To be fair,I watched many of speeches given at the Democrat convention, I RARELY had to watch more than 30seconds before the race or sexism card was bandied.

Oh you're absolutely right, the Democratic party loves to point out that they embody minority and gender issues. However, as I've argued before, there is a moral difference between racial and gender affinity, and racial and gender discrimination, even if the end results are not easily distinguishable.

If content of character is what counts, then those who think with their brains and not their skins or genitals will withhold their votes from Obama, and the Democrat Party in general.

So you're accusing me of thinking with my pale skin and penis, instead of my brain? Come now, Floyd, give me more credit than that.

There is no need to lecture me in response about the many defects of the Republican Party

I always try to avoid that route. I've always been against the "but Al Qaeda does worse torture than we do" justification, and I'm against the "well the GOP is just as bad" justification for the same reason. If the Democratic party can't stand on it's own, it doesn't matter what the GOP is doing.

A mere 40 years ago, better qualified blacks were turn away from jobs. Now we've got someone running for President whose sole qualification seems to be he's black.

That statement itself shows just how far we still have to go.

Now we've got someone running for President whose sole qualification seems to be he's black.

Well, there is also the fact that millions of people think he should be President. But I forget, you Bushies are not really into that democracy thing.

I would definitely include Adams in the top 5, even if much of his best work was done outside of the oval office, the very structure of our government is owed to him.

I'm not sure I would even put Washington in the top 5. Sure he was first, and undeniably a good president, but what would qualify him for the top 5?

While most would consider him one of the greatest, he's got quite a bit of competition for the top spot.

It makes for an interesting discussion. Washington, simply by setting the precedent of walking away from executive power, deserves consideration. Jefferson gave so much to our country, but much of his work was done outside of the presidency. FDR, certainly is on the short list.

Another interesting list is the "not quite the best, but pretty damn good". Who makes that one?

Yet most (correctly, I think) regard Lincoln as our greatest President.

I think you're stretching a bit there. While most would consider him one of the greatest, he's got quite a bit of competition for the top spot.

He was a good, perhaps excellent attorney.

He was a state legislator.

He served a term in congress. (opposed the Mexican-American war)

He was an unsuccessful candidate for the Senate in 1855

He was recognized as a fine orator.

He was active in the formation of the Republican Party.

He was elected president.

In fact, at the time of his election, Lincon was considered by most of his own party's leadership to be a lightweight would would be too weak to lead.

Chase, Stanton, Seward, none of them held Lincoln in much regard when he took office (this would change).

Not much relevant experience going in. Yet most (correctly, I think) regard Lincoln as our greatest President.

You ignore his mom being on welfare, or the fact that he got into the "finest schools" based upon his "qualifications," which is more than you can say for legacy hacks like George W. Bush.

I didn't ignore his qualifications; indeed, I said that's what got him in. My point is that merely being qualified wasn't enough for Robinson or, certainly, his predecessors.

I'm sorry, you're trying to make the argument for affirmative action by making the argument AGAINST affirmative action.

Not following here. Did his being "the first" help him get the editorship of the Law Review? Probably. Did being "the first" contribute to his being offered tenure at Chicago Law without a single publication? Almost certainly. Did it help him get national media cred as a presidential candidate despite so little traditional experience? It certainly didn't hurt.

James, you're better than this. Do you seriously think John McCain, who graduated fifth from last in his class, who got into the Naval Academy SOLELY because his dad was an admiral and became a pilot for the same reason, is somehow better?

Different times. The Academy wasn't competitive in the same way in those days as it is now.

But nobody's comparing McCain to Jackie Robinson.

How much experience did Lincoln have?

Just looked it up on Wikipedia. Seems Lincoln had too much experience for me to type out here.

How much experience did Lincoln have?

So, you think 120 days as a Senator, with little previous experience other than being a poverty pimp, qualifies one for the presidency?

Yeah, because that is the sum of Obama's existance.

I'll concede that McCain has more experience than Obama, in virtually every variation that experience comes in. But that alone doesn't qualify McCain or disqualify Obama. It's a good thing for a President to have, but not nearly as important as what they learned from it, and how they will use it.

Only if you postulate that experience is gained at the same rate for all people

So, you think 120 days as a Senator, with little previous experience other than being a poverty pimp, qualifies one for the presidency?

Sorry, but the credibility seems a little streteched, here.