The Journal Sentinel inadvertently raises an interesting question:

January 12th, 2010

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ended an editorial today with:

Obama is not the nation's Affirmative Action president, viagra usa ambulance elected only because of white guilt.

He certainly is the nation's first black president – a milestone that should justly make this nation proud.

And he's president because he was the better candidate. Period.

So the question is: is the winning candidate by definition the “better” candidate?


But does that make him the better office holder?

(Also…really…to act like President Obama’s skin color had nothing to do with him getting elected is delusional.)

Entry Filed under: Observations

2 Comments Add your own

  • 1. Rustmeister  |  January 12th, 2010 at 3:05 pm

    I really think it was his lack of negro dialect.

    Seriously, though, I can see how he could have been considered the better “candidate” because of his public speaking, but that’s the only thing he had going for him.

    His lack of real-world leadership experience is becoming more and more apparent as time goes by.

    And don’t even get me started on how he treats the military….

  • 2. grumps  |  January 14th, 2010 at 8:04 am

    It’s pretty clear based on the words and actions of John McCain and Sarah Palin that the US is wildly better off today than it would have been under their care.

    Was there a better candidate out there? Not on the ballot in 08.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.