Why no talk of Edwards' lack of experience?

[ripple]

Not just on DU, but in the media. Edwards' entire elected experience is one term in the US Senate. And during that one term, he cast a vote that has had devastating consequences for our nation.

Obama, on the other hand, while being a first-term Senator, had eight years' experience as a state Senator before being elected to the United States Senate.

The media pundits can't seem to mention Obama's name without mentioning his supposed lack of experience, while Edwards seemingly gets a free pass on this issue. Granted, he has more experience than any candidate (other than Kucinich) in a national election campaign, but that's hardly the type of 'experience' that speaks to how he will lead if elected.

Similarly, Hillary is barely into her second term as a US Senator and has no elected experience beyond that. I, for one, don't consider her experience as First Lady terribly relevant, as she wasn't elected and wasn't in a policy-making position. Yet she's still being touted as the 'experienced' candidate of the top three contenders.

I hope this doesn't become a flame thread and if that's how it shapes up, I hope the moderators will lock it accordingly. My question goes well beyond DU, because it seems that the media is determined to pigeon-hole each candidate based on a false premise. Why isn't anyone correcting them?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

1. Simple: he finished a term, ran for prez before, and was the VP nominee

All this is much more than 2 years of the senate. Plus, his prez and VP runs gave him added political experience and increase the perception of him as a seasoned politician.

When he ran last time with only 4 years of experience in the senate by 2003 his experience was questioned.

[rodeodance]

2. and Edwards has given more detailed plans on many issues while Obama

seems a bit vague and fuzzy.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

3. Yes, that helps Edwards and hurts Obama too

Maybe if Obama focused more on issues instead of personality he wouldn't have this problem.

[TeamJordan23]

22. What is the relevance of running for president on experience to be President? nm

[jaysunb]

24. Please stop making sense...

:rofl:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. For one, you have to develop a platform for your presidency

That increases your knowledge of the issues, you have to go through a campaign on national issues during which you are constantly asked about and speaking about national issues.

[TeamJordan23]

30. And so you don't think months of constant campaigning by all the candidates thus far

has not put them on equal footing on that point?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. It certainly has improved Obama's experience nt

[TeamJordan23]

34. Maybe Al Sharpton should get in the race. He has a lot of experience in running for Pres. nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

42. Yes, but he has no elected experience

BTW, who do you think would be perceived as more politically experienced? Al Sharpton or Sean Hannity?

[Hippo_Tron]

54. One of my professors actually argued that campaining and governing involve the same skills

And that those who are good at one are good at the other. He also wrote the book about how negative campaigning is good. He's probably the least cynical person about the American political system I've ever met.

[Inuca]

64. Your professor is wrong

The statement does not make much sense on so many levels.

[Hippo_Tron]

75. I think it's partly true

Getting legislation passed is very similar to campaigning. You have to go on the road and speak to the American People. The only difference is that you're speaking about legislation and not about yourself.

Also, one of the President's jobs is party leader, and that means you have to be constantly campaigning to get members of your party elected to office and to defeat people in the opposition party.

In terms of foreign policy, and other duties of the President, those have little to do with campaigning skills.

[ripple]

23. But why isn't it questioned now?

Campaigning doesn't count as experience in my book. The only thing we truly have to look at is a candidate's voting record. It's easy to armchair quarterback when one doesn't have constituents to answer to.

But my point is really about how our media so easily and falsely stereotypes our candidates. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but sometimes it does seem as though they are trying to manipulate public perception.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. He now has 6 years and the creation of a poverty center under his belt

Plus, as I said, the fact that he ran last time and then ran as VP helps him, both in actual experience and in helping increase the perception of him as experienced enough.

Obama is one of the most inexperienced candidates ever so that makes it an even larger issue in his case. Who is the last presidential candidate with less experience than Obama?

==The only thing we truly have to look at is a candidate's voting record. It's easy to armchair quarterback when one doesn't have constituents to answer to.==

This is ironic since Obama's campaign would not exist if it weren't for his armchair quarterbacking. ;) His voting record has been hardly consistent with his rhetoric when he was just an armchair quarterback.

[TeamJordan23]

31. What has Edwards done for poverty in his Senate experience? nm

[ripple]

36. When Obama opposed the invasion,

he still had to answer to his constituents. And he opposed it when it was highly unpopular for anyone- elected official or not- to oppose Bush's 'war on terra'. That's not at all the same as what Edwards is doing now.

Obama is one of the most inexperienced candidates ever so that makes it an even larger issue in his case. Who is the last presidential candidate with less experience than Obama?

John Edwards.

Obama has considerably more elected experience than Edwards, so if he is one of the least experienced candidates ever, that must make Edwards woefully inexperienced. I like Edwards, but the bottom line is that he has had less experience than Obama as an elected official.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

43. Yes, but what does reviving the IWR card to bash JE have to do with the OP?

I guess this has to be classified as another thread in the Team Obama offensive against Edwards since the latest Iowa poll...

Yes, and Obama was anti-war when he represented a liberal district. When he moved to the senate he sided with the Hillary Clinton view, not the Jack Murtha view on the war in the fall of 2005. In June of 2006 he sided with the Hillary wing of the party and voted against Kerry-Feingold--which would have ended the war this month. He once again sided with the Hillary wing of the party by opposing cutting off funding for the escalation.

Edwards? Supported Kerry-Feingold, supported cutting off funds for the escalation, and did not endorse Holy Joe (Obama campaigned for Holy Joe and is alleged to be the one who lead the standing ovation for Holy Joe earlier this year when the new Congress was sworn in). The argument can be made that Obama has shifted in the opposite direction on Iraq as Edwards. Obama was right in 2002; wrong since.

==John Edwards.

Obama has considerably more elected experience than Edwards, so if he is one of the least experienced candidates ever, that must make Edwards woefully inexperienced. I like Edwards, but the bottom line is that he has had less experience than Obama as an elected official.==

Edwards had 4 years in the senate, twice as much as Obama. Obama is not even done half his term. Only Obama supporters think state legislative experience qualifies one to be president. That is part of the disconnect between Obama supporters and the rest of the country on this. They can't see why everyone else doesn't think experience in the minors qualifies one for the most powerful position in the world.

[ripple]

46. This is fair criticism

And mainly of the media. Edwards' legislative record is entirely relevant, as the sum of his elected political experience is his Senate term. What he has said since he's been out of office and campaigning for president (for four + years) should be taken with a large grain of salt, even from his supporters. It would be naive to think that if he were holding elected office now, particularly as a US Senator, that he would take the strong stances he's taking today. His elected experience and the positions he took in that role are key.

I certainly don't think experience trumps other factors. Hell, Lieberman has more experience than most of our candidates. For me, judgment is far more important than experience.

I'm just irritated with the press for not being even-handed about the issue- not surprised, just heavily annoyed.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

49. Everyone thinks judgment is vital

However, people look at different things to assess judgment. Obama supporters forget this in their focus on the IWR but we nominated a IWR voter last time, an IWR voter finished 2nd, and Dean quickly fizzled out after IWR voters finished 1-2-4 in Iowa (with over 80% of the vote). The IWR is not the magic litmus test that should grant Obama the nomination on a silver platter that many Obama supporters think it is. Just look at the polls today. If the IWR was politically such a big deal HRC would not be at 40%.

==What he has said since he's been out of office and campaigning for president (for four + years) should be taken with a large grain of salt, even from his supporters==

That cuts both ways. We should also do the same with what Obama said before he got to Congress. Instead he is running a campaign largely on what he said in 2002 and what he did in the senate is ignored by his campaign and his supporters. The only time I even see BO supporters talk about senate records is when they are using it to paint Edwards as a fraud. ;)

There are also many other things people look at when choosing a candidate, particularly their platforms. Some people look at it more than others. Just take a look at the threads posted here by supporters of candidates. Look at the topics of those threads. You'll notice supporters of a each candidate tend to focus more on certain things.

[ripple]

53. I actually agree with much of what you said

and as I defended Kerry's vote online in a number of forums(as a Kansan, I thought my efforts might be more useful in swing state forums), I knew in my heart that he voted for the damned thing for political reasons- as did Edwards an Clinton. The difference with that, though, is that Kerry had a long, solid record that was easy to defend. Edwards has only his words.

I have no problem with Obama voting to fund a war that he vocally opposed, but that was waged all the same. It's tough to put the genie back into the bottle, which is what Edwards seems to be asking. It might have been better to keep the cork in, if you ask me.

At this point, left of Hillary is Edwards' best position- a fact that I'm sure he's well aware of. That doesn't match up with where he was politically a few years ago, which makes me skeptical.

Again, though, the point of my OP has far more to do with media bias than it has to do with Edwards. :)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

69. I think it is clear if HRC or JE were president in 2003 we would not have had this war

So the notion promoted by some (not you) that they are the same as * on this is wrong.

==The difference with that, though, is that Kerry had a long, solid record that was easy to defend. Edwards has only his words.==

That is by default the case with new politicians. ;)

==I have no problem with Obama voting to fund a war that he vocally opposed, but that was waged all the same.==

Neither do I. My problem is with him opposing Kerry-Feingold and defunding the escalation. Still, I will have to say, overall, on Iraq Obama has the edge over everyone in the field aside from Kucinich. I don't like him being marketed as an anti-war crusader, though, because as soon as he became a national figure he became Hillary-lite. Kucinich is the only true anti-war candidate in the race IMO.

==At this point, left of Hillary is Edwards' best position- a fact that I'm sure he's well aware of.==

Perhaps but he did not have to go as far as he has. He could have essentially had the same platform as her and been rhetorically more progressive. People forget that Obama was not considered a potential candidate until last fall. Edwards could have easily chosen to occupy the ground Obama currently is.

==That doesn't match up with where he was politically a few years ago, which makes me skeptical.==

As it should. First, though, I think the extent of his shift is over-hyped. Second, you have to take into account that Edwards was a newcomer to politics in 1998. This is a guy who would not even vote regularly before he entered politics! Is it really that hard to believe that as he learned the issues, as he criss-crossed the country campaigning and saw the consequences of policies on people that he shifted slightly to the left? Many other Democrats have done the same and after a long political career and have been viewed as sincere. I find Edwards' shift more believable than that of someone who was in politics for 20-25 years and then suddenly "saw the light." I think such things need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, though. I do find it interesting how Obama supporters attack the records of Clinton and Edwards while hiding behind Obama's scant record. It is hard to paint Obama as a flip-flopper because his record is so short. However, even if you look at his 2 years you can still find some things--like you could with any politician--and paint him as a flip-flopper, i.e. voting against a pro-coal bill that was the same as one he actually sponsored earlier, against a timetable for withdrawal and then for it, for "certain conditions" and then against them, etc.

==Again, though, the point of my OP has far more to do with media bias than it has to do with Edwards.==

Well, it got sidetracked--as many threads do. I like discussing with you so I continued it. We disagree on the basic points about Edwards, Obama, and the experience issue but have been able to do so in a civil manner. :toast:

[ripple]

72. Agreed d_m_c

I'm glad we can discuss these issues in a civil manner, as it certainly makes for a much more productive conversation. :)

If Edwards were my number one choice, I would likely be arguing many of the same points you are, and I'm guessing the same could be said of you if Obama were your first choice. I find it somewhat amusing to see the spin from the supporters of any given candidate any time something even slightly controversial hits the news or blogosphere. Many of the same things we would criticize another candidate for are the very things we will vigorously defend if our own candidate does them. I'm probably as guilty of that as anyone else. :silly:


When it comes down to it, though, Edwards and Obama are both very good candidates and either one would make a fine president.:toast:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

73. I agree on all counts

Especially about the spin. :evilgrin:

[quinnox]

4. Obama is the least experienced

Obama started his term in 2004, he is currently serving his first term in the U.S. Senate.

Edwards already has completed a full 6 year term and was a VP nominee in 2004.

Hillary has already completed one full senate term and is serving her second.
As first lady she visited and met with many leaders of many countries all over the world. She also had a major proposal regarding health care, she was obviously a major partner of Bill Clinton in his presidency. That is why it is talked about, she wasn't a typical first lady.

Most people (and that includes media people) apparently don't consider experience in a state senate as big time political experience, except for Obama supporters, surprisingly.

[Like It Is]

5. Joe Biden is the most experienced.

And the best candidate we could possibly put up to beat the Republicans in the General Election.

[AndyTiedye]

45. Gag! Biden Would Be Lucky to Come Within 10 Points of the Repigs

[Like It Is]

50. That's your lame opinion.

Biden would destroy any candidate the republicans offer. Hillary, Obama and Edwards will lose if nominated, you can take that to the bank.

[AndyTiedye]

52. How Would He Do That? He Isn't Exactly Tearing Up the Field Right Now

Biden just isn't much of a candidate. He has also pissed away the youth vote with his underhanded dealings to push the Rave Act through.

He does not come across well on TV, so Guiliani or Thompson would mop the floor with him.

I agree with you about our current MSM-annoited "front-runners". Unelectable.

WE GOTTA HAVE GORE!

[Like It Is]

58. Young people don't vote.

Biden would destroy Giuliani and Thompson, or any other Repug.

[Inuca]

66. IMHO Biden comes across very well on TV

most of the times at least. And he can be a great debater. Notice the good "reviews" he got for the debates so far, though he did not have many opportunities to speak. In a debate with fewer participants (say two), he is likely to "mop the floor" with almost any republican (maybe not Gingritch, hope he stays out because I think he can be very dangerous). There is also a chance that he will put his foot in his mouth, but I honestly believe that his reputation for doing this is exagerated. He can get carried away when he does not pay enough attention, but he is aware of this and I have the feeling that in important situations he is careful not to get carried away. Ah, and by the way, I think Thompson is a joke.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

70. It is too early to count Biden out imo nt

[Blue-Jay]

56. My bank doesn't accept a sack full of shit as legal tender.

[Like It Is]

59. Then stick it where the sun doesn't shine. n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

7. Obama had years of legislative experience in Illinois before going

to the senate. Also had extensive experience as a lawyer, law school professor, headed a civil rights organization.

Hillary shook hands with people at state dinners. First Lady experience is not real experience at all. Her so-called health initiative nearly sank the Clinton administration and was largely responsible for the republican take-over in 94.

Edwards is the only candidate who made his career out of opposing powerful corporations instead of soliciting donations from them.

See how 'experience' can be spun and twisted?

[question everything]

47. You cannot compare state experience to federal

especially in terms of foreign relations and national security which is where the experience, or lack thereof debate is, and which matters most to voters.

From a recent Nation commentary:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20070724/cm_thenation/3217102

Clinton, with her years as First Lady and her stint as a member of the Senate armed services committee, and Edwards, with his tenure on the Senate intelligence committee, are steeped in the nuances, language, and minefields of foreign policy. (Among the second-tier candidates, Senator Joe Biden, Senator Chris Dodd, and New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson can boast extensive national security experience.) Though Obama was against the Iraq war before he was a senator, he has not developed his foreign policy chops. That's understandable; he's only been on the national scene for two years. (Prior to that, he was doing admirable work as a state legislator, a civil rights attorney, and a community organizer.) So he is more prone to commit mistakes in this area--perhaps stupid mistakes--that can be easily exploited by his opponents. And in the post-9/11 era, there's not much room in national politics for such errors.

[Hippo_Tron]

55. Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter had no experience by your definition

And I think both of them did pretty well in the realm of foreign policy.

[question everything]

63. Sorry, I should have said "state legislation"

Of course a governor is the best experience - as are mayors of big cities, generals and CEOs.

And, in that context, a senator is not much of an experience, either.

Governors and other executives have to propose a plan, prepare a budget and then use their resources, or seek more, to implement their plans.

Senators just talk. After all, the Senate has been described as the biggest debate chamber. All they are responsible to is running their offices. I suppose Edwards, having had his own law practice, had to deal with budget and available resources, too.

This is why the last senator to win was JFK 47 years ago.

A state legislator really is not faced with the enormous executive decisions that a president will be faced. When was the last time a state legislator won the presidency?

Which is why many of us think that Obama could benefit enormously by going back home to Illinois, running for governor there and then return in 2016 for a winning race, no doubt.

Carter was one of the worst president in modern history, not having a minimal understanding - still does not - of the nuances of foreign policy, of the different cultures and history that includes generations of animosity in the world. As a "born again" who started the disastrous introduction of religion into the White House, he saw foreign policy from the POV of a bright eyes altar boy convinced that all you need is ask people to play nice because this is what god expects of them.

Clinton did not run on foreign policy platform and while we praise him for an across the board prosperity at home, it is accepted that his foreign policy could have been better.

[Hippo_Tron]

74. Okay what exactly could they have done better in foreign policy?

Carter weathered out the hostage crisis with the patience not to start an all-out war with Iran. Unless you believe the bullshit that "Reagan looked them in the eye and they released the hostages" then Carter ultimately was responsible for getting them released. He brokered a major peace deal between Israel and Egypt, one of the first major steps in getting Israel and its Arab neighbors to negotiate. He also was probably the first President since the start of the cold war that believed that installing right-wing dictators just for the sake of being anti-communist was a dumb idea. Carter rejected the brutal regimes in Central America installed by Nixon and later Reagan.

Also remember that Carter proposed an ambitious plan for renewable energy. Think about how much different the world would be if we'd started doing serious work on renewable energy 30 years ago instead of today.

Clinton also brokered an Israeli peace deal, pursued Bin Laden and Al Qaeda far more than Bush ever has, and stopped a genocide. I'd say that both of them did better than any post WWII Republican in the realm of foreign policy, as well as LBJ. Kennedy and Truman may have them beat.

Additionally, I disagree with your analysis. I don't think it's necessary to be an "executive" before you're President, but we'll just agree to disagree. Also, being a Senator has little to do with talking except for when you are on the stump campaigning or fundraising. The speeches made on the Senate floor have little consequence these days, since there is very little actual debate. Being a Senator is largely about backroom negotiations with other Senators, persuading them to pass your legislation. Presidents have to do the exact same thing to get their programs passed.

And finally, Carter may have been open about his faith, but he never used it to force his beliefs on other people or to propose that other candidates had to pass litmus tests proving that they were as faithful as he was. That was started under Reagan.

[durrrty libby]

9. You nailed it. The Clintons are known and respected around the world

That is a huge and wonderful get.

Working in the isolated and cloistered environment of the state is not international or even

national experience

It is quite simple to understand and it appears to be only a small group here,

who don't get it, or pretend not to.

[quinnox]

11. Or they say it is a strength

There are two different approaches I have seen Obama fans use, one is Obama's lack of experience is a plus, because Lincoln didn't have any either. (or something, anyway, the strange point is experience = bad)

The other one is Obama actually has the experience. And is not inexperienced at all. {The Obama supporter that replied to my post made this argument.}

It is hard to cover because this is Obama's main weakness as a candidate and all the spinning in the world doesn't cover it.

[zulchzulu]

37. So we should just ignore the adultery part of the equation...

There is plenty to not like about the Clintons and how they can say one thing and do another, but they certainly have some "baggage" with the history of their relationship. Besides the embarrassment of the Monica Years (it was Bill who lied to you and I), we can thank the "experience" of NAFTA and the Telecommunications Act for starters.

Some of us aren't too keen on re-runs of the same 'ol, same 'ol. Especially when the same 'ol, same 'ol says it's about "change".

[zulchzulu]

33. I guess math is not your strong suit...Obama is MORE experienced

Obama
8 years as State Senator in Illinois
3 years as Senator in Illinois

8 + 3 = 11

Clinton
7 years as Senator in New York
8 years as First Lady (not a legislative position, so 0 is the number. I if you count failed healthcare attempts, so we'll give you 1)

7 + 1 = 8

Edwards
4 years as Senator in North Carolina

4 + 0 = 4

Last I checked, 11 is 3 more little fingers than 8.

Maybe this is more illustrative:
Obama :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Clinton :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
Edwards :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Understand?

[Like It Is]

51. How about factoring in Biden, 34 thumbs up. n/t

[durrrty libby]

60. I've been cooking since I was 5. It doesn't make me qualified

to be head chef at The Hilton

It's not the numbers. It's the perception of the quality of the numbers,

and the polls disagree with you. Start with Iowa

[zulchzulu]

65. Start with Iowa...indeed...

My betting money has Obama winning Iowa. I'll be there next weekend to see what's going on.

Right now, a poll has Edwards at 27, Clinton at 22 and Obama at 16. Five months remain until the caucus and the Obama ground game will be solid. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/27/edwards-romney-lead-in-iowa-poll/



Name recognition worked for Gephardt in 2004 up to a certain point. Last I checked, there is no President Gephardt.

We shall see...

[BlueStater]

76. Uh, Edwards was a senator for six years, not four

1999-2005 = 6 years

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. Republicans would attack either Edwards or Obama over lack of xxperience

That is simply a given. Hillary, they have other plans for her.

[maximusveritas]

15. but are they any better on experience?

Romney has 4 years as Governor. Giuliani has 8 years as mayor.
That's about the same Edwards and Obama have.
I don't think you can say that one is more experienced than the other.
If anything, the Republicans have much less foreign policy experience.

[Tom Rinaldo]

21. Good point. But the G.O.P specializes in pushing false myths

So for example they would package Guiliani as a tough and experienced leader capable of leading America's struggle against Muslim extremists based mostly on the fact that he didn't freeze while reading a children's book when 9/11 happened on his watch. Instead he helped rally a nation blah blah. It's nonsense but they pull this crap off all of the time. Rudi was a tough prosecutor, Rudi ran the criminals out of NYC etc. They will invent national security credibility for Rommney based on his having headed up the Olympics, followed by all of that steely resolve he showed as commander in chief of Massachusetts. It's a shell game for them, by the time they are through swithing the cups around they hope folks forget that acting tough is not the same thing as being experienced. Hell they already elected one tough talking actor President.

'Course McCain could play the experience card with less cheating, but he's saddled with being pro Iraq War now among other things.

[jaysunb]

8. Very thoughtful post.....

and a very provocative question as well.

Maybe the answers lies in the realm of: who's doing the labeling ? Is the media planting these seeds of who is and what the criteria should be for a person to seek the position....
Or do good campaign strategy seed these perceptions ( strawmen )to their own advantage ?

I suspect the "planted perception" is a combination of both the above, this is why non establishment ( i.e. non media/corporate favorite )candidates have to raise & spend so much money to try and overcome these " planted ideas ."

It's a combination of "free media" and corporate "payback" that keeps--as well as elects-- most of the hacks that now run this country.

The people can only be heard when they inform themselves and vote accordingly. Our job is to inform whenever and however possible.

[LWolf]

10. I have no problem with saying

that I think Edwards is a little "light" on experience. Edwards has a better platform by far than Obama, but the experience factor is about equal.

[illinoisprogressive]

12. the media allows Hillary to borrow Bill's resume as her own but, will not

recognize the actual experience Obama had in the state senate. blatant bias.

[durrrty libby]

19. Can't recognize something that is not there. Then again you

are good at seeing apparitions

[zehnkatzen]

13. I have a hypothesis about that...

...I think oppo tailors the public doubt to the public perception. They don't want it to be despicable or dastardly, because Jack and Jill Average still have a tiny kernel of decent behavior in them.

To wit: while Obama is mocked for being 'inexperienced', he isn't mocked for much else. He's a good fellow, and they don't have much to hang on him, so they're going with that.

Edwards is a bit easier. He's kinda rich, so it's easy to pretend his advocacy for the poor is only opportunism. The expensive clothes and haircuts are just a bonus. People will buy into a noblesse oblige rich white dude, and Obama is a minority in high political life (which is still, sadly, new to most people). So they go with the rich spoiled white boy who rides in on the backs of poor folks in the case of Edwards, and inexperience in the case of Obama.

Hillary, then, comes with so much baggage that she's even easier, but they seem to go with the shrieking-bitch-harridan meme because, hey, it's always worked before, and it's always been okay to say shameful crap about a Clinton (remember what they said about Chelsea? And what they still say?), because, hey, after all, didn't they kill people out in Arkansas?

You all will have to review the candidates on your own, but notice they have a standard unique negative characterization. At least that's what I see. And that negative suit stands as The Reason This One Cannot Possibly Serve, so other weaknesses are usually shined on.

It's just an outgrowth of our public political-social discourse, that can't hold more than one and a half semi-coherent ideas at a time.

[illinoisprogressive]

14. I had not thought about that. the need for something not so good.

[zehnkatzen]

16. Yes. That and more...

...the need for something not-so-good that speaks directly to the negative perception you want the people to buy right away. it simplifies things greatly. Once you have that bridgehead made in an opponents' public character, everything else becomes possible.

Of course, as said before, you can say anything you want about a Clinton. They are doubleplusungood.

[AndyTiedye]

29. That is Why Our Candidates Run 10-20 Points Behind a "Generic" Democrat

That 10-20 points is all the baggage that the Mighty Slime Machine has heaped upon our candidates,
and it is going to make it very difficult, if not impossible, for any of them to be elected.

[Tom Rinaldo]

38. Which is a reason why I still want Clark in the race

The strongest memes that the Right & Media alliance developed to fight Clark were memes that were used against him to tarnish his appeal to liberal Democrats in primaries. They wanted him off the radar screen back in 2003 before he could make it to the General Election.

Of course a Wes Clark, or a James Webb is going to get attacked, but the Right can't so easily recycle their cookie cutter pre-fab made for generic Democrats assaults on them, which means the attack lines that they come up with don't resonate as deeply with the public, they aren't rooted as deep from a decade or more of repetition.

[AndyTiedye]

44. It's Getting Pretty Late for Clark to Jump In

Long campaigns work against Democrats (mostly because the Mighty Slime Machine works against Democrats, and slime always sticks when applied heavily enough).
For that reason, staying out of the race as long as possible may be a good strategy, up to a point. That point depends on name recognition and the ability to get your message out.

For Clark, that point is either fast approaching or has already passed. Probaby so for most other Democrats as well.

Al Gore could jump in very late,
because he is very well known already,
he already won once (and had it stolen),
and he is doing a VERY good job of getting his message out despite the Repiglickin media.
He is campaigning already — it's just not a Presidential campaign — but he is in a really good place to launch one from.

[Tom Rinaldo]

61. I think Labor Day is about the cut off for Clark - Gore later

Don't want to take this thread too far astray, so I will point you to a piece I posted at DU about the dynamics between Gore, Clark, and the nomination:

Gore, Clark, Kos, and the 2008 Election
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3398333

Also this post explaining how I think Clark could still enter and win (if Gore doesn't enter):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3412833&mesg_id=3412912

[zehnkatzen]

39. Amen to that, brother.

And this is precisely why the Fairness Doctrine needs to be revived. That's just my opinion, of course, but I have noticed that while a lot of people acknowledge that fairness is, in fact, A Good Thing, they are against it in so far as it will justly damage them.

[snowbear]

17. The media doesn't discuss Rudy's lack of experience either..

Just because he happened to be NYC's mayor during the September 11th attack, why the hell should he be considered for president of the United States?

Who knows?

But the GOP who claim to be anti-choice.. the GOP who claim to be anti-gay rights.. the GOP who claim to be against gun restrictions will throw all that away to elect the guy.

It's a combination of 3 things.. He's good at bullshitting, the GOP don't really give a damn about their so-called agenda, and the media LOVE Rudy and Hillary.

...

[AndyTiedye]

27. Rudy Will Get a Free Pass on EVERYTHING All the Way to Nov 2008 and Beyond

Rudy is a Republican!

[saltpoint]

18. He meets all Constitutional criteria and leads in Iowa.

I don't think the Constitution is ambiguous on qualifications and I don't think Iowa Democrats are stupid.

[Milo_Bloom]

20. He isn't really taken seriously.

The media doesn't see Edwards as a serious candidate, because he trails behind a man who hasn't announced that he is running yet.

The whole "experience" thing is way overplayed anyway. Being "President" is such a radically different job than anything any of these people have done before, and the challenges different each week, month and year, that experience takes a back seat to good old fashioned judgment.

[AndyTiedye]

25. "Lack of Experience" is the Obama Talking Point, "The Haircut" is the Edwards Talking Point

It really doesn't take much to take down one of our candidates when you have the Mighty Slime Machine at your disposal.

[smalll]

35. Because there are so many other fish to shoot in that particular barrel -

the haircuts, the sub-prime-enabling hedge fund, the house, the use of his wife to attempt to mollify certain constiuencies (viz, the gays) when the candidate himself can't bring himself to take that step - (he has personal issues, don't you see, they want "to snake him") --

the snake-oil, jury-charming calculated smarm of a successful trial lawyer, the taste for hyperbole ("all my life" -- "'They' want to shut me up" -- etc, etc) -- the tendency to tell stories about life-transformative epiphanies while looking into one's son's dying eyes (and forgetting that you told them before) the just general overall air of transparent sociopathy that hovers over the man --

so many fishies to shoot, so little time -- and this is why I laugh at people here who contend that there is some kind of media conspiracy to do Edwards down -- there's no media conspiracy; sure, the media loves to destroy candidates, to pull the veil away from them and reveal them to the general populace to be hollow beings, sure, the media lusts after the Muskie-crying, Risky-Business, etc. moment. But why in hell do you think they have taken after Edwards? Just because it's so easy. You rob banks because that's where the money is - same principle.

[saltpoint]

40. As pointed out upthread, the "experience" component was not perceived

to be a factor weighing against the nomination and campaign of John Edwards in his race against incumbent Republican Lauch Faircloth in the North Carolina Senate contest.

Voters in that state chose the young John Edwards, a trial attorney, over 2-term Republican Faircloth.

Edwards won with 51% of the vote to Faircloth's 47%; the rest divvied up among third-party candidates.

Strong demographic test there in North Carolina, and Edwards passed it. And I assure you that Lauch Faircloth's leaving the Senate is hardly an intolerable loss.

[Hippo_Tron]

57. IMO, experience is a plus, not a necessity, period...

[BluegrassDem]

41. Edwards is white...when you're white, you're alright

I'm sorry, I just gotta tell the truth. Everyone knows in this country that a black man has to have twice the experience and education to be as qualified as a white man. It's the same in politics. If Obama were white, they wouldn't be talking about his lack of experience as much as they do. That's the sad truth.

[tritsofme]

48. Because his campaign is a non-starter

And its more interesting to talk up the likely candidates which are HRC and Obama.

[saltpoint]

62. I think that's an element that comes into play, yes, but the same was

said for George McGovern's campaign for the nomination in 1972 -- that it was a nonstarter and that the party establishment would fall into formation for Hubert Humphrey. But it was McGovern's fastball that had the zip that time, and the establishmentarian Democratic machine had to adjust and accommodate. The soreheads refused to support McGovern because early on they'd dismissed him and could not bear to be shown wrong. The nation didn't like him much and IN THEIR SOUND JUDGMENT elected Richard Nixon to a second term by landslide proportions.

It goes without saying that McGovern would have been the far better choice.

[Dawgs]

67. A better question would be... Why wasn't Edwards experience a problem in 2004?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

71. It was

The reason it did not get as much coverage as Obama's inexperience is because Edwards was a non-factor until Iowa. Obama has been hyped as the Second Coming since the fall of 2006.

[sampsonblk]

68. Because he's not a factor in the race, that's why

nt

[cleveramerican]

77. We haven't elected a senator president since 1960

So I'm not sure more experience in the senate helps any of them.

[bklyncowgirl]

78. I agree, that's one of the reasons I don't support him in the primaries.

Experience and judgment are very important to me along with a candidate's stand on the issues.

I like Edwards on the issues but his lack of experience bothers me and in my opinion his judgment in not only voting for but promoting the Iraq War Resolution was atrocious.
Score Edwards: One plus, two minuses.

As for the other candidates:

I am not as close to Clinton on the issues and like Edwards her judgment on the Iraq war was faulty. On the other hand, her experience as First Lady makes me think she could hit the ground running if she became President--I'm just not sure I'm going to always like the direction she's running it in.
Score Clinton: One plus, two minuses.

Barak Obama gets a plus for me for his early opposition to the Iraq war and the way he's run his campaign so far has confirmed my impression of his judgment. I don't know of anything horrible regarding his stands on the issues but his lack of executive experience bothers me.
Score Obama: Two plusses, one minus.

Bill Richardson: He had nothing to do with our getting us into the Iraq war although he appears to have been a supporter--not good but not as bad as voting for it without bothering to read any dissenting opinions in the intelligence reports. Has a great deal of executive experience which is a plus. I like most of his current stands on the issues.
Score Richardson: Two plusses, 1/2 minus.

The only guy who gets all pluses from me is Gore. If he gets in the race he's my candidate. Right now it's Richardson but Barak Obama could still make me a believer.