So let's think about this "Obama doesn't have enough executive experience" rap . . .

[beaconess]

If previous executive experience is really the end-all-and-be-all, wouldn't it follow that the people who are most qualified to be president are those with the most relevant experience for the job?

And wouldn't that mean that while serving as a governor or a general or other executive position is great experience for the presidency, the presidency ITSELF is the most relevant and important experience of all?

And wouldn't that mean that George W. Bush is the second-most qualified person in the nation to be president since, after all, he has been president longer than any living person other than Bill Clinton?

[LiberalEsto]

1. The rethugs will make it a huge campaign issue

If some people at DU are concerned about Obama's lack of a track record, just picture what the rethugs will do with it.

[beaconess]

2. So we should wait until we can find a candidate that Republicans WON'T beat up on?

Sorry, but I don't want Joe Lieberman or Zell Miller to be president.

[PVnRT]

11. Then let's let the Republicans pick our candidate

:eyes:

[athena]

32. The American public likes newcomers.

The reason nearly half voted for Bush in 2000 is that he represented himself as an outsider to Washington. The public does not like experienced career-politicians. If people cared about political experience, more would have voted for Kerry in 2004.

Obama has so much charisma and political genius that anything the right wing does to try to discredit him will only make the people like him more. Obama gives people hope: something we all desperately want. After eight years of regression, Americans want to present a new face to the world. Obama is that face.

[intaglio]

3. How much Executive experience

did the Chimpolatta have? I mean real executive experience. Betcha Obama has more - of everything than Kaiser George

[beaconess]

5. How much? He's been president for 6 years and governor for 6 years before that.

Even if he's been asleep most of the time, that's a lot of executive experience.

[sui generis]

4. it's too soon

there is no logical deconstruction of the argument but Obama makes plenty of other greenhorn and political blunders, not the least of which is babbling about his faith incessantly.

We need administrators in government, not pastors. We need leaders in politics, not lawyers, not people who are unable to answer a question directly with a yes or no.

And finally, we need leaders who have moral conviction that comes from genuine human interest, and not borrowed from zogby or the bible.

That's where he falls short. We don't need any more messianic types bumbling around in the white house, or making silly statements like "I was told that it wouldn't be politically expedient to continue to stand completely against gay marriage", because that means the brother ain't ready to be my leader.

[beaconess]

6. You're making a different argument

And while I don't agree with you, I respect it. You're looking at a variety of factors to make your determination.

[sui generis]

12. well on the argument itself it's a straw man

but that conclusion is moot. Clearly if we respond to someone making that argument you've wasted air and heartbeats addressing it, and validated it in the process. In fact I would probably respond with exactly that phrase.

However, regarding the other things I said, the election is still young. I easily stand firmly behind what I say of Obama today (don't know what there is to disagree with), but there is still plenty of time for him to crystallize his candidacy and build the necessary bulwarks to bring doubters like myself around.

I certainly hope he does - I am not going to "pre-judge" him at 2008 with information in 2006, but if he doesn't step up to what it means to be a political leader rather than just a well meaning but ineffective guy, I won't be able to throw my support his way.

What major progressive legislation has he sponsored in the past two years? I really don't know, not being smarmy, but it should stand out and be of notice. He still has time, but these other factors are what thinking people will consider.

[liberalpragmatist]

28. Here's what legislation he has sponsored

He actually has put together quite a legislative agenda for a freshman senator in the minority.

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

[sui generis]

29. in that entire thread

no hit on "marriage", not once.

A hawkish pro-corporate progressive for straight people who calls his own party "anti-religious" just doesn't get my pulse off zero these days.

Sorry - I know that came across as a bit hostile but I sincerely think he's a politician first and a populist second.

If you're going to be a real populist progressive you have to be that first, second, and always, and include all Americans in that "populist" ideal, not just the ones your evangelical religion approves of.

Just the same and in respect and fairness, I have to wait and see. I don't like him today. I may like him better in a year and a half when he's "matured" into his methods and stances, when he more fully understands what it is he strives to represent as a political leader. I would vote for him in a heartbeat if really takes a chance and stops being a foal of a political animal and starts being a lion of a political leader on the issues that are used to divide us from ourselves.

[liberalpragmatist]

30. Who do you support then?

I'm not attacking you because I'm pro-marriage as well, but as it currently stands, NONE of the Democratic candidates embrace gay marriage. Are you going to go Green or write-in someone if that's your biggest issue?

Again, I'm not attacking you; I'd just like to know.

ON EDIT:

Also about religion: Obama has vociferously condemned the religious right. His entire point has been that Democrats have allowed themselves to be perceived as anti-religious, and in a country in which 84% believe in God, that's a poor position to be in. Democrats have to do better among rural voters, among suburban voters, people who aren't in lock-step with Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson but who are influenced by perceptions of faith and judgment.

Moreover, consider the audience he was addressing: this was a conference of progressive Christians organized by Sojourner's Magazine.

I probably won't sway you on this. But at least consider the following passages in his "controversial" religion speech:

While I've already laid out some of the work that progressive leaders need to do, I want to talk a little bit about what conservative leaders need to do -- some truths they need to acknowledge.

For one, they need to understand the critical role that the separation of church and state has played in preserving not only our democracy, but the robustness of our religious practice. Folks tend to forget that during our founding, it wasn't the atheists or the civil libertarians who were the most effective champions of the First Amendment. It was the persecuted minorities, it was Baptists like John Leland who didn't want the established churches to impose their views on folks who were getting happy out in the fields and teaching the scripture to slaves. It was the forbearers of the evangelicals who were the most adamant about not mingling government with religious, because they did not want state-sponsored religion hindering their ability to practice their faith as they understood it.

Moreover, given the increasing diversity of America's population, the dangers of sectarianism have never been greater. Whatever we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation; we are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers.

And even if we did have only Christians in our midst, if we expelled every non-Christian from the United States of America, whose Christianity would we teach in the schools? Would we go with James Dobson's, or Al Sharpton's? Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount - a passage that is so radical that it's doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let's read our bibles. Folks haven't been reading their bibles.

This brings me to my second point. Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God's will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what's possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It's the art of the impossible. If God has spoken, then followers are expected to live up to God's edicts, regardless of the consequences. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime, but to base our policy making on such commitments would be a dangerous thing.

[sui generis]

31. oh, I'm not going to vote this time if it's not addressed.

I've earned the right to withhold my vote over the past decades of never missing a vote.

I wouldn't "throw" it to the greens with a hissy fit vote either, but the message is CRYSTAL clear. Speak to our issues too if you want our political support and our vote. If you don't, don't have unreasonable expectations of our support. There can be no compromise. To compromise to get into office a candidate will have to continue to compromise to stay in office. That's not a pretty picture of America, but we're not helpless to change that either.

These are the fundamental legal protections of our families, of our children, so this isn't a "less important" issue to us, as many well meaning non-gay people seem to think it is for them. It is front and center for us, especially those of us in long term complex legal relationships that can be dissolved by a third cousin twice removed. If something happened to me in most states, the state could ostensibly take kids away from their other Papa, and also kick him out of the house without a shirt on his back until probate settles.

If Obama can't speak to this issue and mean it, he never will. So why vote for that candidate? Why let a candidate take us for granted? The bigots have played for keeps, and so are we.

A direct answer to your question is I don't know yet. The best candidate, and if no candidate supports our issues, which I would find highly unlikely, then I will no longer consider myself a democrat, or possibly even an American.

It's that serious.

[BOSSHOG]

7. Relative to republican response to a democratic candidate

It won't matter who the candidate is, or what experience the person has, they will trash him/her unmercifully regardless of factual data or not. Not enough experience, too much experience, too black, too white, too female; too liberal, too tall, too fat. All for the benefit of the ignorant trash in this country unswayed or unmoved by intellectual curiousity.

I think the experience card is nonsense. If he's not experienced in "conservative" chicanery and lies and criminality and perversion and election stealing I welcome his rookie standing.

[acmavm]

8. Too damn bad the world isn't as simple as some

people think it is, or should be.

And as has been said before by much smarter people than myself, bush** is the PERFECT example of someone unexperienced getting into the White House. Exactly like Obama.

[beaconess]

10. Do you think that Bush's problem is that he didn't have enough experience going into the WH

or that he lacks any of the personal qualities that one should have in order to be president?

Whatever Bush's experience was prior to the White House, he certainly has considerable experience now. Do you think he's STILL unqualified to be president, notwithstanding all of this experience he now has?

If so, "experience" or the lack thereof is clearly not the operative factor.

[acmavm]

19. He still doesn't have any experience. If you think he's been

running things, you are seriously mistaken. Up until Poopy came to town to try to shake some sense into Junior, Dick and Rummy were running the show. bush** was so expendable that the day that the small airplane strayed into verboten airspace they didn't even tell Junior. Everyone else got whisked into a secure location. They let him keep riding his bike. And he was cowed for about a week. Now he's back to being an arrogant, stupid ass.

I think he did run poor Texas into the ground with only KKKarl's help though.

For a lot of people who thought Obama was the savior of the democratic party during the '04 election, we've been very disappointed. He's opportunistic. He'll say whatever he thinks will get him by at the minute. He's big business. He's Hillary in disguise.

That rally that the news people were hyping up the other day, there was a whole 1500 people in attendance. You people are buying into what the media are selling you. They're leading you around by the nose. He doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the nomination in '08.

You people who think Obama is ready for the White House can just go right on ahead thinking that way. He won't get the nomination. The majority of the party is made up of people just like me who think that not does he not deserve the nomination, he's incapable of winning if by some crazy miracle every other candidate would drop dead and he'd get it.

But you all enjoy yourselves for the next couple of years. It is, in a sad way, rather entertaining for the rest of us.

[tridim]

9. Obama doesn't have executive experience, and neither did Bush..

But that's not the issue. In a political vacuum Obama would be a great candidate, but the fact is there are many other great Democratic/Progressive candidates who are much more qualified for the job.

[jefferson_dem]

14. Having executive experience does not mean that one is "qualified" for the job.

Even if you place a premium on so-called executive experience, there are many personal and professional attributes that may make a candidate "qualified" for the job of president.

To some, years and years of inside the beltway *training* is more of a liability than an asset.

[beaconess]

18. My point exactly

There are plenty of people with lots of executive experience who I wouldn't want anywhere near the Oval Office, with the current occupant at the top of the list.

Others:

George H.W. Bush
Dick Cheney
Don Rumsfeld
Zell Miller
etc. etc.

Not to mention those with gobs of political and/or senatorial experience but no heart, no common sense and no vision:

Joe Lieberman
Trent Lott
Rick Santorum
Elizabeth Dole
etc. etc.

[tridim]

22. Completely agree

I don't know why everyone assumes that if I talk about executive experience that's my only criteria.

[Rageneau]

13. Obama is drawing fire away from Hillary

It is indisputable that the Republicans will attempt to character assassinate anyone who seems like a viable Democratic presidential contender. So although Barrack is light on experience and accomplishments, he looms large as a target for the GOP's typical slanders. But that's good.

As long as the Pukes are focused on Barrack and are spending all their time and energy trying to belittle him in the public eye, they won't have enough time and energy left over to attack any of our REAL candidates, such as Hillary, Clark, Edwards, even Kuchinich.

Thus, Barrack could be key to our presidential ambitions in 2008. Let the Pukes think he is running. Let them attack and slander him. Let them spend millions and use all their talking heads to destroy his candidacy. And then let him drop out at the last second, before the Pukes have time to turn their big guns on one of our real contenders.

I doubt Obama is ready for prime-time as a leader, but he is well qualified as a decoy to draw the hateful ire of the Republican Party away from where it can do us harm. Let's Ju-Jitsu them.

[Nite Owl]

15. Lack of experience might be a positive

to people who don't want someone tainted by the system. I think that's part of his appeal actually, he's fresh, he's original and he talks TO people not AT them like they wouldn't understand the issues anyway.

[FrenchieCat]

16. Bush will not be running again, so the fact that he has executive exp is a moot point....

I just don't want to pick my president based on the American Idol mentality is all...and after Bush, just about anyone looks good.....so it ain't about comparing anyone to him.

One problem that is manifesting itself that is "with the good comes the bad" (the good being that Obama is getting rave reviews from just about every single media pundits that there is) in that Obama is literally being pushed onto us, and so many are gonna push back just cause it ain't natural for one person to get this kind of idolization from the media types unless there is something else at work that we are not yet privy to.

I like Obama as a man, and believe him to have that "it" useful to a politician...however, I personally need more info on his leadership skills and ability, because that is what a President does more than anything else....leads the country.

[beaconess]

20. Of course, I'm not saying that Bush is running again

I'm simply noting that arguing that specific kinds of experience are a prerequisite to being a successful president or an accurate baramoter of what kind of president someone would be doesn't hold water.

As you note, leadership ability and skill mean a lot more than what is on someone's resume - as evidenced in perfect relief by the current president.

[On the Road]

17. No, Setting a Prerequisite Does Not Mean

that the person with the longest tenure is the best qualifed.

[beaconess]

21. So, then the fact that he'll have been in the Senate for 4 years instead of 20

does not disqualify him?

[On the Road]

23. No, None of it Disqualifies Obama

I think he's a perfectly good Senator. I just don't understand why so many people support Obama as the best choice for Chief Executive.

[potone]

24. For me the issue is not lack of executive experience.

It is legislative experience. For some reason we usually elect governors to be president, and they always make blunders their first months in office because of their inexperience in dealing with Congress and their lack of knowledge of how things are done in Washington. I think that Obama has a very bright future, but I would like him to wait until he has served longer in the Senate. What's the rush? He is young and will have many more years to run for the presidency.

Just my two cents.

[xchrom]

25. i think on some level obama is ''inspiring'' to some people.

that's not what i'm looking for.

his reluctance to firmly commit to at least one full term as senator -- i.e. looking at the presidency all ready infact leaves me a little cold.

his reluctance to come out and say that being gay is a natural right way of being leaves me cold.

bush has done what he set out to do -- WE might think he's a lame brain -- and not a good executive -- but i've always thought he did what he set out to do.

some where out there is going to be a srong talking, extremely forthright liberal/progressive candidate who not only inspires but has a knack for working and working well that is going to get folks attention in a real way.

maybe it's edwards -- i don't know.

but obama's push now doesn't do a damn thing for me.

[drm604]

26. Has anyone said that it's the end all and be all?

It's just one factor among many. A person can argue that executive experience is a necessary factor without implying that it's the only necessary factor. You should also require, among many other things, honesty and competence which, in the minds of many, rules out George W. Bush. In the case of Obama, lack of executive experience may rule him out for now even if he does meet other requirements.

[jaxx]

27. Skip the general. We do not need more military in the WH.

[MrCoffee]

33. Chimpy was governor of TX, which is an extraordinarily weak governorship

the governor of TX has practically no power. the lt. governor has the real muscle.