The Politico reports that Senator Barack Obama appears to be leading the pack of Presidential contenders on university campuses.
Obama, whose website features an “Academics for Obama” page, raised nearly $1.5 million in the first half of the year from people who work for colleges and universities, according to an analysis of campaign finance data by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. And that’s 55 percent more than the $939,000 brought in by the next biggest professor’s pet, fellow Democratic senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York.
The next two biggest recipients were Republicans Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, ($448,000) and Rudy Giuliani, the former mayor of New York ($366,000).
Overall, of the more than $7 million in federal campaign contributions from academia identified in the center’s analysis of Federal Election Commission data, 66 percent went to Democratic candidates and committees. That’s roughly the same percentage partisan split in academic contributions as in 2006 and 2004.
(Link via Election Law.)
My colleagues tell me that they know he's inexperienced, but they "like what he's saying." This I hear over and over. Well, I like what /I/ am saying. But I have no business running for president.
We'd never give Faculty Senate support to a candidate for presidency at this university, if he or she had as little relevant experience as does Obama. I can't say I think Romney, on the other side, has the minimal qualifications either. But can't we at least agree as voters that ssomeone who wants to be president ought to have finished at least /one term/ in office before being viable?
Donors are a self-selected sample. What that means, take as you will.
You may have a point with Lincoln (1 term in Congress, multiple terms in the Illinois Legislature) (and if you want a President to be compared with, why not the greatest of them all?).
But the others?
Eisenhower never held elective office but finished World War II as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe.
Gerald Ford spent 25 years in Congress and a year as Vice President.
George H.W. Bush spent 2 terms in Congress, eight years as Vice President, and held a variety of Cabinet level positions (UN Ambassador, CIA Director, among others) in the Nixon and Ford Administrations.
George W. Bush spent 6 years as Governor of Texas.
Barak Obama has been in the United States Senate for less than 3 years and 7 years in the Illinois State Senate.
And he is running for the nomination of a party who thought that Dan Quayle (8 years in the Senate, 4 years in the House) was not qualified to be Vice President.
Make what arguments you want about Obama, but please do not suggest with a straight face that he has the level of experience of any other major candidate running in either party.
BUT, re: Lincoln--The fact that our greatest president lacked significant national experience is not a good argument that we should choose inexperienced people. (A med-school drop-out might save your grandma's life. But in the future, you should still take granny to a physician.)
Second, I did not say that presidential candidates would make good university presidents. The point of analogy is to compare things that are /different/, in order to illustrate a point about the issue under discussion.
Third, Dave N has largely dealt with the experience issue. Ike held a number of significant leadership positions in the military--government service, after all--including Army COS and NATO Supreme Commander. In the early Cold War, this was quite relevant experience to bring to the WH. (And, by the way, he was also president of Columbia University.) I can't even imagine why Ford would be on your list of presidents lacking experience: In addition to what Dave mentions, I can only add that he was Minority Leader in the House when elevated to the vice-presidency.
George Bush--I'm assuming that you mean the current Bush. Who provides a good example of what can happen when we elect a president who has not proved himself.