New Approach to Obama's EXPERIENCE Issue

[musicblind]

Look I live the experience threads... but here is how it goes regarding Obama’s “experience”.

Community Organizer: Great, but he’s not running for head of the boy scouts.

Lawyer: Great but he’s not running for head of a law firm.

State Senator: I have been to my state senate and I have been to the Senate in Washington DC. These two things do not compare. It would be like owning and managing a local McDonald’s and then claiming that you have the experience to become McDonald’s CEO.

Senator: That is pretty good experience. It is as good experience as you are going to get in the legislative branch. I am impressed by this. However, this is also experience held by both Clinton and Edwards.

I have a great resume in entertainment, it doesn’t mean I am qualified to run Warner Bros. The experience needs to be specific to the job you are applying for.

Obama has a lot of experience doing things that do not qualify him to be president. I know, I know … you will just come back with some snide remark saying something along the lines of “Like the experience of voting for the war” because you don’t want to take the time to think of an intelligent answer so that we can have a civil discussion… but if you ACTUALLY want to turn people in favor of Obama, stop pretending he has experience when he does not and say the dirty truth… experience doesn’t matter that much. An Obama supporter recently explained it to me (and this made me think)… The explanation went: while Obama does not have experience it does not matter. It is about Obama’s judgment. That is what matters. Experience isn’t that important because presidents SURROUND themselves with advisors and experts in every field. They will maintain the experience factor for him; they will provide all information he needs. Obama needs to make judgments, and he is the best at making judgments out of all the candidates. Look at how he made good judgments regarding the war in Iraq.

So, as of right now, I still support Hillary. BUT this Obama supporter made an EXCELLENT point and I have to say, I kinda agree. If you would prefer me to support your candidate then the best to do this is not to belittle me or my candidate. Instead, start a kind civil discussion about your candidate and I will gladly listen.

That is the road that Obama supporters need to take if they really want to win this argument. They are not going to win it by trying to pretend that being a state senator, or a lawyer, or a community organizers compares to being THE FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA for 8 years and seeing first hand how the white house is run.

It is possible for Obama’s team to win this argument. It just takes a new approach.

Thanks :)

(forgive the grammer and spelling... was in a hurry lol)

[Diamonique]

1. I agree with you about his experience (or lack thereof), but...

... the argument you suggest won't fly.

It's the same argument the Republicans used for Bush in 2000. "He will surround himself with knowledgeable, experienced people. And he did. Cheney, Rove, Ashcroft, Rice, Gonzales, Meiers, etc. etc."

So... if we try out that argument with Obama, this is what they'll come back with. Although I do believe the people Obama would surround himself with would actually be good people rather than blood-thirsty neocon idiots, it wouldn't matter because the argument is the same and it just gives his opponents something to hit back with.

[musicblind]

2. hmm...

but i think that Obama's judgment is a LOT better than Bush.

Edwards is a good candidate too btw. I have been strong for both him and Hillary.

[cali]

3. LOL!

It's always a riot watching Edwards supporters engage in this. Obama has been a U.S. Senator for 3 years. Edwards was a U.S Senator for 6. Obama was a State Senator for 7 years. He has more time in elected office than Edwards.

[aein]

4. Of Course

Bush, up to that time had failed at everything he had ever tried to do. Obama has succeeded.

[musicblind]

10. bush is a retard

Oh I agree, Obama's judgment cannot be compared with Bush. I do not believe he would make any of the same mistakes that numbnut has made while in office. Though I do not think that Hillary or Edwards would make as many mistakes as Bush either.

[kurth]

5. Give him a chance to grow into the job

with an illustrious and experienced council of counselors, high counselors and lobbyists.

[bellasgrams]

6. I agree completely. Presidents without experience have to

surround themselves with advisors. We've just seen a president with no knowledge in foreign affairs, nego., nothing. Look what we ended up with. Rove, Perle, Wolfowitz, Rummy, Card, Rice and the actual president-Cheney. I would rather have someone with the ability to stand on their own. Listen to all advisors and then be smart enough to decide what to do. Hillary is now my first choice but I would have liked, Rickardson, Biden and Dodd to stick around longer, they're far more prepared for the job than the 2 men that are left.

[cali]

8. yes. Lincoln was a terrible President.

Could you be any more lame?

[musicblind]

12. lame?

Did I say that Obama would be a terrible president? No, I simply tried to give a winnable argument to your candidate.

Interesting how you attack me personally and call ME lame intsead of stating that my argument doesn't match your standard.

[cali]

15. Look, Obama has as much experience as

Lincoln had. Perhaps that doesn't mean anything to you. Obama has as much experience as Stevenson had. And certainly, Obama has as much experience as Edwards, and I don't see you saying anything about that. Clinton's experience just is not all that much greater than Obama's. And lord knows, her judgment is far more flawed. As Senator Leahy said, you don't give the admin a blank check. Hell, she didn't even read the intelligence reports. That's truly flawed judgement.

[Muttocracy]

19. bingo n/t

[RaleighNCDUer]

22. To be fair, Bush's problem is not that he had no experience.

It's that he had no INTEREST in foreign affairs.

The slacker president.

[cali]

7. Oh really? And who the fuck do you think you are to set

rules as to what constitutes experience? State Senator doesn't count? How interesting. Sorry, but 7 years as a State Senator is most certainly experience, pumpkin. Does Clinton have more experience? Yes. Does Obama have enough? Absolutely. As much as Lincoln, and as much as Stevenson. Unlike your type, I don't engage in dishonest crap. I acknowledge Clinton's experience in the White House as counting for something. And she's spent longer in the Senate, but your claim that he has no experience is simply a pile of crap. And thoroughly dishonest crap at that.

[musicblind]

9. civil

I stated that he has experience, just not experience that, in my opinion, that qualifies him to be president. I think most, reasonable, people would agree that State Senate experience doesn't hold much of a candle to being president. He does have experience as a national Senator.

However, as I pointed out (considering I was very nice about Obama, and even congratulated his judgment on the Iraq War), instead of making a civil argument for your candidate... you curse, belittle me, and call me a liar. All that does is make your own candidate look badly.

It is not a lie to point out that being in the State Senate does not amount to much when you are running for President of the United States of America. It would be a good resume if you were running to be a member of the United States Congress.

So try and keep it civil, as I have done.

[cali]

13. I don't have much patience for dishonest bullshit

and you continue your dishonesty in this post. Please explain why serving in the Illinois Senate for 7 years is not relevant experience. Please explain why 3 years in the U.S. Senate isn't experience. I have no patience with people who belittle Clinton's time in the White House and I have no more for people who claim that 7 years in the State Senate isn't relevant either.

I half wish I could be as dishonest as you and pull the being first lady and not even having a security clearance isn't experience, but I don't do dishonest.

[musicblind]

17. still need to clam down

Um, you must not have read my post above where I stated that his experience in the national Senate WAS qualifying experience to be in the White House.

I also made a very good arguement regarding the State Senate. The sate senate is on a much much smaller level than the national senate and even smaller level than the presidency. I pointed out that if you were a local regional director... that wouldn't qualify you to be national director. It might qualify you to be state director. I also used the McDonald's example.

Obama has experience making local state laws. That is not experience that is in anyway closely connected with the decisions he will have to make in the White House. It is not experience that is connected to the White House at all. I am perfectly willing to discuss why I do not think that State Senate is a qualifier to be in the White House. It is a nice plus to mention on the resume, but i don't think it is a qualifier.

Being in the national Senate does make him qualified. But other candidates have also served in the National Senate for longer than he has.

I think the best arguement is his judgement, and you can use the Iraq War to defend that arguement. Though I wonder what he would have done if he had been in the Senate at the time... he still has opposing that war from the start on his record as a plus.

But please do not pretend that State Senate makes you qualified to be president.

I am not one of those irrational Hillbots, or crazy Edwards supporters. I support these candidates strongly, but I never let support cloud my judgement and have never bad mouthed or made a personal attack on Obama. Even over the gay rights issues that some try to pin him on, and I'm GAY.

I am simply laying things out how I honestly see them.

[indimuse]

11. I agree with you about approach ...but..

I still have issues with Obama's Judgement regarding some of his votes.:shrug:

[musicblind]

14. hmm

Which ones? Just wondering and interested, not accusing.

[indimuse]

20. a few...

Obama voted for President Bush's energy bill, sending more than $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to oil, coal, and nuclear companies.:spank: Obama voted for one of President Bush's top priorities - expanding Nafta to South America - even as President Bush obstructed all the top Democratic priorities.

Obama's vote as a U.S. Senator was in support of confirming Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State.:spank: He also voted to confirm John Negroponte as Director of National Intelligence, despite Negroponte's involvement in Iran-Contra and other issues .Obama also voted for a bill to limit citizens rights to seek legal redress against abusive corporations. During the bankruptcy debate, he helped vote DOWN a Democratic amendment to cap the abusive interest rates credit card companies could charge. And now,:spank: Obama cast a key procedural vote in support of President Bush's right-wing judges.A BIG Lieberman supporter.


Hillary on the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill
by Crystal Pattersonin News5/24/2007 8:54 PMHillary:

"Tonight I voted against the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Bill because it fails to compel the President to give our troops a new strategy in Iraq. I believe that the President should begin a phased redeployment of our troops out of Iraq and abandon this escalation. I fully support our troops, and wish the President had followed the will of the people and signed the original bill we sent which both funded the troops and set a new course of phased redeployment. But the President vetoed Congress's new strategy and so Congress must reject the President's failed policies. I will also continue to press with Senator Byrd for our legislation to end the authorization of the war in Iraq.

[Garbo 2004]

16. By your criteria, Bill Clinton wasn't qualified to be President but Barbara Bush was. n/t

[musicblind]

18. I am a new voter

I am a younger (Obama's demographic actually) voter who did not have the chance to vote for Bill to be the nominee. He may or may not have been the best nominee out of the primaries. I didn't follow that race, I was probably 7 or 8 years old. So I cannot comment on that. I do know he did a good job as president, doesn't mean he was most qualified that primary. Though, again, I can't make a statement on that because I was not present for that primary.

[sandnsea]

21. Judgment, Accomplishments, Harvard Grad

It's been laid out. It's either good enough for you or it's not.