Some of these men have had extensive resumes — especially LBJ and Bush I — and others less so. My point is simply that breadth of experience does not seem to be a useful predictor of Presidential caliber. I’m not sure what criteria are more helpful, except perhaps gut instinct regarding a candidate’s judgment and character.

I have an Obama bumper sticker on my car. This is partly because it covers a small dent in my bumper exceedingly well, and at the cost of one dollar it sure beats body work. It’s also there because I agree with him on most (not all) of the issues, and my gut told me that he would be a better President than Hillary. (McCain: let’s not go there). I think Bill Richardson or Chris Dodd or even crazy Joe Biden have more impressive resumes, but when I think of who I would want to have as leader, I think Obama is the winner hands down.

By that you mean the judgment that it would be politically expedient to run for elected office in the district where Louis Farrakahn resides (and holds considerable sway) to take a position Farrakahn supports? Even the most simple-minded politician could make that judgment (for why Obama falls into this category, keep reading).

Or are you referring to his unwavering commitment to a political position no matter what changes on the ground?

“his statements about foreign policy”

The ones he made on Monday or the ones on Tuesday — you know, about Iran being virtually no threat and Iran being a grave threat, respectively?

“his rhetorical skill, his work as an organizer”

I can think of someone else who also fits that description . . . but I doubt he’d have been a very good president.

“his academic background”

The one that included such splendid lessons in geography and history that he knows there are 57 states in the Union and that Auschwitz was in western Germany (or that the United States somehow beat the Soviets into Poland)?

“intellectual approach to problem-solving”

You mean the way he solves problems of his embarrassing associations — saying he could never renounce someone he’d known for 20 years any more than he could renounce the black community and then turning around and renouncing him a few weeks later? Does that mean he renounced the black community, too? The other day he said he had to leave his church (not out of political expediency, mind you; that would have been cynical), but couldn’t renounce it; that it wasn’t worth renouncing . . . how long until you think he’ll find it worth renounciation?

“My hopes may [will] end up dashed.”

Fixed it for you. He’ll either lose or get elected and you’ll find out he doesn’t have magical powers.

That said, why does it have to be a political accomplishment? To take an extreme example (Obama is clearly not Lincoln), what were Lincoln’s major political achievements before becoming President? The great virtue of Lincoln wasn’t that he had “experience” or because he was “ready to lead on day one” or any of that; it was that he was fundamentally right about the most important moral issue of his day.

To draw a seriously imperfect parallel, Obama was right about the Iraq War. He is skeptical (though I’ll admit not skeptical enough) of US hegemony and the lunatic foreign policy we engage in to preserve it. He refuses to be boxed into Reagan-era categories (e.g., Democrats are weak on defense, saber-rattling belligerence is synonymous with toughness, America’s foreign rivals are also her enemies, etc) and rejects the notion that liberalism somehow reflects an insufficient love of country. As conservatives pointed out in the 90s, being President is about character. That doesn’t mean merely that you’re faithful to your wife, although it also means that. The job is far more about judgment than it is about experience. Obama has given me sufficient reason to trust his judgment.

*sigh* Fine. The American people probably chose as well as they could have in 1996, I’m still undecided on 1988 and 1992, and they missed the boat rather shockingly in 1980 and 1984. I realize I will get no traction out of criticizing Reagan on a conservative blog, but there have been few forces in American politics more pernicious than the Reagan coalition. Its philosophy has left our politics morally and intellectually bankrupt. Insofar as Obama is a repudiation of that legacy, I find no shame in saying that he is the first legitimately good presidential candidate of my lifetime. I take pride in my country for a great many reasons, and I proud “for the first time in my life” that we may have a president worthy of this great nation.