Barack Obama's Resume.

There was a fascinating interview on Mike Fitzsimmons' News Commentary...

The chair director for Barack Obama's campaign was answering questions from callers.
One caller asked, "What has Barack done--what is his resume--that would convince me that he'd be an efficient president?"
The Director spoke about how Obama had initiated the FutureGen issue, to which the commentator Fitzsimmons politely corrected the Director, mentioning how Obama only helped revive it, not create it. The Director stood corrected, which was an understandable mistake to make. But then the caller asked...
"So what's point #2?"
...
...silence...
...
Yes, even the Chair Director of Barack Obama's campaign couldn't answer the question, "What has Barack done?"

Obama's campaign emphasizes emotion... "hope," "change," and "a new future."
I've noticed that "emotion" is necessary in an argument when attempting to convince someone.
However, the argument cannot hold water if there is no reason along with that emotion. It's a delicate cocktail, but when mixed correctly, anyone could be convinced. It's not brainwashing, it's just a good argument.
There is no reason or logic in Obama's campaign. This may seem like a harsh accusation, but ask any supporter why Barack would be good for the country, and the supporter will mention how he'll "bring change," but would the supporter mention anything about Obama's track record?
My opinion on the "change" buzzword that's being thrown around: I believe Obama would bring change. Clinton would bring change. Even my stuffed dinosaur Bluey would bring change. The correct answer to, "Do you think Obama will bring change?" is: "Duh!" The correct question is, "How well will Obama implement change?" and "How has Obama implemented change in the past?"

Is this an unfair question?

Every job requires a resume.
Now the most important job in the world is up for grabs, and people aren't asking, "What's Barack's resume?"

This is scary.