EXPERIENCE IS NO GUARANTEE OF SUCCESSFUL PRESIDENCY

[sniffa]

Not since Dwight D. Eisenhower asked for a week to think about the contributions Vice President Richard M. Nixon made to his administration has a former American president so prominently entered a campaign for the White House. But Bill Clinton neatly framed much of last week's campaign debate when he suggested that supporters of Sen. Barack Obama were willing to "roll the dice" on the presidency.
ADVERTISEMENT

Mr. Clinton's intention was clear: to suggest that, unlike Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, the Illinois Democrat doesn't have the kind of experience needed to be president. That raises an important issue -- and a question that Mr. Clinton, running against the vastly more experienced George H.W. Bush, did not welcome in 1992.

No one argues that Mrs. Clinton has more conventional pre-presidential experience than Mr. Obama, though I would contend that the unconventional experience that both candidates possess is far more interesting and far more suited to the challenges of the 21st century than their service in the Senate, which history has shown is terrible experience for the White House. Only Warren G. Harding and John F. Kennedy were elected to the presidency directly from the Senate.

The American experience is that experience is no predictor of presidential success. Three of the most experienced presidents of the 20th century, for example, were three of the least successful.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ucds/20071222/cm_ucds/experienceisnoguaranteeofsuccessfulpresidency

and on, and on.

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Clinton Voted For War. Obama Was Against War.

What other info on "experience" does anyone need?

[LostinVA]

2. Obama wasn't even in the Senate to vote on it

And we didn't exactly invade Iraq under the circumstances Congress agreed to.

[cali]

4. -That argument is specious. It was a blank check

as Senator Leahy repeatedly told his colleagues when he beseeched them not to vote for it.

[CTLawGuy]

37. Leahy

AND Robert Byrd. If I trust anyone in the Senate to know what is really going on, it's him!

[earthlover]

14. The IWR gave Bush the power to go to war. In the manner he chose.

The IWR did not make any restrictions on Bush's manner with which he waged war. They basically said go for it. And Hillary was one of those who endorsed it.

Obama gave speeches against the Iraq War. Now let's get this straight. There was a war fever going on. It would not be politically popular to give a speech against the war. Back then, those in charge would call you a "Bush Hater" if you did....much the same way Hillary folks today call those who disagree with her "Hillary Haters". Same koolAid, different flavor.

[LostinVA]

17. The IWR was not to go to war under the circumstances we entered Iraq

It was to allow us to use force after all options were exhausted with the UN. That's what was voted on. Bush just went in there.

[earthlover]

22. WRONG!

There WAS an amendment to the IWR, the Levin Amendment, which would have sent the issue back to the UN. If not resolved by the Un, it would go back to the Congress, and another vote would be required before Bush could go to war.

Hillary voted NO on the Levin amendment.

So she had the opportunity to vote for force only after all options of the UN were exhausted. AND SHE VOTED NO TO THAT IDEA! What part of NO don't you understand?

By voting NO on the Levin Amendment and yes on the IWR, she authorized Bush to go to war, and there was nothing in the IWR that required that all options of the UN were exhausted at all. It simply allowed him to decide to go to war.

Enough of this enabling. Hillary voted no on Levin, and endorsed Bush's rush to war.

Nice try, and the Hillary Gaggle has spread this FALSE idea before, but it is contradicted by Hillary's votes.

PS...the Levin Amendment was defeated the SAME DAY as the IWR was passed.

[LostinVA]

48. I'm not enabling, and "Hillary Gaggle" -- wtf ever

Many try to discuss without personal attacks. Ah, forget it. Wel;come to ignore. I'm tired of this shit.

[onehandle]

3. Ron Paul voted against the war.

He's Perfect!

[LostinVA]

5. And Pat Buchanan has spoken out against it

Which is all Obama has done.

Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of the argument.

[earthlover]

41. The absurdity of your position is that even Buchanon spoke against Iraq while Hillary voted FOR it

You're right in one sense. Actions do speak louder than words. Hillary's actions for the war had a greater impact than giving a speech against the war. The impact was hundreds of thousands of needless deaths, the lowering of trust of the USA even among our friends, the strengthening of terrorists who now have Iraq as a recruiting tool, the billions and billions spent fighting an elective war, tying one arm of our military behind our back with regards to facing other threats, weakening the chances for Middle East peace, and weakening our civil liberties at home while we helped create and are fighting in basically a civil war in Iraq. Yes, actions speak louder than words, and Hillary's actions were the wrong actions at the wrong time. It took guts to speak out against the war at this time. It took pandering to Bush for Hillary to vote for Iraq without even reading the intelligence reports.

[LostinVA]

47. No, that isn't my position at all

But, you know that already.

[Poiuyt]

6. The most experienced people today would be George H. W. Bush followed by Dick Cheney

[sniffa]

8. nah, Strom Thurmond tops them both

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. Psst!

He died 4 years ago.

However, leadership has been dead for 40 years. So maybe you're right. :shrug:

[asdjrocky]

7. Wasn't Nixon VP for like.... eight years? n/t

[dugggy]

11. Yes and Nixon's opening up of communist China is one of the

most dramatic breakthrough in diplomatic history.

[asdjrocky]

13. True-

And his contribution to the current health care industry has probably killed more people than that stupid war he perpetuated.

[earthlover]

15. I daresay I wish Humphrey or McGovern would have defeated Nixon

Nixon's experience did not stop him from getting involved with Watergate or bombing Cambodia.

I don't think he was more experienced than Humphrey either.

[dugggy]

23. Nixon had to be a paranoid schizophrenic to have

let Watergate happen when he had a double digit lead over McGovern.
But you can't take away his skills in foreign policy. He ended Viet-Nam
war and stopped China becoming a threat.

[earthlover]

33. I think you are a bit hazy on the history

Watergate was not trying to look for dirt on MCGOVERN....they WANTED to run against McGovern. They were snooping on stuff about Muskie, who they thought more formidable and in the lead.

I bet if Hillary hired some burglers to snoop out Obama today and got caught, many in HillaryLand would defend the burglary. Just speculation, but I may be right. They probably would just say they were looking for the FACTS about Obama....and of course this would not be going negative. SARC

[rurallib]

9. Ask Lincoln, ask TR

neither had much experience, were relatively young, but were somewhat successful.

[earthlover]

16. Lincoln had 6 years in Illinois legislature and a couple in Washington....sound familiar?

It all goes to show Lincoln should never have been elected! sarc

I guess Abe wasn't ready for the big time yet. Give him a few more years to mature.

Nobody's saying Obama would be another Lincoln, but if the logic of HillaryLand prevailed in 1860, Lincoln would not have been elected president.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. But Obama is Totally Different Than Lincoln

Because he is, 'kay?

[earthlover]

21. My point was about the logic of Hillary folks, not Obama

They say Obama has 6 years of state experience and 2+ years of national experience and this is not enough to be a good president.

Well, Lincoln had 6 years of state experience (same state as Obama, for that matter!) and 2 years in the House.

So HillaryClan's logic would have it that Lincoln did not have enough experience to be a good president.

I tried to point it out that Obama is different than Lincoln. Heck Lincoln was white just like Hillary is. That's one difference. And there are more. Obama is more clean shaven. Lincoln was not as religious. Lincoln was not as handsome. But on the single issue of experience, Obama has exactly the same amount as Lincoln did.

[ZombieHorde]

10. Hi Sniffa!

Are those all-caps or are you just happy to see me...:blush:

EXPERIENCE IS NO GUARANTEE OF SUCCESSFUL PRESIDENCY

This seems accurate, I know that I have played pool a long time and I still suck.

[sniffa]

12. it was just copied and pasted

:hi:

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. Agreed! Let's just pick someone out of the phonebook

[Bumblebee]

20. Yes, just look at Bush! No experience and what a president!

[earthlover]

24. So, if hillary is so experienced, why did she support Bush's War?

Why did she vote for Kyl-Lieberman?

Heck Huckleberry has been more forceful in his opposition to Bush's foreign policy than Hillary!

This is not an endorsement of Huckleberry, but it is embarrassing when a right wing Republican has more harsh words to say about Bush's foreign policy than Hillary....

[ClarkUSA]

27. Hillary's experience at voting for wars is unmatched among the Democratic presidential field!!!!

Yeah, that's what America needs more of -- her so-called brilliant foreign policy "experience". :puke:

[cali]

31. no it's not. it's matched by 3 other candidates.

and sorry, K/L was not a vote for war, even in your fevered imagination. It was a vote I don't like, but ultimately a vote on a non-binding resolution is pretty frackin' meaningless.

[ClarkUSA]

39. That's your fevered imagination speaking... Sen. Jim Webb and I disagree with you

Webb called it "Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream."

On the Senate floor today, Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) made an impassioned appeal to his fellow senators, declaring that the Lieberman-Kyl amendment
on Iran should be "withdrawn" because the "proposal is Dick Cheney's fondest pipe dream." Webb cautioned that the "cleverly-worded sense of the
Congress" could be "interpreted" to "declare war" on Iran. He continued:

Those who regret their vote five years ago to authorize military action in Iraq should think hard before supporting this approach.
Because, in my view, it has the same potential to do harm where many are seeking to do good.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/09/25/webb-lieberman-iran-amen_n_65823.html

"It could be read as tantamount to a declaration of war," Webb also concluded, and his descriptions go to the heart of the issue. Now Jim Webb's not always
right, but he knows war, and has thought and written about what leads to it. He's not one to use words casually, so his judgment carries weight. It goes to
the key issue--that once again Hillary empowered a recklessly belligerent administration in their efforts to go to war. Now a US attack is probably less likely
since the National Intelligence Estimate found that Iran had halted its nuclear weapons programs in 2003 but Clinton had no way of knowing this when she
voted for Kyl-Lieberman, and Bush continues to talk confrontationally in the wake of the report.

[cali]

43. Sorry, as anyone who's read the Constitution knows,

bushco doesn't need the Congress to attack Iran... or Canada, for that matter. Even the AUMF wasn't a declaration of war. And if you read K/L, you know that it expressly states that nothing in it is to be construed as authorization to us MF. Dick Durbin made that very clear. And Dick Durbin who didn't vote for the IWR, voted for K/L. I'm too lazy to go get what he said about it, but his knowledge about sense of the senate resolutions is unarguably greater than Webb's. I like Webb OK, but he misspoke.

[ClarkUSA]

44. Obama taught constitutional law for 10 years... and he agrees with Webb and me

Many people said the same thing about IWR, too, and look how that turned out. I'm going to have to side with Obama and Webb (and
constitutional law scholars like John Dean and Jonathan Turley, who teaches constitutional law at Georgetown University, both of
whom came out against Kyl-Lieberman on the same premise as Obama and Webb during episodes of Countdown).

[BenDavid]

26. Experience can be broken down meaning many things but one

thing I see lacking in Obama but I see more so in HRC is aptitude. This goes a long way as HRC has shown that she has a quickness for learning and understanding and most of all she has the intelligence to do this. Obama I am afraid is lacking this one quality.

[babylonsister]

36. I'd rather have a politician who doesn't promote war like

Clinton has done. There's the difference, and it's significant. How you get 'intelligence' out of that is beyond me. Obama as a peacemaker makes much more sense to me.

[LordJFT]

28. experience does matter

What gets me is that so many people view experience as a quantitative thing. We should care alot more about what a candidate has done in office than how long they were there. Otherwise we'd all be voting McCain.

[killbotfactory]

29. She has more experience fucking things up for the rest of us

I guess that counts for something.

[dmosh42]

30. What really will matter is the selection of cabinet and staff.....

He or she will have 'experts' to guide them in all decisions, as Lincoln did. He named many top appointments to people he really didn't warm up to, in the beginning. But, he knew their expertise in their field, and was pretty successful in the end.

[ArkySue]

34. I don't like the fact that Obama

is cuddling up with various Republicans....like Tom Coburn (!), Lieberman, Luger, Hagel, Ahnuld.
I don't want any Repubs near the WH!

[babylonsister]

40. Google Clinton + Colin Powell, GHWB. nt

[Perry Logan]

32. Did anyone ever say experience is a guarantee of a good Presidency? Why, no...

[earthlover]

35. Did anyone imply Obama is unqualified for being president due to lack of experience: YES!

These folks would have dissed Abe Lincoln if he were running with his record for crying out loud!

The real irony here is if MCCain gets the nomination, and Hillary opposes him, HE will be using the experience card against Hillary! And he will use all the Hillary campaign quotes about the supremacy of experience against her. The tape file is now in storage, it will be used later....

[Sulawesi]

38. Experience matters, but almost anyone can get that eventually...

...leadership is rare!

[nealmhughes]

42. The only certitude in life is the continuance of life until one dies.

That is not to say that one cannot take "experience" -- whatever that is -- into consideration when making a prediction of future performance.

The two Roosevelts would each be derided for their lack of experience today. The NYS Legislature and a stint as Asst. Sec. of the Navy and NYC police commissioner and a VP candidate, hardly stellar by today's (Clinton) standards.

Now Old Ted and Cousin Frank did a pretty good job, I'd say.

[WheelWalker]

45. Your point? Nothing is a guarantee of anything.

[suston96]

46. "Well, Lincoln had 6 years of state experience (same state as Obama, for that matter!) and 2 years i

So, does that mean that Obama will get us involved in a Civil War, too? Just like Lincoln?