I have only one question for Obama supporters, and I hope some will reply. I understand that many people are unhappy with the current administration, for that matter I am not thrilled with them, but then again, the Democrats in congress are as much to blame for that as the Bush administration. After all, military intervention in both Afghanistan and Iraq enjoyed broad bipartisan support. And energy policy is a largely congressional, not presidential function. But even if we blame Bush, he isn't running, so hatred of Bush really should play no role in selecting a candidate.

So, given all that, why do you think Obama should be president? And please answer without using the words "hope", "change" or "new". And comparing him to Bush is a bit off topic, as Bush is not running.

I am asking because, much as I dislike her, I could at least see why people supported Hillary Clinton. She may have hedged her positions somewhat, but everyone was well aware of her beliefs. She had a clear position, clear ideas. I disagreed with them, but I could at least anticipate what she would do once in office. So, were Hillary the nominee, much as I dislike her, I could understand the nomination.

Obama is, simply put, a media creation. He has very little experience. His work experience is as a community organizer and lecturer at the University of Chicago. His experience practicing law was largely confined to political activism as well. Beyond that, his political experience is a single term as a state senator and not even one term as a US senator. He basically is at the point in his career where most people are attempting to get a better committee appointment, not where they are trying to run for president.

Of course, his shtick is that he is an outsider and new. However, his campaign shows nothing of the kind. He has run on basically empty rhetoric, and when he has given specifics it is more of the same from the far left, including such duds as more money for midnight basketball, that inspired such mockery during the Clinton years. The few times he has deviated and moved toward the center, as soon as his base has objected he has run back to the left and repudiated his new position.

And that, truly, is what makes me worried about him, his utter dishonesty. He has the most consistently left wing record of any senator (well, in the short time he has been a senator). He is clearly far to the left. He even fought the Illinois BIAPA when even NARAL admitted opposition would be a PR disaster. He is consistently to the left of even the most left wing Democrats, yet he packages himself as a uniter and a man who will reach across the aisle. But his history shows nothing of the kind. He has consistently been far to the left of his colleagues and shown no signs of even moderating his position, much less compromising, which one would expect from a uniter.

So, if he is not a uniter, is as dishonest and manipulative as any politician, he is pushing the same old left wing dogma, and he is as inexperienced as any nominee since Wendell Wilkie, what, precisely, makes him a good candidate for the presidency?

And please remember, two rules when you reply. First, no "change", "hope" or "new", and, second, George Bush is not running.

POSTSCRIPT

And please note that in my evaluation, I have studiously avoided mention of even such established facts as his membership at Trinity or his close relationships with Ayers and Rezko. Nor did I mention other objections such as his elitist attitude, his apparent lack of patriotism, and other similar complaints. I stuck entirely to pointing out those traits which I find essential to being a good president, and his lack of such qualifications. The only somewhat irrelevant complaint I did raise was about his honesty, but only because he is so often promoted as a "different kind of politician", and I think his obvious dishonesty disproves that claim.

The only reason I point this out is that I am not asking anyone to explain away these attacks, I want only to know what are the merits of Obama. I point this out as I am afraid many of the explanations will contain attacks on Bush or McCain rather than explanations of Obama's appeal. That is not what I want.

So, as I was able to show why I think Obama is unqualified without such slanders, please do the courtesy of explaining why he is qualified without resorting to slandering his opponent or our sitting president.

UPDATE

To clarify my opening paragraph, I support our military involvement in both Afghanistan and Iraq, I just think our vacillation and our inconsistency has been a problem. In fact, unlike most even in the Republican party, I regret that we have not provided more aid to dissidents inside Iran and Syria, or even initiated small scale actions against either. Syria's efforts to destabilize both Iraq and Lebanon are a danger to the region, and Iran's nuclear ambitions, as well their meddling in Iraq make them a threat as well.

So please do not take my opening paragraph to mean I think we should not have intervened in either nation. I simply wanted to point out to anti-war Democrats supporting Obama that the Democrats in congress largely supported the war as well, so to blame Bush alone is absurd.