Name one.

[Tennessee Gal]

Please name one person in modern times with as little experience as Obama has at this point in his career who has won the Democratic nomination for the Presidency. Name one.

Obama's experience:

Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in 1996.

In 2000, he made an unsuccessful Democratic primary run for the U.S. House of Representatives seat held by four-term incumbent candidate Bobby Rush.

He was reelected to the Illinois Senate in 1998 and 2002.

In January 2003, Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee when Democrats, after a decade in the minority, regained a majority in the Illinois Senate.

He resigned from the Illinois Senate in November 2004 following his election to the U.S. Senate.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

1. Bill Clinton. nt

[Tennessee Gal]

10. Try again.

Bill Clinton was the Attorney General for Arkansas.

Then he was the Governor of Arkansas for a total of 12 years.

[Drunken Irishman]

21. No need to try again, because, in relative terms, it's about equal.

Being the governor of Arkansas for 12 years isn't entirely more experience than being a state senator and senator for 8 years.

[usrbs]

185. You've got to be kidding. At least I hope so.

[ThatBozGuy]

191. I can name one that has less that is running against him......

Tennessee Gal said Please name one person in modern times with as little experience as Obama has at this point in his career who has won the Democratic nomination for the Presidency. Name one.



Ms Clinton has less elected public service than Mr Obama, has less time working directly with people at a street level, has never had successful budgetary management experience and so on.....

By your logic Ms Clinton is less prepared unless you include age as a measure or things she observed rather than experienced.

[usrbs]

192. I count all experience, not just elective

And the state senate counts as a lot less. Hillary has done many things in her life, look it up. Plus, as the interested and active spouse of a Governor and President, not to mention a very successful Senator, she has a lot of relevant experience your candidate is lacking. She didn't just observe, she was an active participant according to Gore. But we probably won't convince each other, so peace.

[thevoiceofreason]

113. Tiny state. Tiny budget. Went from 49th to 47th in education.

ZERO foreign policy experience.

[RazBerryBeret]

130. Arkansas?

and he had Zero washington experience...and zero foreign affairs experience.

[roguevalley]

138. How about George Bush? He's not only lacking in experience,

he's lacking in brains and ethics and ad infinitum.

[Lucinda]

11. Gov of Arkansas is a weeee bit more experience

:)

[Drunken Irishman]

22. On the domestic front, sure, not internationally, however.

[Lucinda]

26. Obama's international cred is heading a committee with no meetings.

[Drunken Irishman]

27. And what was Bill's in 1992?

[Lucinda]

31. He didnt have any. But he'd run a state. Big difference.

:)

[Occam Bandage]

36. But yet Hillary's primary focus for her "experience" argument is in international relations

and national security, isn't it? But yet Bill Clinton had absolutely zero experience on that front. Obama, at least, has several years in the Senate.

[Lucinda]

62. No actuallly it isn't. She talking about her entire adult lifetime spent in politics.

Obama has framed the debate lately in terms of questioning her Foreign Relations experience, her focus is much broader.

[Occam Bandage]

68. Her 3AM ad would beg to differ. She talks about her "lifetime of change," but when she's

aiming at Obama, she talks in terms of national security--which is silly, since her husband had absolutely zero experience in that field at the time of his election.

It worked out okay.

[sueragingroz]

71. are you saying something nice about the Big Dawg?

cool!

[Occam Bandage]

74. He was generally a good President.

[Lucinda]

79. She's making the case why SHE is the better candidate. She's not

comparing Obama's record to Bill's before he was POTUS, she's comparing it to hers, now.

[Occam Bandage]

89. Er, yes. She isn't comparing Obama's to Bill's. She's saying that Obama is

ill-qualified on national security, because of his thin record on that front.

However, her point is defeated by her husband, who was just fine on matters of foreign relations despite absolutely zero national-security experience.

[Drunken Irishman]

38. I agree, there is a big difference, but it doesn't make him more experienced.

And that does mean Hillary isn't experienced enough, either, right?

According to Hillary, George Bush would be the better candidate, since he had experience all around. In fact, one could say George Bush was one of the most qualified presidents in American history.

[Lucinda]

56. Of course being Governor made Clinton more experienced than Obama is

at this point.

You're really wasting your time talking to me if you believe Obama has the equivalent experience of either Bill at the time he ran, or Hillary now, for that matter.

We have no common ground here.

[Drunken Irishman]

77. You're right, I think you are flat wrong.

[Lucinda]

82. I sort of figured that out already.

:)

[karmicglee]

109. Agree. Executive experience is essential

Good point.

[jackson_dem]

112. International affairs are "slightly" more important post-9/11 than the year after the USSR dissolved

;)

Many Obamites don't understand the difference between 2008 and 1992 and perhaps this is why they are supporting such a vulnerable general election candidate.

[BooScout]

87. Obama has no political experience internationally n/t

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

23. Longest serving governor in the country at the time, too.

[Lucinda]

29. Yup. Compared with the state senate, which is

kind of a part-time gig, if I have heard correctly.

[Goblinmonger]

173. Arkansas vs Illinois

Sure, there is no difference. If it is more experience, you are right that it is a wee bit.

[anonymeme]

92. Obama Supporters Are ALL About Smack, And Don't Give a *BLEEP* About Truth, Decency or Reason!!!!

Obama Supporters Are ALL About Smack, And Don't Give a *BLEEP* About Truth, Decency or Reason!!!!

They don't consider a question and answer thoughtfully.

The Obamaniacs just jump on and pig-pile Hillary and us Hillary supporters, with prefab spew, calls of racism, calling us Repugs or trolls.

The Obama people are the ones who sound like Republicans when it comes to bringing Bill Clinton up as a negative example of everything from warts to criminal behavior.

I think they forget that Toni Morrison dubbed Bill Clinton our first black President.

But black or white, Bill Clinton was a great President, and I've seen a lot of Presidents!

So now that his wife comes into a contest with a black man, everything Bill Clinton did to further the cause of minority rights, gets stuffed in the trash can?!

Oh, and that's another thing, Bill Clinton isn't running for election, Hillary is, and she's not Bill!

[cbayer]

115. Wow, what are you? A masochist?

Although some of what you say applies to some Obama supporters, especially to some that post here, it certainly does not apply to all or even most of them.

You might want to bring it down a notch or two.

[Exilednight]

156. BINGO!

[skooooo]

2. Jimmy Carter

[Tennessee Gal]

19. Wrong.

In the 1960s, he served two terms in the Georgia Senate from the fourteenth district of Georgia.

Carter was sworn-in as the 76th Governor of Georgia on January 12, 1971 and held this post for one term, until January 14, 1975. Governors of Georgia were not allowed to succeed themselves at the time.

[Drunken Irishman]

25. It appears you're wrong.

Obama served two years in the Illinois Senate and will have served 4 years as a US senator when he takes office as President of the United States. How is that less experience than being a governor from a state like Georgia?

[sueragingroz]

75. you are kidding right?

[Drunken Irishman]

78. Are you?

So being a governor in Georgia, back in the 1970s when it was a dramatically different state than it is today, for ONE TERM, makes one more experienced than a one term senator? Ha!

Are you kidding?

[sueragingroz]

111. How many senators have made it to the big office?

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/senators_became_president.htm

You cannot compare a senator with a governor.

Especially one who hasn't held any oversight hearings on his oversight committee.

[Drunken Irishman]

117. I can compare and I just did compare.

Are you realistically telling me George Bush was a better candidate than John Kerry in 2004? I mean, Bush had been a governor of the big state of Texas, while Kerry was a senator from the liberal, Catholic Massachusetts. Has Clinton ever been a governor? What about McCain? No...so I hate to tell you, one of these three SENATORS will make it to the big office.

[usrbs]

189. Kerry was a decorated officer in a war, and lead a movement.

[Exilednight]

158. This will be the first time that a sitting US Senator makes it to the Oval Office since JFK.

[BooScout]

95. A State like Georgia?

WTF is that supposed to mean? Illinois is better than Georgia?

[Drunken Irishman]

106. Georgia was a far different state than it is today.

[jackson_dem]

114. You're comparing voting present part-time to running a big state like Georgia?

[Exilednight]

161. Georgia in the 1970's was not that big. Atlanta was not the city it is today.

[Skidmore]

3. *

[SoonerPride]

4. Dukakis

and Obama's stil got more experience than Hillary.

[Tennessee Gal]

28. Nope.

Dukakis served four terms in the Massachusetts House of Representatives between 1962 to 1970. He served as the Governor of Massachusetts 1974-1978. Dukakis served as Governor again from 1983 until 1991.

[NJSecularist]

5. Abraham Lincoln

But he didn't win all of the big states so he doesn't count.

[Tennessee Gal]

30. He wasn't a Democrat.

[NJSecularist]

35. Party lines from close to 200 years ago are irrelevant

If he was running for elected office today, he'd be a Democrat.

[Tennessee Gal]

73. In the OP it said modern times.

[Occam Bandage]

76. Defined as? How about William Jennings Bryan? He was nominated repeatedly, and yet had

only four years of experience in the House.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

84. That's a very good one. Congrats! (I've compared Obama to Bryant may times, but forgot him)

[jackson_dem]

116. And Byran's masterful oratory, "inspiring" words netted him an 0-3 record as a prez candidate

It is revealing the lone example they have goes back a century and lost three times despite having great rhetoric...

[Tennessee Gal]

104. Modern times?

[SOS]

167. Plus Lincoln's lack of experience made him an ineffective President.

:eyes:

Woodrow Wilson served 2 years as NJ governor and then led us through WW 1.

He was a Democrat.

[noel711]

141. Here's Honest Abe's Resume...

1832- Postmaster of New Salem, IL

1834- ran for term in IL state legislature (2 year term)

1836-40 re-elected for IL state legislature (2 more terms)

In 1846, he was elected to US HOuse of Representatives

In 1854 chose to run for US Senate

1856 helped to organize the infant Republican Party,
whose goal was to stop slavery

1858, ran against Steven Douglas for US Senate,
was defeated

So he toured, giving inspiration speeches,
was well know for his speaking engagements.

May 1860, was nominated for president at the
first National Convention of the Republican Party
in Chicago in 1860,
won 39% of the popular vote
and 60% of the electoral vote.

[tekisui]

6. Watcha gettin' at?

[SoonerPride]

8. Gettin at that Obama's got more experience than Clinton

So she's REALLY underqualified for the job.

[Tennessee Gal]

33. Nope.

Obama is lacking in experience.

[SoonerPride]

103. Show me all the elected experience Clinton has

Going out to tea with other world leader's wives doesn't count

Obama has been elected more and served more in public office than Clinton.

Thanks for playing.

[Danger Mouse]

7. Hillary Clinton was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2000, re-elected in 2006.

She has less legislative experience than Obama.

[Armstead]

47. Jeee that was too easy

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

88. My next door neighbor has more "legislative experience" than either of them

You do realize that being a state legislator is unexceptional, right?

There are many THOUSANDS of state legislators at any given time.

[Danger Mouse]

119. It's still legislative experience. Sure, it ain't the US Senate...but still...

:shrug:

[EmilyAnne]

9. Hey, guys. She clearly asked for ONE person. There you go again, spinning like crazy listing

at least FOUR aready.

[SoonerPride]

12. When will they learn that it is over?

IT IS OVER FOLKS.

You are only prolonging your misery hoping against hope or a thing which ain't gonna happen.

GIVE IT UP. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN AND THE NAME THEY SPOKE IS NOT CLINTON.

[NDambi]

14. BAAAHAAAAAA.....LOL

[Tennessee Gal]

37. Obama is lacking in experience as compared to the others.

[Hepburn]

50. OMG..........

....thanks for the laughs!

:rofl:

[Sir Jeffrey]

13. Damn, if he only had two more years he'd have 14 years like JFK nt

[Dinger]

15. Campaigning Since 2003, For Senate And POTUS

well, at least it's CAMPAIGN experience.

:evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin: :evilgrin:

[goodgd_yall]

18. Can't argue with that

;)

[yardwork]

16. John F. Kennedy.

And John Edwards, chosen as the VP nominee in 2004, had less experience than Obama as well.

And....Hillary Clinton has even less experience than Obama.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

39. That's absurd.

Their ages and Senate experience are the same.

While Obama was in the state legislature, Kennedy was in the US Congress.

And Kennedy was a war hero. Commanding a boat in combat in World War II is a meaningful measure of life experience that cannot be diminished.

(I give Kerry and Webb a lot of experience credit for fighting in Vietnam. They know things about themselves and the world that most folks don't have to confront.)

[yardwork]

57. Maybe so. I should have stuck with "Hillary has no more experience than Obama."

[Tennessee Gal]

40. Suggest you read the OP again.

[Tennessee Gal]

93. Oh, please!

Kennedy represented the state of Massachusetts in the U.S. House of Representatives from 1947 to 1953 as a Democrat, and in the U.S. Senate from 1953 until 1961.

[yardwork]

194. That sounds very similar to Senator Obama's record.

[jackson_dem]

120. JFK had as much experience as Nixon. This is a key Obamite myth

Besides, Obama is no JFK...

[yardwork]

195. My mom says he is - and she's a 73 year old white woman.

[THUNDER HANDS]

17. I can't name you one, but I can name you eight who had more and lost the election

Stevenson
Humphrey
McGovern
Carter
Mondale
Dukakis
Gore
Kerry

[rodeodance]

59. you lose.

[BumRushDaShow]

20. Woodrow Wilson.

Governor of New Jersey for 2 years and no other elective government experience.

<crickets>

[BumRushDaShow]

45. HELLO... ????

<CRICKETS>

HELLO... HELLo.... HELlo... HEllo... Hello... hello...

ECHO ECHo ECho Echo echo

WOODROW WILSON. Won DEMOCRATIC nomination, was elected a DEMOCRATIC President TWICE.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

60. Any large state governor is more experienced for the Presidency

But since you insist, we'll spot you arch-racist and proto-dictator Woodrow Wilson.

(Wilson is one of my least favorite Presidents)

Though since Obama supporters love to cite his career as a "professor", maybe Wilson's impressive academic career ought to be added to his stack.

[BumRushDaShow]

80. The OP asked people to "name one" and I named "one".

This man muscled his way through the convention and manipulated the process.

But he fits the criteria of the OP:

1.) Democrat
2.) Little experience
3.) Nominated

And in this case, he wasn't just nominated but he was ELECTED. Twice.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

91. I'm giving you grudging props. Wilson and Bryant are both good answers.

[BumRushDaShow]

105. Understood

:hi:

And BTW, I am 46 myself (saw your comment in another post) and just looking up Wilson's background, his ascent to the presidency boggles the mind! :crazy:

[dorktv]

178. Read the book on the 1912 election. He went into the convention with LESS

delegates than the front runner.

[jackson_dem]

125. The OP said a modern president. Wilson was elected 96 years ago

[BumRushDaShow]

133. What is defined as "modern"?

Wilson was elected during the 20th century AND was President during WW I!

I could have said George Washington, who had "no formal education".

As usual, goal posts change when confronted with facts. :rofl:

Once again...



:nopity:

[skater314159]

108. And he did a lot of good for the nation...

From Wikipedia... (since no body here seems to know who the guy is)

He proved highly successful in leading a Democratic Congress to pass major legislation including the Federal Trade Commission, the Clayton Antitrust Act, the Underwood Tariff, the Federal Farm Loan Act and most notably the Federal Reserve System. Wilson was a proponent of Segregation during his presidency.<1>

Narrowly re-elected in 1916, his second term centered on World War I. He tried to maintain U.S. neutrality, but when Germany began unrestricted submarine warfare he wrote several admonishing notes to Germany. Subsequently he asked Congress to declare war on the Central Powers. He focused on diplomacy and financial considerations, leaving the waging of the war primarily in the hands of the military establishment. On the home front he began the first effective draft in 1917, raised billions through Liberty loans, imposed an income tax, set up the War Industries Board, promoted labor union growth, supervised agriculture and food production through the Lever Act, took over control of the railroads, and suppressed anti-war movements. He paid surprisingly little attention to military affairs, but provided the funding and food supplies that helped the Americans in the war and hastened Allied victory in 1918.

Without "experience he founded the FTC, Farm Loans, and the Federal Reserve; his actions and planning helped the the US, UK and France to defeat Germany and the Axis powers in the Great War. If Obama turns out to be half as good as him, it will be a million fold improvement over anything I've seen in the past eight years.

[BumRushDaShow]

140. Let's hope so since that very war had a very segregated army

that my grandfather was part of and where one of my great-uncles was gassed.... and where no Democrat, whether Wilson, Roosevelt, or Truman would even address this abominable racial issue for those soldiers, but a Republican (Eisenhower) finally did.

And in general, the point being that sometimes, phony claims of "experience" mean nothing if you can't handle yourself in a crisis or you don't have a vision for action.

[skater314159]

152. Yep, it's about integrity and doing what is right...

... and I feel Obama would do that.

It's in the darkest times that the stars shine the brightest... and right now, I feel Obama is a star like Vega and Hillary is a Black Hole. I just hope the Democratic Party doesn't wander past her Chandrasekhar Limit.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

163. I thought Truman desegregated the army, or are you referring to something else (or am I wrong?)

BTW, Under Wilson Princeton was the only whites only Ivy League school.

[BumRushDaShow]

168. Nope. Truman and the military hemmed and hawed about it for years.

After all the committees and commissions and talk of trying to set up quotas and test units and other nonsense, it didn't happen completely until 1953, after he was out of office. There were still segregated units during the Korean War. My father was a WW II vet and served in a colored unit.

Interesting chronology here:

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/

Regarding Princeton... the other Ivy Leagues weren't much better. My grandfather graduated from University of Pennsylvania Dental School in 1924 and back then he had been accepted at UPenn's Medical school but was told that they "already had their 2 n*ggers but he was welcome to attend the Dental School if he wished", which he did. Yep... it's been hell and changes are often slow to come... but we are at least changing as a country. :)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

179. That's right... Charlie Rangel was in a colored unit in Korea, wasn't he?

[dorktv]

180. Um...Truman deseged the armed forces.

February 2, 1948.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8258.html
On July 26, Truman followed up by signing Executive Order 9981, establishing the President’s Committee on Equality of Treatment and Opportunity in the Armed Services. It was coupled with Executive Order 9980, creating a Fair Employment Board charged with eliminating racial bias in federal employment.

It took the military many more years to comply with Truman’s orders. In the 1950s, few blacks served as officers, particularly in the Navy. Still, the number of front line black troops rose in the Korean War, compared to the World War II when, with few exceptions, blacks were relegated to performing menial tasks.

[Hugabear]

182. Obama really needs a time machine

That's the only way he'll appease some people.

[skater314159]

100. Yep.

Of course, I'm sure the rules will change to be such that he doesn't count.

[jackson_dem]

124. Woodrow Wilson. 1912...he was a key state gov. and president of Princeton Univ.

A renowned scholar of government and politics with gubernatorial experience of a major state becoming president is not the same as a lawyer jumping into the White House.

[Hugabear]

24. Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Eisenhower

All three had limited experience when they were elected.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

48. LOL. You are just being weird

FDR: Secretary of the Navy. Governor of New York. And having overcome a profound disability as an adult. (Experience isn't just a resume... there are life experiences that test what one is made of, like JFK's service in WWII)

Eisenhower: That's a joke... like, I assume you are being funny. Dwight Eisenhower had the single most impressive American executive credential anyone has ever had short of being an incumbent President. He directed the entire European theater in WWII, for Christ's sake.

[Occam Bandage]

52. And Woodrow Wilson? Oh, and by the way,

"Experience isn't just a resume... there are life experiences that test what one is made of" is one of Obama's central "experience" arguments.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

55. Of course it is. And he's 45 and has led a fairly unexceptional life.

He's lost a parent. He's faced discrimination. He's married and fathered children.

He and about 50 million other people.

These are not exceptional tests, they are the substance of life and he hasn't even been alive all that long.

For all his disdain of baby-boomers, he sure has the distinctive narcissism of that generation. Everyone thinks their life is an epic.

[Occam Bandage]

64. "a fairly unexceptional life?" Your bias is showing. Anyway, what about Wilson?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

81. Large state governor, albeit not for long. And a distinguished academic career

But since Wilson was an arch-racist and wannabee dictator I'm not really up to defending him. He makes me sick.


As far as my bias showing, I happen to be the same age as Obama and I've had all kinds of experiences. That's what happens when you leave the house.

Obama has excellent credentials as being very smart, and a good politician.

But he does not have the kind of exceptional life that gives him experience beyond his years. He has close to no resume as a decision maker. (Nor does Hillary, but I'm not arguing a candidate thing)

I'm the same age as Obama, and his life isn't very different than that of my more gifted contemporaries. I know lots of brilliant 45 year olds who have excelled at everything they've tried.

But they are still 45.

[depakid]

85. Wilson was a real constitutional and governmental scholar- not a part time prof

His critique of the US system Congressional Government, is little short of prophetic when one looks at the structural problems behind what's gone on the past 30 years.

He was also in essence, the intellectual father of the science of public administration in the United States- and every MPA student in the country reads his 1887 seminal work "The Study of Administration as a core part of their curricula.

As President of Princeton University from 1902-1910, he instituted a number very successful progressive reforms that influence academic institutions to this day.

On a side note: He was the only US president to earn a PhD.

Sorry, try again

[Coexist]

54. this is interesting:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html

[Tennessee Gal]

83. Eisenhower was a Republican.

[TexasBushwhacker]

157. Actually, Eisenhower was courted by Democrats first in 1948 n/t

[Occam Bandage]

32. Since Hillary is making "experience" about national security, I would say Bill Clinton.

[Hugabear]

34. George Bush had PLENTY of experience - did you vote for him in '88?

He had plenty more experience than Dukakis did. Since experience is the primary factor for you, I assume you either voted for Bush Sr, or would have voted for him if you had been able to (since I don't know your age).

Did you vote for him in '92 over Bill Clinton? Heck, at that point he had even more experience!

Bob Dole had more experience in '96. Did you vote for him?

[Tennessee Gal]

42. Suggest you read the OP again.

[BumRushDaShow]

51. WOODROW WILSON

Only served 2 YEARS as Governor of New Jersey with NO OTHER ELECTIVE OFFICE.

WON DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION, ELECTED AS A DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT TWICE.

[jackson_dem]

131. In 1912 and Wilson's qualifications have been addressed upthread

Comparing Obama to Wilson, or JFK, Eisenhower, or Lincoln for that matter is ridiculous. All three had experience and distinguished themselves with accomplishments. Obama has two speeches.

[BumRushDaShow]

142. That is nonsensical propaganda

Obama was a Constitutional Law lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School for 11 years.

But hillbots can't handle the truth!! :rofl:

Give it up. You lost and you need to bow out. :eyes:

[jackson_dem]

145. Yes, and compare that to Woodrow Wilson...

Wilson was the president of Princeton and wrote books on government. Obama was not even an assistant professor.

[BumRushDaShow]

150. Obama was President of the Harvard Law Review

And graduated from Harvard Law School magna cum laude. The more you try, the deeper you dig your grave. :rofl:

Wilson actually bullied his way into the nomination out of entitlement.

Now isn't that special! :eyes:

[jackson_dem]

151. Yes, and how does that qualify you to be president?

You are comparing Wilson's record as it relates to the presidency with Obama's? :rofl: This isn't even getting to the fact Wilson ran a big state...

[BumRushDaShow]

153. Wilson ran a "big state"? When since was New Jersey a "big state"?

New Jersey was RURAL with mostly farmland all the way up until after WW II. The population of the ENTIRE state of New Jersey in 1910 was 2.5 million. The population of my home city of Philadelphia ALONE in 1910 was 1.5 million.
N
And Wilson was governor there for how long? Not even 2 years? Are you kidding me? :rofl:

I am a 5th generation Pennsylvanian and look out across the river at New Jersey from my office in Philadelphia everyday.

You are so grasping at straws it is ludicrous!! I suggest you quit because you have truly made a fool out of yourself. :rofl:

[jackson_dem]

170. Yes, how did that compare to the other states?

The population of NJ then was about 1/3 of what it is now. That is about on target with the nation as a whole.

Big state? It has 9 million people, about 3/4 what PA has and is in the top 10 in population. That qualifies.

You have truly drunk the kool aid if you think Obama is as qualified as Wilson. Only Obamanation thinks he has experience.

[BumRushDaShow]

172. Wow... Your arguments have now jumped the shark.

Wilson was a governor of the SMALL state of New Jersey from 1910 - 1912. Yet now you have somehow warped him through time and space into his future to argue that the 1910 state of New Jersey has a population that is the same as it is in 2008????? :crazy: :rofl: The population of PA in 1910 was 7.7 million, almost three times that of 1910 New Jersey. The population of NY in 1910 was 9.1 million. The population of Virginia in 1910 was 4.1 million. Even tiny Massachusetts had more population than New Jersey in 1910 - 3.6 million. The New Jersey of TODAY has grown faster than any of the TRUE large states of the past - mainly because the state became the bedroom community of New York and Pennsylvania and it continues to grow its own industries.

You are twisting in the wind and are heading right off that cliff following the Pied Piper of Hillary. But since I do work for a living and need to get up early tomorrow, I will let you have the last nonsensical word since it's apparent that I am arguing with someone who won't look anything up and wants to argue for arguing's sake. :eyes:

[Hugabear]

183. I read the OP, it doesn't mean JACK SHIT

The OP insinuates that Obama isn't qualified to be President, because he lacks experience.

By offering up George Bush Sr, I submit that experience doesn't mean jack shit.

[jackson_dem]

129. So did Dukakis

The point is not a contest of resumes. It is whether someone meets the experience threshold in the eyes of voters. Obama doesn't in many eyes and that may cost us the White House...

[grantcart]

41. none. Now please respond with the same courtesy on this question

Please name one major power that has transferred executive power back and forth between two families for a period of 28 years - more than 1/10th of its entire history?

[Tennessee Gal]

96. Has nothing to do with the OP.

Start your own thread.

[Drunken Irishman]

43. Your point goes down in flames when you realize experience doesn't mean much.

Especially when you factor in George W. Bush had more experience gained from his first term as president than John Kerry -- which was used by the Bush camp during his reelection campaign. Now I don't know about you, but I'm guessing you didn't vote for Bush, right?

[rodeodance]

61. this is test. you lose

[jackson_dem]

132. George W. Bush is a perfect example of the need for experience...

[seabeyond]

175. sheeit, that is so wrong. he has had 7 years experience as PRES and still fuckin up

he is just stupid

[Hugabear]

187. George W. Bush HAD experience - governor of Texas for 5 years

So I guess that makes him more qualified that Obama.

[Coexist]

44. why the qualifiers "in modern times" and "Democratic" nomination?

there haven't been many Democratic Presidents "in modern times". Unless "in modern times" means 100 years. Try this:

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/experience.html

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

65. No, but we produce nominees like clock-work.

[krawhitham]

46. Gee, this thread did not work out to well did it Tennessee Gal

name one?

how many has been named now?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

53. Zero, unless you consider the OP a typing test.

[rodeodance]

63. you lose

[Tennessee Gal]

90. None that passed the test.

[Hawkeye-X]

136. I guess you got one of my friends on ignore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson

DEMOCRAT, only 2 years as Governor of New Jersey with NO OTHER ELECTED EXPERIENCE, who torpedoed himself into the nomination by manipulating the process at the Democratic Convention of 1912 (sound familar?). Elected DEMOCRATIC President TWICE.

<CRICKETS>

[Hugabear]

188. Kinda hard to pass a test when you rig the rules in your favor

Since you're arbitrarily dismissing any answers you don't like, then you won't get anything.

Answer me this - Both Pappy Bush and Dubya had more experience than Obama. Were either of them qualified?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

49. McCain's not a Democrat but he's got a shitload of experience.

Clearly he's the better choice since experience is the only thing that matters.

[Rockholm]

58. None.

[BumRushDaShow]

67. WOODROW WILSON

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson

DEMOCRAT, only 2 years as Governor of New Jersey with NO OTHER ELECTED EXPERIENCE, who torpedoed himself into the nomination by manipulating the process at the Democratic Convention of 1912 (sound familar?). Elected DEMOCRATIC President TWICE.

<CRICKETS>

[depakid]

94. See my #85 post above

and get a clue, before you sound off with crickets that only make you look foolish.

[BumRushDaShow]

118. What the hell are you talking about?

Have you suddenly moved the goal posts for "experience" where suddenly NON-elective office is now counting? Of course, because when backed in a corner, then you change the argument. :eyes:

I'm afraid that you need to get a clue and note that Obama was a Constitituional Law lecturer from 1993 - 2004 at University of Chicago Law School. This was in addition to the known of him having served in the Illinois legislature for 8 years.

I know so many hillbots have blinders on but holy cow! The usual response is

[depakid]

171. Just goes to show how shallow and juvenile some people are

and probably will remain.

Obama isn't even in the same league as Wilson was- not in terms of accomplishments, significant writing or in running and reforming a major institution.

Not to mention being one of the leading voices throughout the Progressive Era prior to being in government.

Rather than acknowledge that simple and obvious fact- and deal with it honestly, you jump up and accuse another poster of being a Hillbot." LOL.

Whenever people do that (how many times a day?) this image generally comes to mind:

[BumRushDaShow]

174. Goal post changes...

It's funny how hillbots continue to change the goal posts. They point to Hillary as having been a Senator for 1 term and part of a 2nd and that makes her "experienced"...unless 20 years of serving tea and cookies to the wives of heads of state qualifies. :rofl: Yet elective office is suddenly "off the table" and gets thrown out as a qualifier when it comes to anyone else.

Wilson never even graduated from a law school but had a practice anyway! Imagine that. He didn't even bother to run for elective office until he was in his 50s while Obama got involved in the machinations of legislative government NOT solely from the ivy tower perspective, but from actually participating in the process and running for office.

But I suppose Wilson's slave-owning family makes him more qualified to hillbots because ya know, he learned how to keep those darkies in their place! :rofl:

[depakid]

181. Oh. looky - someone can read a wiki! And make a sports metaphor

and use mocking icons! Oh boy!

Unfortunately, that appears to be about the extent of your ability to think and comprehend.

One would like to hope that this sort of prattle isn't very representative of most Obama supporters, because quite frankly, it's embarrassing.

btw: Obama will be asked repeatedly (he already has) to justify his thin resume. Whatever he says, I have news- one thing he won't do is cite some comparison to Woodrow Wilson. Even his own colleagues would hammer him for that.

[grantcart]

66. still waiting for your answer to reply # 41 or do you lack the courage to do so?

[Bright Eyes]

72. You won't get an answer.

Logic doesn't enter into the OP's mind.

[Tennessee Gal]

97. You lose. I answered.

[Bright Eyes]

102. Would you like a medal?

[Bright Eyes]

69. Lincoln.

May not be modern times, but still kills your point.

[Tennessee Gal]

86. Lincoln was a Republican. Not modern times.

[Bright Eyes]

99. delete.

Wrong spot:crazy:

[Bright Eyes]

121. Obama has been in politics for 12 years.

State Senator from 1996-2004 and U.S Senator from 2004-Present

Hillary Clinton has had 8 years in politics. U.S Senator 2000-Present. (No, being First Lady doesn't count.)

By your logic, I assume you'll be voting for McCain, since experience is all that matters.

[not_too_L8]

70. Hillary

7 years in the senate nothing else

[mudesi]

98. Hillary Clinton

She has only run two campaigns, the first one being a cake walk.

She has been a senator for 8 years. Obama has been in office for 12.

There.

[Tennessee Gal]

101. Hillary has not won the nomination. Read the OP again.

[SoonerPride]

107. Obama bests Clinton in experience, unless you count brunches eaten in DC

Then Clinton wins hands down

[jackson_dem]

110. None and definitely no Democratic president ever had anywhere near as little experience

Going all the way back to Jefferson up to Clinton...

[Danger Mouse]

122. What about Hillary Clinton herself? What is this vaunted experience she claims to have?

[jackson_dem]

139. 7 years in the senate alone is enough historically

Then there is her work in the White House and Arkansas. The point isn't whether Obama is up to the job. The point is the problem he will have trying to overcome this issue in the general election. Many swing voters will have to do a gut check to vote for Obama and our history shows that almost every president had a threshold level of experience. A few didn't but they made up for it with extraordinary achievements or being a war hero. Obama is neither. Obama is relying on just words--like William Jennings Bryan, the Obama of his day, who we nominated 3 times and lost each time...

[Mooney]

123. Hillary Clinton. n/t

[Johnny__Motown]

126. go watch KO, he named lots of them and explained Nixon had lots of experience

[Bright Eyes]

128. Exactly.

Experience doesn't automatically make you a good president.

[bcoylepa]

127. it's in the details

Obama is no lightweight

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807?detail=f

[Recursion]

134. Hillary Clinton, if you have your way

Neither of our candidates have any significant experience. We have to learn to accept that.

[ContinentalOp]

135. So? This just proves how exceptional Obama is.

What does winning the Democratic primary mean anyway? Who cares? How about actually winning the presidency? I'm not after the democratic nominee who will look best on paper. I'm looking for a candidate who can win.

[Drunken Irishman]

144. People forget Kerry was the most experienced candidate the last time around.

And he lost.

Gore was pretty experienced and even though people can say he won, it was still way too close and he's not sitting in the White House.

Clinton won the nomination, even though his experience was a major issue during the campaign. Had the Democrats gone with the most experienced candidate in 1992, Tom Harkin, Bob Kerrey or Paul Tsongas would have won over Bill. We probably would have lost, as well.

In 1984 Mondale was one of the most experienced candidates, while Jesse Jackson was not. We know how that election turned out for the Democrats.

In 1976, Carter was actually one of the least experienced of the candidates. Had they gone on experience alone, Lloyd Bentsen, Birch Bayh, Robert Byrd, Hubert Humphrey, Frank Church and Mo Udall all would have won over Carter. And what do you know, Carter actually won that election.

In 1972, the Democrats went with George McGovern, who had been in the senate for 9 years and the house 3 years prior to that. We know how that went down.

In 1968, RFK was one of the least experienced candidates of those running. Obviously he was not given the chance to run, but I think most concede he would've done far better against Nixon than Hubert Humphrey.

[ContinentalOp]

160. Great post

But maybe consider changing "given the shot to run" to "given the chance to run" :o

[Drunken Irishman]

162. D'oh, I totally did not mean that pun!

:(

[tabasco]

137. All the experience in the world doesn't mean squat if you don't have courage

good judgment and good leadership ability.

Hillary has none of the above.

[canadian_is_cold]

143. Franklin D. Roosevelt

[canadian_is_cold]

147. 7 years

1911 to 1913 NY state senate

1928 to 1932 Governor of NY

7 years of experience as an elected official


In 1932 he ran for president

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

164. And I believe he was secretary of the navy in WWI

[canadian_is_cold]

196. That was an appointed position

[knixphan]

146. okay, so your opinion is that O isn't qualified to be POTUS, i take it.

Luckily the constitution has no particular 'experience' threshold requirement. Voters must decide who they think will do the job. If they feel a pres betrays the constitution, they can call for impeachment.

Luckily for Barack, ther are plenty of other factors that combine to make someone electable and trustworthy.

Seems that millions of smart americans are combining these factors in order to make their choices.

Obama has withstood all of the 'experience-jabs' that the HRC machine has thrown at him.

And millions still vote for the O-man. Over a million donate.

Voters are saying they trust the man more than his rival. Voters in Idaho and Wyoming as well as Mississippi. Even a fair amount of New Yorkers and Californians.

Polls still put O ahead of HRC in head-to-heads with McCain. Americans also trust Barack to win the GE.

HRC's gotta switch up the offense if this game is going to change.

...give people reason to trust her more, if that's possible. Simply saying 'more experience' will not convince someone to trust you. Trust is an organic thing.

Tax returns are a start. Library donors are a start. Make us trust her. Tell her to stop praising McCain.

[dave29]

148. There is no job training to be President of the United States

so it is a moot point. You can sit and watch and talk with the President all you want... that does not make you the President.

Of course experience matters. But I would say the most important qualification in a President is his or her ability to understand the issues, articulate those issues, have good judjment on those issues -- and motivate people and government to act on those issues.

There is no threshold you cross to become President... other than getting more votes than your opponents, winning the electoral college, or having the election decided by the supreme court.

[canadian_is_cold]

149. Adlai Stevenson

only 4 years

[against all enemies]

154. Dick Cheney has lots of experience - vote for him.

[DuaneBidoux]

155. I'd rather have brains than experience--and that seems to be the choice.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

159. How about

FDR: 4 years as a governor

[DemGa]

165. A barely three year Senator for President is freaking bizarre

He should have waited his turn -- we could have avoided all this nonsense. Now we're completely screwed, with a split Dem Party and no good way out of this mess. This will likely turn into an extraordinary political disaster -- doing permanent damage to the Democratic Party.

They'll blame Hillary of course, but the responsibility rests with Barack Obama and his bogus "movement."

[anonymous171]

166. Hillary Clinton: 1 term in the senate, 2 if you count the one she's serving now.

[McCamy Taylor]

169. Jimmy Carter

[scheming daemons]

176. Woodrow Wilson, FDR, JFK, Jimmy Carter......

...

[theredpen]

177. Grover Cleveland

Grover Cleveland had less than a year as Mayor of Buffalo and two years as Governor of New York.

He was a straight-talking populist who was unwilling to kowtow to the entrenched and corrupt elements of the Democratic status quo. He won an electoral landslide because the country was eager for reform.

Cleveland ran against a Republican who had 5 terms in Congress — three as Speaker of the House, four years in the Senate and a stint as Secretary of State. He was an aggressive politician and a formidable debater. Nevertheless, he lost to the plain-speaking populist newcomer.

I suppose that Cleveland isn't "modern" enough to meet your arbitrary criteria, but there's a story here — a story that could very well repeat this year.

[JVS]

184. Hillary Clinton has less experience in elected office than him

[cali]

186. I'm not sure what you mean about modern times, or why you put

that qualifier in there. My point is that years in office (experience) is not the sole criteria for me. Judgment and temperment count just as much. And by the way, DDE had less experience. Sorry, being a General during war, is not experience in elected office.

[ThatBozGuy]

190. I can name one that has less that is running against him......

Tennessee Gal said Please name one person in modern times with as little experience as Obama has at this point in his career who has won the Democratic nomination for the Presidency. Name one.

Ms Clinton has less elected public service than Mr Obama, has less time working directly with people at a street level, has never had successful budgetary management experience and so on.....

By your logic Ms Clinton is less prepared unless you include age as a measure or things she observed rather than experienced.

[LTR]

193. Andrew Jackson and others - here's a list

Democrats:

Andrew Jackson - military officer, one year in House of Representatives, six months in Senate, later a year and a half in Senate prior to being elected president.

Franklin Pierce - Two terms in House, less than a term in Senate

Andrew Johnson - One term as Governor of Tennessee, less than term as Senator, six weeks as VP

Grover Cleveland - Two years as New York governor

Woodrow Wilson - President of Princeton University, Two yeas as New Jersey governor.

FDR - Two year state senator, Asst. Sec. of Navy, two years as New York governor

Jimmy Carter - One term Governor of Georgia


Democratic nominees:

Stephen A. Douglas (1860) - One term in House

John Breckenridge (1860) - Less than a year in Senate, four years as VP under Buchanan

George McClellan (1864) - Three years governor of New Jersey

Horatio Seymour (1868) - Two non-consecutive years as New York governor

Horace Greeley (1872) - Party hack, newspaper publisher, no political offices held

Samuel Tilden (1876) - Less than two years as New York governor, may have actually won Presidential election

Winfield Scott Hancock (1880) - Career military officer

William Jennings Bryan (1896, 1900, 1908) - Two terms in House

Alton Parker (1904) - New York Supreme Court justice

John Davis (1924) - Two and a half years in House, three years as Ambassador to Great Britain.

Al Smith (1928) - One year as New York governor

Adlai Stevenson (1952, 1956) - One term as Illinois governor


I'll cut it off here without mentioning non-Democrats, such as Abraham Lincoln, who did one term in the House, or Chester Arthur, who was merely a party machine hack who got the VP nod with perhaps the least amount of experience of any nationally-elected official. Or George W. Bush, who held the rather meaningless office of Texas Governor, in a state where the Lt. Governor does most of the work.

(EDIT to remove McGovern, as I forgot his Senate experience)