Most of these responses are just criticisims of Bush rather than explanations of why Barack Osama should be the President of the United States.
2006-10-23 09:23:00
·
answer #1
·
answered by rustyshackleford001 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
definite, i believe that Senator Obama is qualified to be President of u . s . a . of america. the actual incontrovertible truth that he has in difficulty-free words been a Senator for 2 Years isn't a reason to disqualify him. The Founding Fathers did not believe that element in politics replaced right into a necessary qualification for someone to be President in truth this year for the first time when you consider that 1960 we as a united states will opt for our next president from the Senate of u . s . a . of america very few of our leaders have come from the Senate. Wilson and Roosevelt ,both one in each and every of them, had no journey in the Senate. Neither did Lincoln or McKinley. also want I remind you that Washington. Addams and Jefferson had not in any respect been in the Senate. The Senate has no longer been seen an outstanding position to get your training as President. As to being waiting on Day One as Senator Clinton stresses i don't think of that any one is really waiting for those popular jobs ever. The stakes as you say are severe yet how can Senator Obama be any worse that who we've in the present day?
2016-12-05 03:45:50
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
He was president of the Harvard Law Review, in 1991. Then worked for the civil rights law firm Miner, Barnhill and Galland, and taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School.
In 1996, Obama was elected to the Illinois State Senate from the south side neighborhood of Hyde Park, in Chicago. He served as chairman of the Public Health and Welfare Committee when the Democrats regained control of the chamber.
In 2000, Obama made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush. Rush, a former Black Panther and community activist, charged that Obama hadn't "been around the first congressional district long enough to really see what's going on".Rush received 61% of the vote, while Obama received 30%
In 2004, Obama ran for the U.S. Senate open seat vacated by Peter Fitzgerald and won with 52% of the vote.
In April 2005, Obama sponsored the "Higher Education Opportunity through Pell Grant Expansion Act", S. 697. The bill proposed increasing the maximum amount of Pell Grant awards to $5,100. Provision for Pell Grant awards was later incorporated into the "Deficit Reduction Act", S. 1932, signed by President George W. Bush on February 8, 2006.
Obama joined with Senators Coburn (R-OK), Carper (D-DE), and McCain (R-AZ) in sponsoring the "Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act", S. 2590, to provide citizens with a website, managed by the Office of Management and Budget, listing all organizations receiving Federal funds from 2007 onward, and providing breakdowns by the agency allocating the funds, the dollar amount given, and the purpose of the grant or contract. President George W. Bush signed the bill, also referred to as the "Coburn-Obama Transparency Act", into law on September 26, 2006.
2006-10-23 09:21:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by jacktree2466 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
He has proven that he has a commanding grasp of the English language and is able to convey a message of hope and inspiration to any that dare to listen.
In the world of politics, being able to use words to negotiate and inspire are the most important tools of any leader.
As to your insistence on a track record, he has been a US Senator for a relatively short time, but he was a State Senator also before this.
Where was your concern for a track record of Bush who was only Governor of Tx for 6 years? What did he accomplish other than enforcing the death penalty? By your logic then, you should have voted for Gore in 2000 (25 years +, in addition to being the #2 Man in the WH).
2006-10-23 09:20:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by Finnegan 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
this is to marissa - what are you talking about bush was govenour of texas that has to count because he was sworn in. a govenour of a state is more qualified that a newbie like obama for just a seat in the senate. sure he had to be sworn in to but that is just a sit down job and being govenour is an actual state responsibility.
i'll ask you the question what has obama done more than what bush has done? there is kinda a big difference there. good debate though!
2006-10-23 10:20:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Republicans haven't allowed Democrats to introduce legislation, or are you not aware that this is how your big tent party runs Congress? He practiced law for a number of years and then was in the Illinois legislature for 7 years. He's a Harvard Law grad and was editor of the Harvard Law Review -- a very big deal - this means he was one of the very top students and is good writer. If you really want to know more, you can check his website at senate.gov.
2006-10-23 09:16:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by ? 5
·
2⤊
1⤋
the question itself should e asked with another question..what did Bush do to qualify for President? And Gov. of Texas does not count..look up Texas politics for a clear def.
2006-10-23 09:15:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by marissa 1
·
2⤊
1⤋
I think all it takes to be president is Born in America be 35 or more years old.
It does not have very high qualifications.
Go big Red Go
2006-10-23 09:14:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
Nothing really, He's a first term congressman and totally unqualified to be pres. He is no more qualified than Hilary Clinton.
2006-10-23 09:14:43
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
He spoke without using ebonics. He doesn't have gold teeth. He's an African American Democrat that doesn't rhyme when he speeks, like Jesse Jackson.
But everybody knows the first Black American President will be a conservative.
2006-10-23 09:11:15
·
answer #10
·
answered by ::ponders:: 2
·
1⤊
2⤋