It must be frustrating and disappointing for presidential candidates such as Hillary Clinton and John Edwards to witness the meteoric rise of Barack Obama to front runner status in the Democratic primary race, especially if they had thought that it was their time to lead the party. While I sympathize with their situation, I do not have patience for the empty and self-serving criticisms of Obama that we continue to hear from them and their advisors and surrogates. Namely, charges are flung around like fact that Obama is not tough enough or is all talk and no action or in some way did not earn his success. But what do these statements even mean? They appear to be cheap shots made by poor losers who are already anticipating their next run for office.

To place my comments in context, I am a relatively recent supporter of Obama, having initially supported candidates who didn’t stand a chance (Kucinich) or who dropped out of the race (Edwards). In general, I support candidates because of their positions and voting records and not because of their personalities, and so I don’t get too caught up in the hype about a candidate. As such, I have been able to watch this campaign unfold without the emotional investment that many others have made in their chosen candidate. Consequently, my annoyance with these criticisms of Obama is not due to my personal attachment to him but rather to their blatantly undemocratic and manipulative nature.

Even as the candidates talk endlessly about their patriotism, their attacks on Obama’s qualifications completely fly in the face of one of the cornerstones of the American Dream, namely the belief that anyone can grow up to be president. Apparently this is not true according to Hillary Clinton and others who have declared that Barack Obama is in some way not fit for the office. While John Edwards has not directly criticized Obama since suspending his campaign, a former Edwards advisor said in a March 21 Politico article that Edwards has concerns about Obama’s “strength and experience and readiness for the fight.” It is hard to take this seriously when in fact it was Edwards who dropped out of the race when the going got tough. At the same time, he approves of Hillary’s “toughness, and experience in life, making difficult decisions.” Given the destructive nature of Hillary’s battles and the strength of character that Obama has displayed during the recent Wright controversy, it leads one to question Edwards’ judgment in the first place.

In the case of Hillary, it is disingenuous to hear her say that Obama does not have enough experience to be president when in reality she has only four more years of Senate experience but four fewer years of total legislative service than Obama. More broadly, in touting her 35 years of experience, she does not elaborate on how her twelve years as first lady of Arkansas or her years on the Board of Directors of Walmart (among others) somehow contribute to her presidential qualifications. It is infuriating to hear her recite the 80 countries she has visited and imply that such extensive travel is somehow required experience for future commanders-in-chief. If this were so, it would seem that only former ambassadors and other high-level diplomats and cabinet members would be eligible to run for president. The way Hillary talks about her commander-in-chief qualifications, you would think that she will be personally directing the troops deployed around the world instead of conferring with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Generals, Admirals, and other military leaders like any other president would do. This emphasis on commander-in-chief is getting especially ridiculous when Hillary states that the country needs a commander-in-chief for the economy!

Unfortunately, this kind of campaign rhetoric hurts us all because it diverts the conversation away from the real issues at stake, such as Iraq, the economy, health care, energy and environment policy, etc., and instead focuses the public’s attention on some artificial mystique surrounding the person of the President. There is no foundation for such posturing, however, since the Constitution does not impose any such stringent threshold for being president or commander in chief. In fact, the only requirement is to be at least 35 years of age and a natural born citizen! The ridiculous thresholds put forth by Hillary and her supporters are moreover against the spirit of a government that is “of the people, by the people, for the people,” as put forward by Abraham Lincoln. While there are those who would say that those are just words from a speech, those words are an important reminder that we need to not only choose a president with excellent character and good judgment but also one who can identify with and serve the interests of all the people living in this country.