCH higher probability of pissing off the wrong people than Obama.

Ok, my guest just showed up. Gotta go for now.

Mr. Pessimistic wrote:These email/forwardy things on the net are usually garbage ... this seems like one of them.

In general, I agree. However, Senator Obama's lack of experience is an issue. That is not to say it is the only issue, nor that Senator McCain doesn't have his own down sides as a candidate. But whether a guy who hasn't even completed one term in congress is prepared to be President is a legitimate line of questioning. Yet there are many, many Obama supporters who act as if even bringing the subject up is an act of blastphemy.

I've been a McCain supporter since the 2000 Republican primaries, so there's no question as to who I'm voting for. But I don't believe that Obama is a bad guy - or a Muslim terrorist, or a militant white-hater, or any of that other bullshit. He is simply too liberal and too inexperienced to get my vote, especially against a tried-and-true American leader like McCain.

Lets not forget that without France, we might not even be a nation.

I don't think anyone who has studied American history to any depth will forget this. However, the France of 1778 and the France of 2008 are very different countries. 18th Century France has my eternal, heartfelt gratitude. 20th and 21st Century France does not.

Try as I might, I can't find anywhere in the Constitution that says our President is also "Leader of the Free World"...actually, if we pay closer attention to the framers, we see a prominent prohibition against any such notion. His job is President of the United States, not Leader of the Free World.

Furthermore, I don't know when any sort of election was ever held for such a position...when did all the members of the so-called Free World vote for a leader? Was there a campaign? When did the candidates debate or engage the entire Free World in dialgoue or town hall assembly discussion?

Frankly, this twisted notion of leadership rests upon a terrible value: might equals right..the strongest should rule...those who win the wars by default are the leaders. A moment's reflection should expose the complete antithesis that this creates for any system that rests upon rule of law or democratic elections or accountability to constituencies.

Leader of the Free World is a perverse notion: better left to our baser fantasies of World Emperors and Ceasars...there is nothing free about it.