"Obama doesn't have enough experience"

[Wetzelbill]

Whenever I hear or read some talking head going on with this argument it makes me want to scream!

I don't know just how much experience is required to be president, it seems like some with a lot of experience aren't all that good and some are pretty good. I suppose it just depends on the person, because I would think intellect, competency, leadership skills and ability to provide a staff with many of those qualities as well, would matter too.

Where were these questions when Bush was running? Sure, he was governor of Texas for 6 years, but he never did anything in life before that. He was an abject failure at pretty much everything, including as governor of Texas, which also happens to be only about the 5th most important office in the state. That being said, look at how experienced Bush's staff is, they have a wealth of public service, probably even a century or two when put together. But, look at where that "experience" got us. Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld's reservoir of experience helped get us the worst presidency of all-time.

Now Obama is interesting. He was in the state legislature for 8 years. And, will be a senator for 4 years by election night 2008. Plus he is his own man, built his own career and garnered his own success with his own merit. That is something Bush could never say.

So, you know, Obama isn't my preferred candidate in the primary, but I don't buy this "not enough experience" stuff. I think the judgement and merit of the person is more important, and you could validly question Obama's positions and his tendency to articulate everything from all sides etc. But to somehow think that his supposed lack of experience is all that important, I think is folly. If you want experience then lets have a Joe Biden vs Dick Cheney general election and put ourselves out of our own misery for good.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Neither did Harry Truman and he managed. n/t

[Wetzelbill]

2. be nice if you actually read my post nt

[no_hypocrisy]

I was agreeing with you and attacking the premise you attacked.

You made good points.

[Wetzelbill]

8. ahh I see

it just seemed like you posted within a few seconds after I posted it. :)

[bryant69]

3. I would guess that most of the people here were questioning Bush's

experience - I sure was. Particularly given that his experience in the business world was largely running from failure to failure and getting bailed out by Daddys' friends.

Obviously Obama would be miles better than Bush - the question isn't that - it's who is better as a candidate - and I can see raising questions about Obama's experience in that context.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Wetzelbill]

11. well yes, but the media acted like

he was a perfectly viable and experienced candidate. I rarely have ever seen Bush's experience, or lack of it, mentioned by anybody in the media. Unless it was as a positive. Which is ridiculous.

[bryant69]

19. We'd have to go back and research

Because I remember his qualifications being discussed in that campaign - i don't know if they were given the attention they should have (the Media was clearly more interested in personality journalism), but I do remember it being an issue.

Bryant

[cloudbase]

4. Well, there's a difference

between twenty years of experience and one year of experience twenty times.

I'll never forget one time back in my junior officer days in the merchant marine when I had taken a job on a tanker. The chief engineer asked me if I'd been on this class of ship before, and when I said "no" he replied "Well, then, you haven't picked up any bad habits."

The candidate I'll support will be the one with good ideas and a plan to implement those ideas. Otherwise it's just more talk, talk, talk.

[knowbody0]

5. less experience = less contamination

IMVHO:hi:

[Hawkowl]

6. Experience is important

Not all important, but important. I don't think Obama has all the necessary skills/experience to be a very good chief executive, on the first day of office. He hasn't had any experience managing a large organization or bureaucracy. Yes, he can learn on the job, but it would be a very steep learning curve. I don't think we as nation, can afford someone who is just slightly wet behind the ears and has a lot of potential and promise. It is a VERY big gamble. One of the keys to running a successful administration is an uncanny ability to appoint the right people into the right positions and get them to pull together as a team and not constantly undercut each other (i.e; Rumsfeld vs. Cheney vs. Powell ad nauseam). The only inkling we will have as to how Obama would approach this is by how he builds his campaign staff. How he chooses people and how he supports staff and whether he leads them or is led by them. The stakes are much higher because our situation is much worse. I think a Clark, Gore, or even Richardson have a lot of executive, bureaucratic management experience that would enable them to hit the ground running and get us out of our problems much quicker.

Obama's experience, law school prof., community activist, state legislator, and first term Senator would probably make him the least experienced President in 100 years. I don't dislike Obama, I just think it would be a gamble we can't afford to have him as the Dem candidate. I do think he would be a very powerful V.P. candidate.

[Wetzelbill]

9. Bush has way less experience

he's never had experience leading anything. Not even Texas. Their constitution was written in a way to make the governor a weak office. So Bush far and away would be the least experienced president of the last 100 years, even if Obama was elected.

[Hawkowl]

15. I sort of agree

that Bush has no "successful" experience. However on paper, 2 term govenor of Texas is formidable. As governor he was able to affect a substantial amount of change. Horrible, nasty destructive change, but change nonetheless. He also had experience, on paper, of being a successful businessman with the Texas Rangers, and getting his oil business bought out.

[skipos]

7. IMO, experience can help, but it isn't the end all be all

Compare Washington and Lincoln (less experience than Obama) to HW Bush (lots of experience) and GW Bush (a moderate amount).

It is obvious that exerience isn't the number one priority for voters either, or Gov. Richardson would be leading the polls my a large margin.

[Wetzelbill]

10. Nope, in fact I think it's overrated

I look at judgement way more than I do experience. Like I said, Dick Cheney is pretty damn experienced and there is no way in hell he would make a remotely decent president.

[skipos]

13. Yes.Cheney is another good example of "experience." nt

[brazos121200]

12. Probably the least experienced President we have had was Abraham

Lincoln, and many think he was our best President ever. He had only one term in the US House of Representatives served fourteen years before he was elected President, so he hadn't had much experience at all. It aseems like if a person has served just two or four years as governor of a state, even a small state, they are considered to have had adequate experience to be President, but if they have served just one term or so in the US Senate (six years), that is considered still inexpeienced.

What many people don't understand about the Texas Governorship is that it is a mostly ceremonial postition. Soon afte the civil war the Texas legislature put most of the power to govern the state in the hands of the Lieutenant Governor. So Bush really had little or no experience in actually governing anything before becoming President.

I think the best experience for high office is the type of experience which builds character. Experience dealing with the problems and needs of people in everyday life. Experience in starting or leading an organization which can and does see to the needs of the public, whether it be private or public in character. I think Barak Obama is doing just fine in this kind of experience. He knows more about governing now than Bush will ever know.

[Hawkowl]

17. This isn't the 19th century

The office of President is far, far more complicated than faced by Lincoln, who was unequivocally brilliant and ethical. I don't want to see people fall into the trap of comparing a candidate to Lincoln (widely regarded as the best President, or Bush widely regarded as the worst). Obama needs to be compared to his peers running for the Democratic nomination. Comparing him to Lincoln is ludicrous. Why not compare him to George Washington? It doesn't even make sense to compare him to Bush because absolutely everyone looks good compared to Bush.

Just compare him to the other candidates, and maybe other past candidates of the last 30-40 years for historical perspective. Everything else smacks of media hyperbole.

[brazos121200]

20. OK, except for the fact that when Lincoln was running

for president the country was facing the worst crisis it had ever faced, the civil war. Without expert leadership, the country could have be divided right then and there. Slavery was dividing the nation, and it would not have taken much for Lincoln to have just said "Let the South secede if they want to" and let it go at that. Slavery would have persisted the the south for years or decades if the south hadn't seceeded when it did, and still would have persisted in the South if Lincoln hadn't decided to stop it. The country now faces a grave crisis in constitutional rights, and I don't think it is out of line to compare the experience of Lincoln and Obama. Woodrow Wilson who was President during World War I also had only two years of experience in government (one term as Governor of New Jersey). What I'm saying is experience isn't everything.

[Johonny]

14. I always read this as

He doesnt get how to play the money game. Now Bush was VERY experienced in smelling which way the money was blowing and jumping on the train. To me Obama's lack of experience is nothing but a plus.

[Strawman]

16. Obama knows how to play the money game in campaign fundraising

But can he get expanded health care coverage through Congress? Does he have credibility in the Washington community? Can he be as persuasive in that capacity as he is on the stump? Or will he be so popular when he goes public that it overwhelms the need to be as persuasive in insider circles? Can he govern well?

Maybe. Maybe not. But it's not a plus when other, more experienced candidates are running who we have more reasons to suspect that they could govern effectively.

It's not a deal breaker that he lacks executive experience and Washington experience. I can't say one way or another whether or not he will be capable in that respect, but I just don't see how it is a "plus."

[ProfessorGAC]

18. Compared To What?

Compared to Whom?

Nobody who uses that criticism shows enough evidence that:

a) It's true in terms of the "experience" of others presidents
b) There's a correlation between experience and presidential success.

Next time someone on the right says it, ask them "How much experience did Reagan have?" Answer: Less time in elective office than Obama.
The Professor

[happydreams]

21. I just don't think America is ready for ....

((a guy whose name differs from Osama by one letter. ))

[sendero]

22. I'll take judgement and competence...

... over experience any day. Experience is great, but some people just don't seem to learn a thing from it.

[Ron Green]

23. Remember "Gravitas?"

This was the word of the season during the Republican primaries in 2000. Everywhere in the media, the question was posed whether * had the "gravitas" to be President. It was truly a talking point, and gave some hope to those of us who had known the worthless piss-ant since before he was Governor of Texas. Somehow the "gravitas" meme faded from the public realm after he was nominated.