I am new. Please don't flame me. But I am very worried about Obama's lack of experience -please read

[Mr.Fitzgibbons]

I am sorry to start a new thread. I am going to be very open and honest in the hope of starting a new discussion and my frankness about my own voting history may provoke some unpleasant responses -- though I hope not -- I am the new guy here so please don't demolish me.

So far I am reading very strident threads started by virulently pro-Hillary or pro-Obama types and the arguments tend to degenerate very quickly into name-calling or the old vs. new diatribe. A bit about myself: I am an Independent and yes, I voted for Bush in the 2000 presidential election (I know, I know). I am one of those Independent swing voters the pollsters talk about and I have not yet decided whether or not to support Hillary or Obama, based on a number of reasons. I don't believe I oculd vote for McCain, though I honestly liked him in 2000 (I bought into the straight talk) and I hoped then he would win the republican nomination. Now he just seems to be proposing eight more years of the Bush policies.

Here are my thoughts: I am 35, my spouse and I are well educated professionals (we are both university professors), and I suppose we are in either the Obama or Hillary camp given our ages and concerns about health care especially, the economy, and national security. I like Obama's enthusiasm but I am VERY unsure about what I perceive to be his nearly total lack of experience & scrutiny on the national stage. A lot of our friends have vocalized similar concerns: they like Obama, but worry once push comes to genuine shove things will become very difficult. Once the really vicious debating and commercials start running incessantly, in which the McCain crowd will hammer on Obama's two years in the Senate (not counting his "running for the presidency" year), the swing voters will start worrying and will turn away, to McCain or worse to some third party candidate who decides to run.

So I am wondering if we could have a frank discussion about this in which Obama supporters point out how Obama will overcome this if he is the nominee. It is my belief that the Republicans are eager to run against Obama because of this lack of experience. Hillary is a known quantity and has certainly held her own against the Republicans in the past. No, I have not decided to support her, but my instinct is that she will fare much better vs. McCain once the sh*t hits the fan (excuse my use of the vernacular). I actually think the ideal ticket would be a Clinton/Obama ticket, but I am willing to change my mind :)

Thanks for your time, and again, please remember that I am new and a sensitive guy. Please be nice.

[Blue_In_AK]

1. Mr. Fitzgibbons, I hope everyone will be nice to you as a newbie.

Welcome to the madhouse that is DU. :)

[robbedvoter]

2. Welcome to DU! very reasoned post. I'll just say that the Clinton/Obama idea is

popular with many here too.
Now I'll let Obama supporters to defend his experience to you.:hi:

[Xipe Totec]

3. My advice, stay out of GD-P until you develop a crust

The lounge is a nice safe place.

And welcome to DU! :hi:

[sandnsea]

If he can beat the Clinton slime machine

he can beat the Republican slime machine. People underestimate their oppo research and willingness to "beat the brains" out of their opponents.

Thank you for your "concern".

[juajen]

58. Bullshit!

She's going easy on him because he's a fellow dem, and because he is black. If she says anything, she's considered a racist. To be fair, the opposite is also true for obama. I imagine it is difficult for the guys to beat up on a girl. You know how it goes. So, the gloves will be off after the primaries, and it will a hell of a lot worse.

[libertee]

72. naw ..he beats up on her every chance he gets...she voted for you know!

[cottonseed]

78. Intelligent analysis.

Going easy on him because he's black? I'm not so sure about that. If she says racist comments, yes that would be considered racist, but if she says "anything"? Not quite there with you.

[Midlodemocrat]

4. Nice post, Hitler.

Kidding!! Welcome to DU. Most of the members on this site are extremely nice. You will enjoy your time here. And, in all honestly, I don't think you are the first person who is concerned about Obama's lack of experience.

[LaurenG]

8. What!

You are indoctrinating this new soul early! :rofl: :rofl:

[Midlodemocrat]

11. Baptism by fire.

:rofl:

[Xipe Totec]

15. Save it for the cross burning, Adolph

:rofl:

[Midlodemocrat]

19. Way to go, Dr. Phil.

:rofl:

[alteredstate]

94. Post #30

[Xipe Totec]

142. Good catch!

What a troll!

[LaurenG]

5. I won't flame you

Don't worry about Obama though, either of our two candidates will be well stocked in the cabinet/advisor department. I hope that the best candidate wins!


Welcome to DU.

[juajen]

68. Yeah, that's what they said about Bush. Just have to be the CEO,you know?

NT

[LaurenG]

81. I NEVER said that about Bush but I'm saying it about these two!

:hi:

[KittyWampus]

6. It's not just experience, it's important to be RIGHT. McCain's experience=Bush rubber stamp

[Midlodemocrat]

10. The other thing that really troubles me about McCain

apart from the obvious, that is, is that no one is speaking about the possibility of PTSD. I certainly don't wish it on him in any way, but is there truly no way that he hasn't suffered from it since his return from Hanoi? I just can't fathom that.

I could be completely off base, but I really wonder.

Disclaimer: I am a mental health professional, so I have probably over thought this.

[Mr.Fitzgibbons]

21. Wasn' t this used against him by the Bush camp? "Temper issues"

I seem to remember that from the 2000 repub primaries.

[Midlodemocrat]

28. I don't remember, in all honesty. But I do wonder if it is

something that should be considered. Not that I would ever wish the horror he went through on anyone. And, I do thank him profusely for his service, I just don't want him to be President.

[kikiek]

129. An article by the UK paper the Independent highlights his anger issues.

They were present before he even went to Vietnam. He says Vietnam helped him learn to control it. Interesting piece http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-dont-be-fooled-by-the-myth-of-john-mccain-773072.html

[okasha]

95. Yes, it was.

In fact, they implied--I believe some said outright--that McCain was mentally ill as a result of his imprisonment and torture.

[blm]

107. Read McCain's book - you are right. He talks some about the POW-MIA matters that

he and Kerry were charged with finding a solution that would work out for all concerned re Vietnam normalization. He broke down a few times throughout that mission and said in his book that without John Kerry he never would have made it through emotionally, and that every time he he was peppered with criticisms and charges made against him from other vets, he'd visibly shake and Kerry would put a hand on him and hold him firmly till he he could regain his composure.

I imagine that portion of the audiobook would be quite damaging played over and over again if someone was callous enough to use it against him in a general election.

[Sapphocrat]

141. I've been thinking about that for a long time myself, Midlo.

I just haven't had the guts to say it, or the authority (read: right) you do. I'm glad you brought it up! :hi:

[gateley]

7. Welcome to DU!

There are many sincerely helpful people here who will sincerely give you the information you want. Even most of the warriors will step back and help you out, too.

EDIT to add, that I'm assuming that whoever gets the nomination will have the advice of those with a LOT of foreign policy experience (Biden, of course comes to mind :7) so they will be well prepared to take on the rep nominee. I don't think Hillary has that much hands-on foreign policy experience, either. It's a tough one, I know.

[Thrill]

9. Experience is overrated. Anyone who is President

is only going to be as good as the people around them. And Obama will be more than fine with great Democrats around him.

Lets not go crazy. Obama has over 10 yrs experience as a legislator. Thats more than enough experience.

[adapa]

102. You REALIZE of course, this is what was said about BUSH-

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

12. Clinton and Obama's elective office experience is near identical

She has been in the senate 8 years, he has been in 4 years, but he was a state legislator before that, and she has no other elective experience.

If you count being married to a president or governor more experience, then she has him beat.

[1776Forever]

24. Great post!!! You are so right on about this - hope the poster reads it!

I couldn't have said it better!

:headbang: :yourock: :headbang:

[Mr.Fitzgibbons]

29. Well, but then there is the perception factor -- people think she has more experience

than she perhaps does practically, because she has been on the national stage for so long. Well, at least this time we will have a senator running against a senator, so they can't pull out the old "no senator has won since Kennedy" crap.

[tishaLA]

61. so now it's not the "lack of experience" but

the *perception* of lack of experience?

[cali]

34. nope. And I'm an Obama supporter. He's been in the Senate 3 years

not four. She's been in 7 years not 8. And being a U.S. Senator trumps being a State Senator. Plus, it's nonsense to discount SOME of what she did as first lady.

[IrishBloodEngHeart]

75. I said elected experience

and i was just rounding from the 00 and 04 elections til today. Its 7+ years for Clinton and 3+ years for Obama.

If you want to talk about experience not in public office, that can be discussed to.

[cottonseed]

13. Cheney has Tons of experience.

My decision is based more on policy and the people these candidates surround themselves with. Not saying that Clinton is Cheney, but these things are more telling than "experience". This "lack of experience" is what will set him apart from McCain. If he can hold up against the attacks (which I think he can), then I believe that distinction can really work in his favor.

[Mr.Fitzgibbons]

16. haha! good point. Lots of experience and NO CHARISMA whatsoever. n/t

[Rock_Garden]

14. New and sensitive guys need to trust their instincts.

Welcome to DU.

[HughMoran]

17. I think a lot of us have similar fears about Obama

Without passing judgment on your newness here, this is a very common feeling for those of us who are on the fence. I still haven't seen enough from Obama to push me over the edge. If the younger voters in this country carry him over the top, then I will gladly support him. I also think Hillary/Obama is the best ticket, but this seems unlikely IMO.

[cottonseed]

40. I've got a take on this.

My girlfriend says the same thing about Obama. Concerns that they "haven't heard enough" about his positions. Now, I believe it's due to the media's coverage of him (nightly clips of his speeches are hell of a lot more entertaining then policy discussions). If a person takes the time to take a look at his positions, even by going to his Web site, or reading up on his ratings for progressive, liberalism, etc. I believe they'd come away with a much clearer view of the man.

[HughMoran]

86. This has nothing at all to do with his postitions

This discussion is about his ability to deal with a professional smear machine to get elected. This has to do with his ability to form a coalition of Democrats and get things done when elected. It takes a lot more than giving good speeches, looking handsome and well thought-out positions on the issues to run a country as diverse as this one.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

18. I'd put his experience up against hers any day

He has real-world experience as a community organizer, where he was on the ground getting 150000 voters registered, among other things. Then he had 8 years as a state legislator, getting important laws passed. HRC is very smart and capable but most of her experience prior to being First Lady is in the form of sitting on boards and such. She is an elite inner circle kind of person. That is not without advantages but people like that tend to get credit for things they didn't contribute much to.

If experience truly counted, either Joe Biden or Bill Richardson would be way out in front right now. Let's not forget that all Presidents are surrounded by a phalanx of advisors and staffers. It's wise selection of those people that counts more than the attributes of the President him/herself. That's where I think Obama makes a better candidate, as he has an impressive roster of advisors already, including many who were formerly in the Clinton administration.

[Adelante]

20. Welcome to DU, Mr.Fitzgibbons

:hi:

Obama is plenty tough. You can be a gentleman and tough at the same time. It's a gift.

[nonconformist]

22. Welcome to DU! My husband and I are both 34, and we have the same concerns.

Health care is a huge issue for us, and we both feel that Obama's lack of history in the public eye will prove to be a deficit in the GE.

[Mr.Fitzgibbons]

Shout out to the other GenXers posting on DU! n/t

[kurth]

23. Go with your guts. Vote the way you choose people to work on your car

your house, or your heart.

[blm]

25. Obama has the 4 top national security minds in the country in his corner.

Richard Clarke, Gary Hart, John Kerry and Gen Anthony Zinni.

Why on earth would you be worried he's not being advised wisely?

Clinton's top advisor URGED Tony Blair to stand with Bush. He urged Dems to support Bush's decisions on terrorism and Iraq war. He deep-sixed the BCCI report to protect Poppy Bush. How did that all work out for this country?

I'd like to hear an honest answer about what we REALLY have as a nation when we examine that 'experience' that Hillary actually has??

[havocmom]

43. blm, do you have link to thread with long list of Obama advisors? It was an awsome post

but I don't recall who posted it.

It is a most enlightening thread.

To OP: Welcome to DU. Glad to have you here asking questions. It is a good sign. I would suggest checking out who is advising Obama in areas which are not his long suits. No one candidate is an expert on all areas. What is telling is who their 'go to' advisers are and what agendas they may be pushing.

[blm]

65. Exactly. The OP may not KNOW that Richard Clarke is a top anti-terrorism expert.

He may not KNOW that Gary Hart authored the Hart-Rudman Report on Global Terror that was handed to Bush when he took office in Jan 2001. A Two and half year study of the global terror movement that was ignored by Bush-Cheney.

He may not KNOW that there isn't a lawmaker in DC with a better record of tracking terror networks and their funding than John Kerry, who began to unravel the octopus when he uncovered IranContra and BCCI - and he wrote about the growing terror problems in his book The New War that came out in 1997.

[MarjorieG]

88. Haven't seen posted as list, but know to be true.

Many good policy and campaign advisors. Think of how improbable to do so well going against the Clintons. He has the momentum because he has done so well demographically, all party stripes, in places he had to carve out competing with the two time ex-president, all his chits and contacts and immense organization.

Obama would be older than Kennedy and Clinton when president. The pundits have been promoting the no experience meme, because folks tend to attribute single labels, like experience versus inspirational, when people are complex.

Although Hillary can have command of the facts, be charming, I don't think she can move a country or the world to change opinions. She also talks about "I" and misstating experience and claims success not there. She'll overstates and takes credit. I'm from New York, so I know.

I don't know why she is given credit for her health care ideas (mandates bad, and big government untenable solution or opening hand). She is not better positioned for bringing people together on it.

Obama has pushed through ethics reform past Reid, pulled together the immigration DREAM legislation. He's unafraid and knows you don't open with contenious first hand. Very much the liberal, he will often use conservative languahe to win. He speaks 'we' rather than Hillary's 'I', and recitation of policy. That's leadership.

If we can change the perception of us in the world, improve party relationships to work on anything together, even incremental change, we'll have done a lot. He's not naive, and knows very well what he's doing.

[havocmom]

108. Dug in Archives for a handy, informative list posted by DUer zulchzulu (thanks for great info!)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4398442
Copied from OP:

Senator Barack Obama is on the Senate Committees for Foreign Relations; Homeland Security; Veterans Affairs; Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. He's gone on three major trips overseas as part of an official Senate delegation, meeting with U.S. generals, and/or foreign leaders.

He and Senator Lugar travelled to the former Soviet states to inspect the destruction of WMDs; he traveled to Iraq and met with U.S. generals, and also toured Kuwait, Jordan, Israel, Palestinian territories; he visited various African countries, including Kenya (his father's homeland).

Some of the countries he has visited while Senator:

2005
Moscow
Kiev
Baku
Azerbaijan

2006
Qatar
Kuwait
Iraq
Jordan
Israel
South Africa
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Kenya
Djibouti
Chad

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002595.php

Here is a list of some of those who worked with Bill Clinton who are now on Barack Obama's team:

For counterinsurgency strategy, Mr. Obama has Harvard University's Sarah Sewall, who worked in the Pentagon under President Clinton. Mr. Obama has Harvard University's Sarah Sewall, who worked in the Pentagon under President Clinton.

For overall security issues he leans on Mr. Clinton's former national security adviser, Anthony Lake.

What about fighting AIDS or boosting U.S. trade in Africa? For that and more, he has former Clinton administration diplomat Susan Rice.

(snip)

Mr. Ivo Daalder, who worked in the Clinton White House in the mid-1990s and is now at the Brookings Institution, describes the difference between Sens. Clinton and Obama as "the difference between what do we do about Iran and its nuclear program now versus how do we deal with nuclear proliferation writ large."

(snip)

Mr. Obama did get a well-timed boost recently from one of his party's foreign-policy eminences, Zbigniew Brzezinski. The 79-year-old former Carter national security adviser not only backed Mr. Obama but panned Mrs. Clinton's views as "very conventional" and merely a continuation of "what we had eight years ago."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118895877299317784.html?mod=googlenews_wsj


Here is a list of advisors on his campaign team and description (some are mentioned above):

Former Amb. Jeffrey Bader, President Clinton’s National Security Council Asia specialist and now head of Brookings’s China center, national security adviser

Mark Brzezinski, President Clinton’s National Security Council Southeast Europe specialist and now a partner at law firm McGuireWoods, national security adviser

Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security adviser and now a Center for Strategic and International Studies counselor and trustee and frequent guest on PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, foreign policy adviser

Richard A. Clarke, President Clinton and President George W. Bush’s counterterrorism czar and now head of Good Harbor Consulting and an ABC News contributor, sometimes Obama adviser

Gregory B. Craig, State Department director of policy planning under President Clinton and now a partner at law firm Williams & Connolly, foreign policy adviser

Roger W. Cressey, former National Security Council counterterrorism staffer and now Good Harbor Consulting president and NBC News consultant, has advised Obama but says not exclusive

Ivo H. Daalder, National Security Council director for European affairs during President Clinton’s administration and now a Brookings senior fellow, foreign policy adviser

Richard Danzig, President Clinton’s Navy secretary and now a Center for Strategic and International Analysis fellow, national security adviser

Philip H. Gordon, President Clinton’s National Security Council staffer for Europe and now a Brookings senior fellow, national security adviser

Maj. Gen. J. (Jonathan) Scott Gration, a 32-year Air Force veteran and now CEO of Africa anti-poverty effort Millennium Villages, national security adviser and surrogate

Lawrence J. Korb, assistant secretary of defense from 1981-1985 and now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, informal foreign policy adviser

W. Anthony Lake, President Clinton’s national security adviser and now a professor at Georgetown’s school of foreign service, foreign policy adviser

James M. Ludes, former defense and foreign policy adviser to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and now executive director of the American Security Project, national security adviser

Robert Malley, President Clinton’s Middle East envoy and now International Crisis Group’s Middle East and North Africa program director, national security adviser

Gen. Merrill A. ("Tony") McPeak, former Air Force chief of staff and now a business consultant, national security adviser

Denis McDonough, Center for American Progress senior fellow and former policy adviser to then-Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, foreign policy coordinator

Samantha Power, Harvard-based human rights scholar and Pulitzer Prize winning writer, foreign policy adviser

Susan E. Rice, President Clinton’s Africa specialist at the State Department and National Security Council and now a Brookings senior fellow, foreign policy adviser

Bruce O. Riedel, former CIA officer and National Security Council staffer for Near East and Asian affairs and now a Brookings senior fellow, national security adviser

Dennis B. Ross, President Clinton’s Middle East negotiator and now a Washington Institute for Near East Policy fellow, Middle East adviser

Sarah Sewall, deputy assistant secretary of defense for peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance during President Clinton’s administration and now director of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, national security adviser

Daniel B. Shapiro, National Security Council director for legislative affairs during President Clinton’s administration and now a lobbyist with Timmons & Company, Middle East adviser

Mona Sutphen, former aide to President Clinton’s National Security adviser Samuel R. Berger and to United Nations ambassador Bill Richardson and now managing director of business consultancy Stonebridge, national security adviser


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/documents/the-war-over-the-wonks.html

Like I posted earlier, nobody knows everything. What counts is who knows how to put together the best team too.

The above team of advisors looks to have things covered really well. But then, HRC has Mark Penn helping run her campaign. :puke: That speaks volumes too.

[gateley]

53. And Obama IS on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee - that's a plus. nt

[ArkySue]

123. Yeah, too bad he is never there.

:eyes:

[gateley]

128. You have a valid point. nt

[cottonseed]

57. "It's the People Stupid!"

For me, it's the people candidates surround themselves with. With that said, Obama is the best choice. I agree with your post whole heartedly, and I'm not calling you stupid. :)

[Tatiana]

26. Welcome!

:hi:

Perhaps you can explain in what way Hillary is more experience? Or, what makes you feel like she is more experienced?

[cali]

27. Welcome!

I don't view Obama as unexperienced. Do you know his history, and his accomplishments? Look at it his way: He has more experience than Lincoln had.

Obama served 7+ years in the Illinois Senate and he's been a U.S. Senator for 3. He taught ConLaw at U of C for 10 years. He was a community organizer and a civil rights lawyer. He has experience in the real world and in gov't. Bill Clinton was the same age as Obama and all his experience was limited to being governor of a fairly small state. He had executive experience but no foreign policy experience.

For me, experience is only one criteria that's important. Judgment is also critical, as is intelligence, leadership abiltiy and electability. I believe Obama does pretty well in those areas.

[alteredstate]

30. ****Please read this guy's previous posts******

Most of them suggest that Obama supporters are cult members.

[alteredstate]

36. Check this out:

"I'm new. Don't flame me".My ass!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4472061#4486711

[alteredstate]

42. here's another one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4474982#4478089

[okasha]

101. You need to cut back on the Sudafed. Really.

A post isn't inflammatory simply because it disagrees with your position.

[Mr.Fitzgibbons]

44. Did you bother to look at what I was actually responding to? Of course not

Look this kind of reactionary stuff is not going to help. I was responding to the idea that Obama was relying on the "hope" idea/slogan rather than actual hard facts and substance about his experience on the national level. Or maybe this isn't Obama's fault, but the national media's fault in terms of coverage so far. And yes I worry that this will become an issue once McCain starts hammering away at him.

[cbayer]

55. Ignore them. Reasonable people will look at what you actually said.

[in_cog_ni_to]

69. Mr. Fitzgibbons, please just IGNORE the Obama people. Any and all scrutiny

of Obama and his record is met with wrath. They don't care if it's true or NOT. They want him to be the President whether he's qualified or not. It doesn't matter to them! He brings them HOPE!:eyes:

[BlackVelvet04]

91. Can you imagine what would be said if things were the

other way around.....Hillary was the rookie with the "feel good" message and Obama was the one with all of the policy talk. I can just hear all the jokes about the female whose campaign is all fluff, no substance.

[alteredstate]

90. Another:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4478591#4487072

[troubleinwinter]

132. I don't have to read them. Yuh, we're all "college professors" 'round here and have to wave it.

[K Gardner]

37. ROFL ! Good catch Altered !

[Mr.Fitzgibbons]

38. NO I have never said that! Please, this is the kind of nonsense I am talking about

I mentioned in a previous post that the national media has started talking about the "cult" idea, which is merely an observation, not a belief on my part. Please, give people some credit.

[Faygo Kid]

82. Post: "Obama made hope a dirty word. . ." Mr. F's response: YES, EXACTLY n/t

Sad.

I suppose we can look forward to your decision that Hillary's the one and then feign surprise.

Good catch, Altered.

[calmblueocean]

151. Don't take it personally. It's primary time, and you're surrounded by 1000 people who love to argue.

There's going to be some shrapnel. :)

[LaurenG]

98. Uh Oh. Thats a really bad thing to suggest.

What kind of *person* would suggest such a thing as that? x(

[HughMoran]

145. I read all of the links

Where's the beef?

[Botany]

31. Obama's experience

Columbia University (honors)
Harvard Law (honors)
Editor Harvard Law Review
He has lived overseas .... international prospective
University Professor Constitutional Law (University of Chicago)
Community Organizer
Corporate Legal Work
Illinois State Legislature 1996 - 2004
U.S. Senate 2004- now
(Obama has longer time in elected office than Hillary Clinton)
Best Selling author
Work with public housing
Work for business in the private sector.

[NYCGirl]

63. Only one change to your list, Botany. Obama worked at a law firm specializing in

civil rights cases.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/20/obama_got_start_in_civil_rights_practice/?page=1

[Botany]

76. Sorry

Civil Rights lawyer

but I am pretty that he has done some "biz law" too.

BTW if anybody he did any legal work for has done anything
wrong Obama is responsible for that too. :rofl:

[troubleinwinter]

152. Did you read the book?

"He has lived overseas .... international prospective" (perspective?)

He was born in and grew up in Honolulu, Hawaii until age six, then lived overseas for less than four years. He returned to Honolulu where he attended Punahou, an elite private prep academy from 5th through 12th grade.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. Welcome to DU, I'm going to refer you to this

http://leftfielder.org/2008/01/23/presidential-experience-fun-facts-and-conclusions/

Experience is really a false notion as it has no bearing on how one will actually be President. And I'd argue that all candidates are untested on the national stage until they actually run. We know that Hillary has been attacked quite a bit by the right wing. But because she's never actually run in a general election, we don't know what voters will think of the idea of her being President.

[cbayer]

33. I am undecided and will vote for the nominee.

It's nice to see this post and the reasoned responses to it. Refreshing.
That being said, I think experience at the national level means something but not nearly as much as policy/platform and who you surround yourself with.

[PATRICK]

35. If only he reads

a lot more about JFK' campaign and early months maybe he can avoid the worst consequences of inexperience and trying to please the establishment. He gets crossover votes because he is sincere and he is sincere because he seems fatally on the wrong side of the crudest lessons of real history. I don't think education and social programs will be big problems at all since he will likely get some good mandate to get government working again.

But the establishment foreign policy and economic loyalties is a critical and extremely stupid disaster with a field of land mines laid by the protected predecessors from their criminal havens. The SCOTUS will also be vicious obstacle. The press will start to turn- and will he recognize it for the partisan attack it is? In those same areas disaster awaits the more experienced Clinton hand and advisers with a more crippling, compromised and weakened mandate. It will happen to them with a vengeance and the more brains and determination they sink into the Bush tar-baby the less they will also know what hit them in the form of catastrophic events and worldwide you-name-it. With Barack it is less certain, less an old greek tragedy already written.

These are questions and warnings that must be posed for where the dangers really lie. Not in mere legislative greenness but in vision and leadership that can respond to great challenges, maybe impossibly severe ones. The DC establishment has dug their pit deep, wide, and dark. The Clintons are likely there already. Obama may be inclined to step in or not be "experienced" enough to avoid it, may in fact reach out for help from those who are in there deep. Someone is bound to be disappointed. Obama enthusiasts may not recognize the general plea for just a chance that hope is on the way. Nothing is certain.

[juajen]

87. Hell, let's forget this crap. I'll be President. According to all of this

crap, I'm highly qualified. Anyone is qualified to be president. Obama's resume is not quite accurate. If I remember correctly, he was a lecturer in Con. Law at the U of C. BTW, my brother attended U of C and received a doctorate in mathematics. He taught at UC and Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, and Univ. of Montana. I am familiar with the academic life. There is a difference between a lecturer and a teacher. Collecting signatures is not highly illuminating. His election both to the Illinois Senate and US Senate were serendipitous, and his record at Illinois Senate is controversial. His connections to Rezco (sp,.?) throughout his career are also very questionable. I could go on and on. Dressed up, everything looks a little different. Just sayin'.

Compare their resumes, please. Hers is listed at www.hillaryclinton.com. It is most impressive and has been vetted.

[killbotfactory]

39. I recommend reading this:

Obama: The Only Thing You Need to Know
http://justangry.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/20/101819/09/539/424577

[emilyg]

41. Nice post. K&R

[PatSeg]

45. Welcome to DU

I share some of your concerns and right now I see a Clinton/Obama ticket has our best bet. That could change as I'm keeping my mind open.

[avrdream]

118. Until recently I didn't think a Clinton/Obama ticket would work.

But I am starting to come around to the idea of it being a good thing.

To the OP: Welcome to the playground. Stay out of the muddy area behind the swings.....the boys threw dead roaches in there yesterday.

[PatSeg]

126. I came to that conclusion recently as well

Such a ticket could mend the divisions in the party and might guarantee sixteen years of Dems in the White House. I think it would be an unbeatable ticket.

[tammywammy]

46. Your concern is duly noted.

[Onlooker]

I think you're thinking of the wrong issue

As the Republicans have proven by getting people like Bush and Reagan elected, it's not the candidate, it's the campaign that matters. Obama is running a very effective campaign, and thus has the best chance not only of beating the Republicans, but of having coattails, too. Of course, it could all fall apart, come the general election, but considering how he overcame the odds against Clinton, he obviously has a very good campaign team.

Beyond that, what experience do you need to be president? Obama is surrounded by a good team, and he's demonstrated the ability to put together a far better political team than Clinton has, and that's really important. She should have won this race a long time ago. Obama will bring into the office an activist constituency, an ability to inspire and rally people around him, and some experience at different levels of government and in law. The only significant advantage Clinton has is that she probably really can get started from day one, because of her husband. But, for Obama it won't take much longer. He has a good team, with quite a few veterans of Bill Clinton's administration advising him.

[Capn Sunshine]

47. Obama has a VERY DEEP resume

And thus far, there is no Republican organized resistance to Obama, because they thought Hillary would be the nominee by now.

I'd really be worried about the slime about to be tossed at HIllary that she HASN'T been hit with.

Google " Hillary The Movie " for a preview of what's warming up in the garage of the neocon hit machine.

[2008]

48. I believe we're seeing Obama's competence exhibited in the race

I've been on the fence for the most part after Edwards suspended, and my problem with Obama was his lack of experience. But seeing him run such a successful campaign has made me begin to lean toward him over Hillary, because it shows that he can excel under great pressure.

[in_cog_ni_to]

49. Welcome to DU! Every concern you voice is valid. You should be concerned about

his lack of experience, especially now....with our world in turmoil. That's all I'll say since I'm not an Obama supporter.:) AND.... Hillary has been vetted, has fought the RW slime machine and is still standing. She even went on to win two Senate campaigns and is in a MUCH better position to fight Mccain than is Obama.

Welcome to DU!:hi:

[NC_Nurse]

50. Welcome to DU!

If anyone gives you a hard time, put them on ignore. (It's the little icon up by their name with the red x on it).
I for one look forward to discussing both candidates with you. :)

I supported Edwards earlier in the campaign, and have now moved to Obama. I distrust the Clintons. I worked for the Clinton
Campaign here in NC in '92, and felt VERY let down by him as a president. I leaned Nader, but ended up voting Gore here since
he wasn't on the ballot in 2000. It didn't matter anyway, the Repubs have carried NC for quite a while (the closest was '92).

I feel we need a candidate who energizes people and brings in new voters, who can move us past partisanship and rally the public to actually get his/her agenda through Congress.
I don't think Hillary can do that. When people say she is divisive, they mean it. I have talked to many discouraged Repubs here and
although some will entertain Obama, or even sit this election out , they would all go vote AGAINST Hillary. I don't really understand it. I don't like the Clintons much myself,
but I'll vote for her if she gets the nom.

[juajen]

51. Welcome to DU!

Hope you feel at home here. We are much nicer after the primaries are over. But, for now, please expect just about anything. However the good times are worth waiting for.

[pnwmom]

52. As Margaret Cho recently declared, I am also bi-candidate.

But the dream ticket -- Clinton/Obama -- probably will not happen.

If Obama is the nominee, I assume he will pick a VP with a very strong foreign policy background -- General Wes Clark, for example -- who would help to counter the argument that Obama isn't experienced enough in that area. Obama does have a number of years in the Illinois state legislature, which is not an insignificant experience, as well as a background in Constitutional law. Imagine -- a President who understands the Constitution.

On the other hand, McCain has repeatedly announced that he doesn't know much about the economy. His comfort zone is in foreign policy and military matters.

Obama's got to fight back with what he has. On the one hand, he has many fewer years in the Senate than McCain. On the other hand, McCain's experience has bound him more and more tightly to the failed policies of the Bush administration -- and the failed war in Iraq. What has that experience taught him? That we should be there for another 100 years. If that's what he's learned, I'd rather give the job to someone with INexperience.

Welcome to DU, Mr. Fitzgibbons. It's encouraging to hear that people like you and your wife are giving the Democrats a second look.

[Tellurian]

54. Welcome, Mr.Fitzgibbons-

As expected, from the mishmash of response from the Obama supporters, not "one" of them has answered your question alleviating your concerns about Obama's lack of experience. You have articulated what we, as Clinton supporters, argue daily as a distinct handicap to Americans of an Obama presidency...(unfortunately to no avail).

[Botany]

64. post # 31

n/t

[Tellurian]

89. Could it be any "thinner'?

[Botany]

99. That resume shows a talented person with lots of experience.

And most important it shows a high quality mind.

But if you want to say writing, teaching, organizing, the law, academics,
and working are not that much .... go for it.

BTW Watch out from crocodile attacks ..... swimming in DeNile can be dangerous.

[Tellurian]

104. primordial think doesn't work here..

[Botany]

106. primordial think doesn't work here..

[Tellurian]

120. too much lost in an explantion... but I'll consider the cute pancake headed bunny a Peace offering..

If that is what you meant?

[alteredstate]

92. Post #30 n/t

[Barack_America]

56. Honestly, I would suggest that you not use this place to make up your mind.

I'd be surprised if you got a straight answer.

Personally, I would read the various endorsements that candidates have received from newspapers. They're pretty good at explaining why they think one or the other is a stronger candidate. If found The Nation's endorsement of Obama and the NYT's endorsement of Hillary to be well thought-out.

ETA:
Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Capn Sunshine]

71. AMEN to that

This place has gone off the deep end with moles, sockpuppets and provocateurs

[Barack_America]

139. Yep. It's pretty sad, isn't it?

:hi:

[HughMoran]

146. God forbid anybody question Obama's qualifications

I think I know who the provocateurs are here.

[pdxmom]

59. Welcome! I think that if McCain is the Repub nominee, then both of

the Dem hopefuls will fall short in that argument. McCain can and will claim the experience mantle over either Clinton or Obama. But, as someone upthread pointed out. Look at Cheney. Hell, look at Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, et al. The Bush administrations has had more "experience" than I can remember. It was an extension of the Reagan/Bush years. And look where that got us.

To me, experience takes a back seat to the policies. It's important, but I don't really see a huge difference except in terms of actual longevity. Both of them have experience, but in difference ways. Instead, I've looked at both candidates' positions and looked to see whose policies/ideas fit most closely with my personal views and priorities. While they are very similar, I found that Obama's ideas and priorties were closer to my own.

Then I looked at electibility and I think Obama is more electible. I don't think that the right wants him to be the candidate. I think they're hoping that Clinton will rally their fractured party enough to keep the White House.

As for toughness against the Repubs...frankly, I don't think either Clinton or Obama is going to let the right steamroll them. I think they'll both be fighters and fight back effectively.

[lander]

60. People said the same thing about...

...another freshman Senator from Illinois who was, at one point, a longshot candidate for President -- but Abraham Lincoln's presidency turned out all right. I'm fully aware of the fact that hope, alone, doesn't bring our troops home, and hope won't fix the economy, either -- but hope is the force that allows us to overcome the worst enemies of progress, which, in our case have been cynicism and entrenched interests.

Obama represents a clean break from both. Substantively, the policy proposals of the two Democratic contenders do not differ greatly, and that's a good thing. We've had the right policies all along; America's waking up to that. What we've lacked in the past eight years has been hope, optimism, and a belief that we're right. Barack Obama -- both because of his lack of experience and in spite of it -- is the candidate who can bring the energy and the freshness of the progressive movement to the White House.

[BlackVelvet04]

93. It was a much different world when Mr. Lincoln was president....

and he made some very serious errors.

[lander]

103. You are absolutely right:

The world was much different, but Lincoln's hope -- the hope that kept our Union together in 1863 -- is the very same hope that Barack Obama will embrace in order to keep us together in 2009. The world changes; the quality of hope does not.

And you're right about Lincoln's errors, too -- among which was his willingness to accept an intact union of slaveholders as a compromise in order to end the Civil War. I'm certainly not saying that Obama won't make mistakes. I'm sure he will (any human President would!) -- the difference between Senators Obama and Clinton is that the former has shown a willingness to admit and correct his mistakes; the latter has preferred -- just as the man she wishes to succeed has done -- to leave her mistakes unaccounted for, unanswered for, and uncorrected.

[BlackVelvet04]

112. what a bunch of tripe.......

lest we forget Lincoln presided over the bloodiest war America has ever seen.

[lander]

119. You're going to make a statement like that...

...after calling what I said tripe? Are you serious? Anyone with an IQ higher than their shoe size can put together the fact that the Civil War was the bloodiest America has seen because the casualties on both sides were American.

Having said that, what does the bloodiness of the war have to do with the way one responds and reacts to a mistake? At best, this is a red herring; in reality, it's ... well ... tripe.

[lander]

121. Oh, and in anticipation of your next comment...

...yes, I realize that Lincoln was a Republican -- but if you read the party platforms from 1860, the name didn't mean the same thing back then. Go ahead, check it out.

[BlackVelvet04]

127. What does Lincoln being a republican or democrat have to do with anything.....

your crystal ball is broken.

[lander]

131. Looks like I misunderestimated you.

Then again, I'm not using a crystal ball... besides, I have a feeling Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has more to do with it than anything.

[Faygo Kid]

113. Yeah, all he had to deal with was a little dispute between friends, right?

The Civil War, I believe it was called.

And Lincoln is remembered as our greatest president (probably greatest American) precisely because of his ability to inspire. Go back and read the Gettysburg Address and the Second Inaugural. Words count. Those words changed America, and the world.

As far as mistakes, even Hillary might make a few. Even her.

[Orangepeel]

62. what exactly is your concern?

Is it that he might not be experienced enough to handle a campaign against McCain?
Is it that his short time in Washington might be perceived as a negative?

If it is the first, I'm not worried. If he can win the primary against Clinton, then his campaign was better than hers (and if he doesn't, it wasn't). Whomever wins the primary is going to be the best able to handle the campaign against McCain.

If it is the second, I think he can use that as a plus. Clinton can't win against McCain on a platform of experience and given his "maverick" perception (which is bullshit, but does exist), I think she'll have trouble winning on a platform of change. McCain's people will try to turn a McCain-Clinton contest into a match betten Ronald Regan and Bill Clinton. We might win that, but I'm not confident.

Against Obama, the contest is more likely to be old versus new. Obama will be better able to tie McCain to the albatross that is George W. Bush.

I hope that helps and welcome to DU :hi: (where you can spell out "shit" if you want to :-) )

[ElsewheresDaughter]

66. Welcome to DU and don't let the Cicada's scare you...they will disappear after the Primary

[libertee]

67. Obama will have his time..it's just not now..

[Joe Chi Minh]

70. My main worry is that, they will fiddle the election again and say,

"Well you know, I guess the people just weren't quite ready for a person of colour to take up the reins of the presidency."

Given the normal level of corruption in US elections in the past - which clearly can no longer be viewed as even moderately high - I don't believe it would been a consideration. Even with Nixon at the helm. Though I'm sure he'd have been a fast learner in these times.

I've been agin Obama, not for his lack of experience, but for what I consider his evasiveness concerning his policy planks - surely, a unique phenomenon in any quasi democratic polity. A man who, in effect, has said little more than, "Trust me! I'm a politician. Be of good cheer. We shall prevail! A bright new dawn arises with healing in its wings." Despite which, however, there could, of course, be no question of his not being infinitely preferable to any Republican candidate.

I hope that, in the future, you will extend to your poorer fellow countrymen and women, the same gentleness in your political decision-making - which, of course, can have infinitely more vicious consequences than the harsh words of any flamer - that you wished to be accorded by DUers here to you. Many of us would have found your choice of voting for Bush just the first time, way beyond incomprehensible. (I wouldn't presume to ask for an apology. We are after all, all of us sinners, but maybe reading some passages in the Gospels, Epistles, etc, from time to time, would be helpful in gaining an understanding of what our real priorities should be.)

"Love is the fullness of the Law. Upon it hangs the whole of the Law and the Prophets." Not just putting a few dollars in the poor box, but voting for your society to be structurally changed so that everyone can have a proper home of their own, however modest, the modicum of pay for their work necessary to buy food and clothing, while leaving them at least a modest disposable income - without their having to work three or four different jobs each day. Here ends the lesson.

[MarjorieG]

105. Check the website. He's going for general election inspiration.

Too much clarity on issues divide and limit the vote, by those who disagree. All policy gets in a mix master, so our only hope is having creative thinking and people skills to make something from shared concerns, yet push as progressive as possible. Knowing change is always incrementally. Hillary coming up with an untenable big government solution is DOA, and mandates don't work.

As for the voting issue, that's been my sole concern. I wasn't going to get involved in the nomination until I realized there is a huge difference in leadership, working across the aisle, and a chance we can't pass up.

People do not understand the problems with the technology, or how there are too few regulations and laws supporting fair elections. Post election audits don't work, or even attempted (paper trail a placebo). We need to put in law, chain of custody, improve the equipment to be as transparent and observed as possible, and importantly no central count, but insist on counting maybe 10%, or to an outcome altering degree before we announce a winner. Before we have an election! This will be hard, and we need everyone's help to be in the present.

If anything about 2004, be upset about Carville spilling the beans to Mary and Cheney about election night strategy, so says Woodward. Kerry was going to stand tough on the provisional, the only legal avenue the state allowed (no Supremes after Gore v Bush), and thousands disappeared. All planning for the coronation that didn't happen Super Tuesday.

[Lochloosa]

73. Welcome to DU. And may I suggest you read three post by H20 Man.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=4466065&mesg_id=4466065

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4433085

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=4364669

[OzarkDem]

74. Experience is more relevant now than ever

Our next president will come into an Executive Branch and Dept of Defense that has been deeply politicized. The CIA, FBI and Joint Chiefs will still be full of people who will thwart a new president at every turn. That's not normal, and it will take an extraordinary president who has the strength and wiliness to deal with it. But it has to be done or we'll never get out of Iraq and the ME.

Its not a time for on the job training and attempting to use bipartisanship will be a disaster. It will take a great deal of skill to restore democracy and the balance of power while reining in an over funded, out of control military and intelligence apparatus. A new president can also expect a lot of resistance in Congress, possibly even from members of his own party whose loyalty and common sense has been subverted by well paid lobbyists. The Bush administration will leave plenty of land mines around, too.

Without unraveling the military/industrial mess in DC, it will be impossible to advance any other agenda to get the US back on track, deal with the economy, jobs, energy crisis, health care crisis, etc. The last Dem president elected into such an out of control military and intelligence apparatus ended up getting assassinated. At least that president had a news media that was still somewhat fair. Like then, it will be a very dangerous undertaking.

That was one of the main reasons I originally chose to support Edwards - smart, strategic, tenacious, with values centered on what is best for the country. Sad to say, I don't think Obama would be up to the job. My feeling is he would buckle under the pressure and resort to his old tactic of working with the enemy, letting them use him to advance their agenda.

At least with Clinton, she's experienced, her husband is experienced. He knows the dark back alleys of our government and how to regain control of them.

[DemGa]

77. I don't know why Obama's even running on so little experience

Three years in the Senate and then -- President? It's startling - and points to sheer hubris.

Yes, I am a Hillary supporter, but I've been considering this for a while now; and I'm sure much of the Democratic base shares this concern. And you are of course correct: the point will very soon be driven home incessantly by the right-wing machine.

I will also add that surviving Clinton "attacks" means very, very little in the coming dynamic.

[Irishonly]

79. Welcome to DU

[babylonsister]

80. I think you have to weigh what further damage the Clintons

can and will do compared to a fresh face and fresh ideas. The man is brilliant and I´m quite sure he will gather around him many sterling people with the same qualities. Think how he could change the face of American diplomacy as we´ve known it for so many years, and that´s just for starters. I´m very excited about the possibilities.

I´m typing from MX but do post on DU regularly otherwise´...I hope you get the positive answers you are seeking, and welcome to DU!

[CatnHat]

83. Welcome

:hi:

That's exactly why I am voting for Hillary Clinton, because of her experience and because she is the most qualified of the two. It's really that simple. Maybe four years down the road, Obama will be ready. Let the country get to know him better. As a seasoned political junkie, I really can't stand anymore of the drone coming from the Obama campaign. That's more than irritating.

[Serial Mom]

84. Hi - glad you posted this, but a good discussion goes by wayside

very quickly here, but you still get a lot of passion and ideas.

I don't believe you want somebody here help you make your decision - I certainly don't want anybody here to do that! I come here (for over 6 years now - and don't post much) to hear all the varied opinions of Democrats. We all have different views on what matters to us - we all have different prioroties of what we feel needs to be changed in this country.

I would love to hear, with your education level, you offer us more of your reasoned thoughts and information on what is important to you and your spouse FOR the country, topics the canadiates should focus on (even it is your area expertise), not how little these two candidates differ.

:hi:

[Mr.Fitzgibbons]

109. health care is a big issue for us and for our friends and colleagues

We travel quite a bit internationally and we appreciate the Canadian system and the NHS in England, despite the problems that the NHS is dealing right now in terms of the immigration issues that England is facing (particularly in London, but also Birmingham and some of the other major industrial cities). We hope for a strong national system here. My spouse faced some unexpected health problems last year and had to take a leave of absence from the university. We saw first-hand how health care costs can add up exponentially (a surgery -- a routine biopsy procedure -- ended up costing close to $40,000 -- of course our health care plan covered most of this but we still ended up owing over $5,000 in medical expenses). We worry about friends and family members who are under-insured and/or don't have insurance at all -- because they hold on to the very misguided belief that they are young and relatively healthy and don't need to worry about health care. Neither did we, until last year. So this is a major issue for us.

Then, we want a true diplomat in office, a figure that ideally will be respected around the world and help repair the burned bridges while also dealing constructively with the threat of terrorism (abroad towards U.S. citizens and here). This is going to be an enormous task. Since we do travel quite a bit we have to endure the intense anti-americanism out there and it would be nice to have a president who thinks internationally and is as capable of effective diplomacy as launching a military action. So that is another concern. Overseas (we were in England in January) there is strong support for either Clinton or Obama (everyone still adores Bill and thinks highly of Hillary while also liking Obama's promise).

And, of course, repairing the economy would be nice! Our stock portfolio has taken a real beating over the past year.

[Serial Mom]

114. Thanks, this is the type of discussion and insight I like to read

and we are very similar in our thoughts. True diplomat could indicate that like us, you would like somebody like Joe Wilson or Bill Richardson in?

We are older than you by about 20 years and besides the healthcare issues that concern us, the economy has hurt us terribly over the past 7 years! We lost nearly 60% of the value of our 401K during 2001/2002. It took until mid 2007 to hit where we were when we rolled it over due to a job change in 1999. Now is has dropped again almost 30% and the value of the dollar is down. We will probably have to work at least 3-5 years longer than we hoped.

We are concerned that 1 in 3 children in the city we live near live in proverty. We are concerned that the unemployment rate amoung black men in the city is nearly 45%. We are concerned that opportunity is being limited for those who need it most.

We also took a drive to the city's downtown area near where we live today and both my husband mentioned how horrible the infrastructure is in a huge area of our state (mainly in the big city). The roads are embarassing and never have we seen the deterioration of our roads like it is now.

And these are just a few things that are making us think about how this mis-administration has taken this country in the wrong direction!

WRONG IS RIGHT IN BUSH WORLD!

[mmonk]

85. Thanks for your "concern".

[sandyd921]

96. Welcome to DU!

I very much concur with your concerns. I have similar qualms about Obama's lack of experience and lack of being tested in a contentious campaign. I will vote for him in the GE but cannot support him at this point in the campaign.

[LulaMay]

97. I am hoping so much for a Clinton/Obama ticket. It's the only solution. He won't ask her.

and it will inspire everyone. That was obvious at the debate.

The alternative is going to be rough.

I also think Obama is not experienced enough, and that he makes remraks, especially in debate or off the cuff that show it.

The other day he gave an interview where he mocked having a mandate for universal health care, saying it didn't make sense, or we could try and force people who don't own a home to buy one.

He would greatly benefit from some years as VP in my view.

[MarjorieG]

153. Mandates don't work, and as VP, #3 after Bill.

We'd build a big bureaucracy to garnish wages, track solvency, when the money could go to bringing costs down. Mass. plan failing because people can't buy into it, so throw in jail?

Their styles and abilities different, and his more effective without Clinton baggage.

[ctaylors6]

100. I'm new here too and have a similar concern but was afraid to post it ...

I'm thinking that while Obama has a great attitude and talks the talk about getting things done in Washington, he might not have enough experience starting a big thing and getting it done in Washington. His experience in Illinois is great, but it's not the pros. I wish sometimes that he'd been around just a little longer before he ran. I agree that Clinton/Obama seems like the way to go. That way, we'd get her, THEN him! Also, while I fully acknowledge that Hillary was not elected for the clinton administration, she was sure on the front lines of things getting done then.

[Hoof Hearted]

110. As a Hillary supporter I'll be honest with you and say I'm 99% certain Obama can beat McCain also.

I know he's a great deal untested but the mood of the country is overwhelming. McCain will not win this election against either of them, Obama or Clinton.

Here is the difference, and the deal-breaker for me.

Healthcare.

I went to an Obama rally on Thursday. At that rally I heard a lot of things that sounded nice but the one thing that has hung with me is this. He said he would like to see healthcare reform enacted by the end of his first term. By the END of his first term. That's simply not good enough for me. His plan isn't universal. His plan would leave at least 15 million people without insurance, and when he tells me he wants to get around to it by the end of four 1/2 years from now, that tells me it's not a big priority for him. It is my priority, and that's the biggest reason I went to caucus for Hillary Clinton today.

Welcome to DU. Try not to let the crazy people get to you.

:dem: :hi:

[farmbo]

111. Abe Lincoln's Experience: Split rails...read law by candlelight...2 terms in the Illinois

House...practiced law on the circuit... one term in Congress. (and yes, dear readers, he actually represented the RAILROADS during his career...sort of like representing Exxon today).

Obamma'a experience:

Columbia University (honors)
Harvard Law (honors)
Editor Harvard Law Review
He has lived overseas .... international prospective
University Professor Constitutional Law (University of Chicago)
Community Organizer
Corporate Legal Work
Illinois State Legislature 1996 - 2004
U.S. Senate 2004- now
(Obama has longer time in elected office than Hillary Clinton)
Best Selling author
Work with public housing
Work for business in the private sector.

Any Questions?

[Faygo Kid]

137. Don't forget, Lincoln's predecessor, Buchanan, was one of the most experienced . . .

. . . and incompetent presidents ever. This whole "experience" thing is BS. Obama has had a distinguished career as a leader and trail-breaker, and no apologies are necessary.

Where would Hillary be without Bill? Well, she would be a successful attorney, but not one running for president.

George W. Bush would be a shoe salesman if his last name was Smith.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

115. Latka?

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

116. This sounds just like the Nigerian Scam.

lol

[Mr.Fitzgibbons]

125. well, it's not -- I mean who would admit to voting for Bush if it weren't true?

Please. Give me a break.

[hill08]

117. Obama's lack of experience

will drown him in GE.

[lander]

124. Is that you, Senator Clinton? n/t

[spanone]

122. if being in the washingon dc cesspool is experience i want the one with less

[Avalux]

130. Welcome to DU. I would ask you to do something -

examine Obama's history; everything he's accomplished in his life in spite of obstacles and how he's handled this election against a very formidable, seasoned politician. Essentially a machine built up over years with a lot of cash.

Based on what I know, I have no doubt Obama is savvy and smart enough to handle viciousness in his own patient and unassuming way without getting in the mud himself. He will not allow McCain to best him.

[LWolf]

133. Welcome to DU.

I don't have any suggestions to offer, since I don't think either Clinton OR Obama is a good choice to run in the GE, but I won't flame you for disagreeing.

:hi:

[ShadowLiberal]

134. The less experienced person has usually won a general election the last 50 years

The last 50 years, not counting years where incumbent presidents got reelected, the less experienced person has usually won a general election for president. The public doesn't take experience into thought all that much generally, at times people's poll numbers go up when they get the inexperienced label, because people think that they aren't a part of the political machine of corruption.

Also, experience is a very poor indicator of how good a president someone will be. Take Abraham Lincoln for example, he served just one term in the house prior to being president, and got voted out of office after that one term in the house. Abraham Lincoln had even less experience then Obama has today, and would definitely be labeled inexperienced in today's society if he ran for president. Then there's people who had a lot of experience, but were terrible presidents, like Nixon, General Grant (if you call military experience the right experience). There have also been inexperienced presidents who did a terrible job, like Zachary Taylor, who had never held political office in his life before, and had never even voted in an election before. There's also been experienced people who were great presidents.

[pathansen]

135. Here is a link of some of Hillary's experience

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4494319

For more info look on Wikipedia to compare the two candidates.

Also, I agree that I don't think Obama will be able to handle adversity like Hillary has done for many years. He just doesn't appear to handle criticism very well.

Also, when he talks about change, it has been unclear to me what he means. What kind of change?

[RiverStone]

149. But then, if change is more important to voters...

Her resume does not matter.

In fact, young voters I know don't want her kind of "experience" any more.

They want change.

And even if her resume was 100 years long - it would not matter.

I wish people could see that - but I work with young people in education, so I can see the world through their eyes.

And they want Obama by a HUGE margin!

[thevoiceofreason]

136. You are right

He has no experience as a first spouse.

And he hasn't screwed up the healthcare issue by being a jerk.

[rjx]

138. Obama imo has more credible experience

If you subtract all the time where she was first lady of both Arkansas, the United States, and her time at the Arkansas corporate law firm where she represented big companies and served on corporate boards (Walmart and Tyson Foods (plus others - Both anti-union companies with lousy ethics). Then it comes down to public office (Senate) where Obama has 4 more years experience than Hillary.

Why did I subtract her years as first lady of the country?

"her "chief role that of kibitzer." She "did not hold a security clearance, did not attend meetings of the National Security Council, and was not given a copy of the president's daily intelligence briefing."
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/12311

"And while Hillary was assigned to undertake a few tasks in the 90s, the most important one of which was to bring about universal healthcare, she failed, even though the democrats controlled not only the White House but also both the House and the Senate. Furthermore, it was in part her divisiveness that energized the republicans to take control of the House and Senate in 1994."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-sedaei/experience-that-counts_b_75102.html

Hillary's so called 29 years of experience (at the time of the vote) didn't give her the sound judgment to look at the intelligence reports regarding Saddam and Iraq.

"Similarly, regardless of how one defines experience, Hillary's didn't lead her to have the judgment to oppose the war, although if she had read the National Intelligence Estimate before her vote - which she did not - she would have seen that there was no evidence that Saddam possessed WMDs. In fact, when voting for the war resolution, she stated on the Senate floor that "my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience ... in the White House."

When "Meet the Press" host Tim Russert asked Clinton if Obama showed "better judgment" on the war vote, Clinton's reaction was instructive: "You know, look, judgment is not a single snapshot. Judgment is what you do across the course of your life and your career." Russert responded, "A vote for a war is very important vote."
Jan. 13, 2008 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NG3me0dB-vU

Hillary's life and career Judgment has lead her to support Barry Goldwater who was against the civil rights act of 1964. Barack fought for peoples civil rights, Hillary fought for companies like Walmart and Tyson. Hillary voted for war with Iraq, and recently Iran. Barcak was publicly against the war BEFORE Hillary casted her vote. Barack claimed he would not had supported the vote for war with Iran had he voted - He was campaigning at the time of the vote.

"Obama's advisers tend to be younger, more progressive--having opposed the war from the start--and more likely to stress "soft power" issues like human rights, global development and the dangers of failed states.....
The word Obama advisers use most often to describe Clinton is "conventional." As Brzezinski told me, "Look at her response on negotiations. It was conventional and politically convenient." He's referring to CNN's YouTube debate in July, when Obama said he'd meet with the leaders of countries like Cuba, Iran and North Korea without conditions. Clinton responded that she would not "be used for propaganda purposes" and later called Obama's statement "irresponsible and, frankly, naïve." The conventional wisdom was that Obama's answer displayed a stunning lack of presidential gravitas; Hillary dispatched her advisers to reinforce that point. But Obama unexpectedly turned the exchange to his advantage, accusing Clinton of "continuing with Bush/Cheney policies" and painting her as defender of an outdated status quo. "Her vote for the Iraq War and vote for the Kyl-Lieberman resolution are part of a go-along, conventional, momentary type of political thinking," Brzezinski says. Obama included these themes on the fifth anniversary of his 2002 speech opposing the war, assailing "the same old conventional thinking that got us into Iraq." .......
"Obama not only opposed the war but has said he would withdraw all combat troops within sixteen months of taking office. On Iran, Obama rejected the Kyl-Lieberman resolution (though he missed the vote while campaigning) and has proposed a broader engagement strategy to lure Iran into the community of nations. "
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080121/berman

"Unlike Obama's advisers, the top Clintonites overwhelmingly supported the war in Iraq."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080121/berman

"Hillary Clinton has long been more hawkish than her husband, implying that she favored finishing off Saddam during the first Gulf War and, more recently, talking tough about Iran. “She is probably more assertive and willing to use force than her husband,” says Richard Holbrooke, the former envoy for Bill Clinton. “Hillary Clinton is a classic national-security Democrat.”
http://nymag.com/news/politics/citypolitic/17399/

Who is Richard Holbrooke?

He is currently Hillary's senior foreign policy adviser

Anyone remember the tragic events in East Timor?

US policy toward East Timor has been made for the most part by the State Department's Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, headed by Mr. Holbrooke. The US trained the Indonesian military and equipped them with the aircraft, bombs, and other weaponry needed for Indonesia’s campaign of genocide against East Timor. Indonesia’s occupation, and genocide could not have been possible without US support.

"Lee Feinstein (Clinton campaign's national security director) wrote a controversial Foreign Affairs essay in 2004 with Princeton professor Anne-Marie Slaughter arguing that in cases of humanitarian catastrophe, "the biggest problem with the Bush preemption strategy may be that it does not go far enough."
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080121/berman

We don't need another hawkish administration headed by a president that voted for war with Iraq and again in Iran. Hillary has lied about her experience and has exercised poor judgment.

Previous presidents have been governors, or had a longer term in the Senate or House, before taking office. All of these experiences prepare a person to operate within the system, rather than to change the system.

Barack graduated from Columbia University with a degree in political science with an emphasis on international relations. After that he was a community organizer in Chicago for 3 years until he attended and graduated Harvard Law. Barack then returned to Chicago and went back to the neighborhood communities by organizing and helping to register 150,000 voters. He then began working at a civil rights firm and went on to teach constitutional law at the University of Chicago.

11 years in public office, more than Hillary's 7.
Illinois State Senate (8 years)
United States Senate (3 great years)

Barack serves on three of the four Senate Committees dealing with foreign policy issues including the Foreign Relations; Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and Veterans' Affairs committees and is the Chair of the Foreign Relations Subcommittee on European Relations which is responsible for U.S. relations with European countries, the European Union, and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (i.e., NATO).

Dealing with foreign policy, Hillary is only a member of the Armed Services Committee.

I believe in quality over quantity. And especially with the turmoil we face in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, and Pakistan, Barack's foreign policy / foreign relations experience imo will be invaluable.

[RiverStone]

140. Don't ya see -his lack of "experience" is exactly what young people like!

I work in education, so I hear lots from young voters.

On the experience question --- the young Obama voters like that he does not have experience making backroom deals, climbing in bed with corporations, being partner with the DLC, and having a husband that was already president.

They like that Obama does not have "experience" and seem to be supporting him at about 80%+ (we are talking late teens /early 20's).

[OzarkDem]

144. Its one thing to relate to that lack of experience in an entry level job

or fast food or retail work, as young people would naturally relate. Its quite something else to want an inexperienced person as president of the US.

These are difficult and dangerous times, voters deserve the best candidate they can get, not someone who wants on the job training.

[rjx]

147. And thats why I voted for Obama

So Hillary doesn't get on the job training.

First lady does not prepare a person to be President. Would Laura Bush have the experience to be President?

Obama has more 11 years public office experience and Clinton has 7.

Obama is on 3 of 4 Senate foreign policy committees, Clinton is on one. Obama has traveled abroad extensively regarding foreign policy and foreign relations and has been criticized for the amount of traveling has has done as a freshman Senator.

Obama has more foreign policy and foreign relations experience than Clinton.

As an Edwards supporter, how could you let Hillary distort you're opinion of Obama's experience?

[RiverStone]

148. That may be so....

But perception is 90% and young voters feel very strongly about Obama.

Your sense that Hillary has more experience means not a dang thing to the younger crowd. Nothing personal OzarkDem, it is just how they see the world through the eyes of youth. Idealistic and all....

Obama can win because of this - you may not like it - but he has a far better chance to win the GE because of it.

[Sapphocrat]

143. Don't worry...

DU will slap that sensitivity stuff right out of you in no time!

Kidding, kidding. Welcome to DU. :)

[chknltl]

150. Welcome to DU Mr. Fitzgibbons

I think there is something going on here: Americans GENUINELY want change. We Americans have a variety of reasons for wanting this change but the desire for change is what is uniting us. Yes, Senator Clinton may bring about change and perhaps Senator Obama will bring about change but I get the sense that more voters feel that Senator Clinton is less likely to give us that change than Senator Obama. In my caucus, an Obama supporter pointed out that Senator Clinton voted for the Iraq war and voted along with bush regarding Iran...He claimed that this was not the change he was looking for at which point the entire room erupted in massive applause. So who will bring about change and who will not? I am no psychic but if things continue like they have in Western Washington, Obama may realize a landslide victory over Senator Clinton. That in itself will be seen as the "Peoples Mandate". If nothing else, We The People will support Senator Obama in bringing about his promised change.

Regardless of who gets the Democratic nomination, any swift-boating and mudslinging by the repukes will be perceived as just that by the voters. That change thing I harp on comes into play here as well. I predict that McCain will try to start out playing the nice guy card at first but as he sinks behind the Democratic nominee, (he will), then things will get ugly. I further predict that the ugliness which ensues from the republicans will utterly backfire on them and turn the '08 primaries into a landslide victory for Democrats everywhere.

I believe Senator Obama's lack of experience will prove to be less of a factor than some would have us believe when all is said and done...far too many Americans are pinning our needs for change on him, he may wind up the President who brings about change in a way larger than even he has intended.

Have faith in Democracy Mr. Fitzgibbons, I believe the slumbering giant has reawakened and business as usual will be a thing of the past soon enough.