Clyburn's comments certainly will give some people the impression that Barack is an "affirmative action" candidate, but I really don't think this is useful to talk about.

We know that Barack is inexperienced.  His supporters do not care.  He has convinced them that experience is either irrelevant or actually a bad thing.

So.. really your diary is not going to serve any constructive purpose.  You aren't going to convince any Obama supporters to change their minds.

I suggest making a diary talking about Hillary's qualifications or accomplishments instead.  The sensible Obama supporters on this site don't mind reading positive things about Hillary at all.

When you're at work, do you think the person who's been in position the longest should get the promotion and raise?

Hell, why don't we just nominate Senator Byrd or Stevens or something as the candidates of each party. They've got lots of experience, so they're obviously qualified to be President, right?

I guess the best part of your little rant here is suggestion affirmative action is the reason Barack Obama is beating Hillary Clinton. Congratulations. Stunning insight.

We don't need your trash in our community. Go back to Free Republic or Little Green Footballs.

what is your problem with Democracy?

SOME Clinton supporters are doing whatever they can to say the VOTERS SHOULD NOT DECIDE the election. bullshit! whoever the voters say is qualified is qualified.

i guess this diarest thinks the only valid candidates are Rosylyn Carter, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Hillary Clinton, and Laura Bush.

thanks for admitting you are a racist by including that heinous and disgusting remark.

have fun at the Klan meeting.

Well said.   Good Diary.

Something  I've been thinking about for the last few days:

Is there any Senator less electable than Hillary?

I don't think so.  This year we could have run any one of them-- Feingold, Whitehouse,  etc & won.

And yet we almost nominated the single most disliked Senator, and in so doing greatly damaged our chances.

Only democrats.

What's more important???  Practicing Affirmative Action

Where do people get the silly idea that there's racism on this site?

You really must have a whole lot of hate towards this Barack fellow that you cannot even muster up the intellect to author full, coherent paragraphs.

Leaving aside the highly dubious, albeit endlessly repeated, claims that Hillary Clinton has been "tested" and is "accomplished" (someday, someone is going to give me some evidence of either based on her career):

Do you have enough intellectual honesty to acknowledge that by your silly standards, Abraham Lincoln was unqualified to be president?

"When a country is currently facing the worse economic, international & domestic problems, what do the liberal guards of our party do?  They nominate a candidate who is even less qualified than the current occupant of the white house."

This is what frankly really baffles me.  Maybe the Dem "leadership" figures that despite Bush's disastrous performance as president, he was able to get elected.  So they're trying that game-plan (push a candidate not too qualified but deemed likable by media) to get a Dem in the WH?  Well, we'll see...

I'd tell you to leave, troll, but unfortunately you can find a lot of friends here that agree with you.

You, sir, are no Democrat.

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

Article II, Section 1, Constitution of the United States of America

Those are the qualifications for President of the United States. Everything else is a question of the worth of a candidate and thus far the majority of Democratic voters making their preference known in free and fair elections have deemed Senator Obama the more worthy candidate. Deal with it.

The qualifications required to run for the Presidency of the United States are stated explicitly in (what's left of) The Constitution.  They are:

*Only native-born U.S. citizens (or those born abroad, but only to parents who were both citizens of the U.S.) may be president of the United States.

*One must also be at least 35 years of age to be president. There is no maximum age limit set forth in the Constitution.

*A candidate must live in the United States for at least 14 years to be president, in addition to being a natural-born citizen. The Constitution is vague on this point: it does not state whether those 14 years need be consecutive or what the precise definition of residency is. To my knowledge, this requirement has never been challenged.

These are the ONLY qualifications.  All else is for voters to decide.  Up to now, in this democratic nominating process, more voters (by every rational metric) have chosen Senator Barack Obama.

For better (Democrat) or worse (Republican), that's how it works.

"Then 2000 Texas Governor George W. Bush was much more qualified than 2008 Illinois Senator Barack Obama."

Um, WTF?  Seriously, are you going to make this argument?  A legacy graduate of top schools with mediocre grades (and clearly never a real interest in education), admitted solely because of his family tree; a lifelong failure, running businesses into the ground throughout his adult life as he enjoyed addictions to alcohol and cocaine; the elected governor of Texas, the very definition of an empty suit backed by powerful interests.  Bush is a moron, has always been a moron, has never had interest in serving the greater good, and has treated elected office as a gift bag for cronies and sycophants.

Meanwhile, Obama earned his way into Harvard Law School, finished as a top student, has worked as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, constitutional law professor at a top law school, and state and U.S. legislator.

I mean, are we really going to measure qualifications with a blind eye to everything substantive?  Do you hate Barack Obama so much that you'll spit on his accomplishments and elevate the LEAST qualified president ever above him?

This is a shameful diary.

So you're saying Obama is the affirmative action candidate? Okay. That's really disgusting. As a Clinton supporter, I suggest you delete this racist tirade.