As was I.  This is off-topic, I know, but if you look at it, Hitler was a great leader too.  He was also an evil, evil man.  But the guy had charisma out the ying-yang, and could bring "his people" (the nazi) together like nobody's business.

I think Obama has a lot of good characteristics, but just because he can get people to follow him around chanting doesn't make him a leader; just as McCain's history as a prisoner of war, while it's admirable that he withstood it etc, doesn't make him fit to be president.

Plegh.

Borack H. Obama has a half brother,Malik Abongo, a father, a causin by name of Raila Odinga who Obama supported in Kenya SE Africa, plus  other relatives. Where is the story of Obama having duel double citizenship, sniffing coke in college, friends with William Aires, Tony Rezko, or Rev. Wright ,and Ft. Pflager, etc.?Obama has never done anything for the middle class voter before, he's only helped himself. How did he rose to power so quickly? And why are many Islamofascists who are sworn to the destruction of America also actively campaigning for Obama?What"s in it for them?

Borack?  Is that his brother from Kazakhstan? 

Actually, I tend to disagree with you with Hitler being a great leader.  Yes, the Nazis party got Germany out of the depression (the Nazi Party was around way before Hitler became the head).  Hitler surrounded himself with brilliant people who were in the party already.  In Mein Kampf, he outlined clearly what he was going to do.  Now, the man knew that he had to save Germany in order to get the Germanys to do what ever he wanted them to do.  A lot of Germany policies concerning social economic mirrored what the U.S was doing and vice versa.

Plus, a lot of people in charge back then were bumbling shmucks (ala Chamberlain).  If Hitler was a great leader, he would have listened to his greatest/smartest general more often 'the desert fox', Erwin Rommel. 

Oh yeah, some ninny cough on the previous page said that experience doesn't matter for the Presidency.  For upper level management jobs, most REQUIRE previous ON THE JOB experience or related job experience. 

Now for the President, I would want someone that has:

PROVEN experience in recommended field: politics

preferrable:  at least 8 years of experience in that field or 12 years in a similar field

education: preferrable b.s or b.a in political science or a b.s or b.a in a similar field.

Essentially, when I hire someone I want someone who can not only talk the walk but ALSO who walk the talk. 

Some previous experience is very needed for Presidency hence why the founding fathers set the age where they set it.  They felt that BY that age someone should have had enough experience in Politics or minimumally successfully guiding an extremely large coglomerate of people.

p.s. Is this article a joke?

p.p.s. what about China and India's climate control? Why do those countries never get to confirm?  They have 3x our population?

p.p.p.s Obviously Iran just recently decided to try and get nukes as well as North Korea.   Neither country was trying to get them before because we know that they've been superpowers for the last couple of centuries. Its not like they haven't tried to push us around ever.  Oh yeah, before the last 8 years we were bed buddies with North Korea and Iran.  giggidy, giggidy, gig-gi-dy!

p.p.p.p.s  Obviously what happened on this date was caused by the right-wing conservatives.  Take out a building or three and you'll give people jobs.

p.p.p.p.p.s We all know that Bush and the republicians caused the hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, tsunami, Anna Nicole Smith, 80s music, CokeII/Crystal Pepsi, LA CHOY (most people don't know this but in every can there is a WMD hidden inside)

You are correct about Hitler, he was a maniacal weirdo who kept power because he pretty much allowed the second-tier to rule the day-to-day things which kept them pacified and fighting amongst themselves (his attempts to meddle in the battlefield were disasterous 100% of the time). However, as an historian I have to protest strongly at the image of Chamberlain as a 'schmuk.' Chamberlain's appeasement was done, not because he was indecisive or weak-willed, but with an undercurrent of sympathy for Germany's plight (which America's Wilson opposed in 1919, however Britain was undecided which allowed France to dictate harsh terms, but not harsh enough to cripple the nation) and smart foreign policy. What would Britain care if the revived Germany began taking back the Polish corridor, the German-speaking Sudetenland (and a bit extra)? Every time Hitler assured him that it was mereley Germany repossesing the German people, who had been scattered by the 'victorious' nations in 1919. It suited Chamberlain to believe him. Britain was nowhere near ready for war and every day would make Britain more organised, if not close the gap. Even a couple of years into the war Britain was unable to compete with Germany. They were defeated on the mainland and only spies managed to sabotage an invasion plan which would have seen Britain conquered almost as quickly as the Dutch (4 days).

Furthermore, Chamberlain didn't believe in 'peace in our time' as is popularly misquoted, he mentioned 'peace for our time' and quickly told the Commons not to pay attention to that - he had no illusions that Hitler would stick to his word. And let's face it, Chamberlain's wish to avoid war at the time, for whatever reason, was right. Don't forget the Nazis weren't the evil empire at the time. All the average foreign leader knew about at the time was that they liked flags and fascist marches, the holocaust was completely unknown (even in 1945, the detention camps were known about but the discovery of concentration camps shocked American-lead invasion forces) and fascism really isn't an unusual concept - as much as people might pretend these days (just look at Polish football fans). 50 million or more lives were lost, thanks to the caution Chamberlain instilled in British military maneuvers, very few were British (until they idiotically walked into a David-Goliath campaign, resulting in Dunkerque's mass-slaughter and loss of expensive equipment).

Defenders of Slavery back when it was legal defined it as "free choice" too.