So, what exactly would "experience" make Obama do differently?

[Hubbs]

One of the things that's really befuddled me during this campaign has been the never-ending assault on Obama's comparative lack of political experience. The Hillary "Day One" line was especially irritating - not only because she trained her spokespeople to say it at least 287343748 times in every press appearance, but because she implied that there would be some great difference between how she would go about her first 24 hours as President and how Obama would go about his.

Now, I'm a pro-Obama guy for this November, but it's not because of any party loyalty - the Republican and Democratic party machines are mirror images of each other, as far as I'm concerned. I can at least understand those who criticize Obama for certain policies he offers, and actually agree with some of those criticisms; I think universal healthcare run by the federal government is a terrible idea, for example. But the experience argument drives me crazy, because it may just be the most nebulous and abstract attack in the past decade of political character assassinations.

The basic jist of every experience attack I've heard is, "Something really BAD might happen! And Obama might wet himself and hide under his desk, leaving your children to DIE!" No one ever names any specific instance in which this pants-wetting could occur, and more importantly, no one really explains how another four years of attaching earmarks to bills and voting along party lines in the Senate would make Obama a better leader in a national crisis. It's left up to the general public's runaway imaginations.

Interestingly enough, political experience is a quality that, historically, has had virtually no bearing on how well a President performs. Teddy Roosevelt had two years as a governor and six months as VP before taking over the Oval Office. Eisenhower, while boasting infinite foreign experience, had never held elected office in his life. JFK had one Senate term that he missed nearly half of because of repeatedly life-threatening spinal operations. Lincoln was a one-term Congressman. Meanwhile, Richard Nixon offered a wealth of political experience. So did Calvin Coolidge, and, though he isn't actually President, the revered Dick Cheney.

So, what would additional experience give Obama? What would another four years in the Senate teach him that he doesn't already know? How would it make him a better hypothetical President?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

The same thing additional experience gives anyone...more knowledge and a better understanding of the ins and outs of the job. There's a reason that everything from job applications to McDonalds to the resume of a multimillion dollar corporation's CEO have a section called "Experience": because it matters. It helps us better understand who it is we're thinking of hiring and whether or not they can handle the job we're thinking of giving them.

The American public is thinking of hiring Obama for the job of Most Powerful Man On The Planet. I would think whatever experience in politics he may have (or not have) would help us better understand and gage whether he's truly up to the job.

[joeknows]

i think this is a great question and im glad someone asked it....

i personally find his lack of experience attractive..... mccain touts his experience like he is better because of it.... me personally i look at the man and say, "oh yeah all that experience? well, you are part of the problem then!"

a vote for mccain is a vote saying everything is just fine in washington....... when we know it isnt.

im sick of the status quo and im looking forward to a president with a progreesive agenda.

if experience is so important why didnt we demolish bush over his oil drilling exploits? his love of death row blood and passing legislation that says metally handicapped people CAN be put to death in texas........

i remember when he was campaigning and i was telling people about how this guy has never made a dime in his life.. he has ran so many business oppurtunities into the ground and yet..... we elect him and wonder, "why the hell is the deficit so high?"

it could be because dummy W has problems with "FUZZY MATH"....... if you spend more than you earn..... you get deficits.....

but i digress......... fact is i think the lack of the road miles in washington is what makes obama seem promising..... because for once we just might get past the status quo........

[Hubbs]

The same thing additional experience gives anyone...more knowledge and a better understanding of the ins and outs of the job. There's a reason that everything from job applications to McDonalds to the resume of a multimillion dollar corporation's CEO have a section called "Experience": because it matters. It helps us better understand who it is we're thinking of hiring and whether or not they can handle the job we're thinking of giving them.

The American public is thinking of hiring Obama for the job of Most Powerful Man On The Planet. I would think whatever experience in politics he may have (or not have) would help us better understand and gage whether he's truly up to the job.

So after a few years in the Senate, exactly what "ins and outs" involved in being the President would he have missed out on by now?

[Califan007 The Constipated]

As for this part:

Interestingly enough, political experience is a quality that, historically, has had virtually no bearing on how well a President performs. Teddy Roosevelt had two years as a governor and six months as VP before taking over the Oval Office. Eisenhower, while boasting infinite foreign experience, had never held elected office in his life. JFK had one Senate term that he missed nearly half of because of repeatedly life-threatening spinal operations. Lincoln was a one-term Congressman. Meanwhile, Richard Nixon offered a wealth of political experience. So did Calvin Coolidge, and, though he isn't actually President, the revered Dick Cheney.

I think you're evaluating past presidents with a somewhat shallow, surface analysis and viewpoint.

1. Teddy Roosevelt wasn't elected but succeeded McKinley after his assassination. However, those two experiences you listed are FAR more relevant and useful experiences than what Obama has on his resume. Holding a political office which involves the running of a state is greatly useful in having an existing knowledge of the requirements of running the entire country. It's one reason why governors tend to get elected president while those whose political experience is only within congress do not. Governors have experience running entire states. Congressmen have experience running committees, and that's if they're lucky. Also, Roosevelt was Assistant Secretary of the Navy, which brings a completely new and useful set of experiences to the table that shouldn't be ignored.

2. The mythology surrounding JFK in his death overshadows the reality that his inexperience may have very well lead to the Bay Of Pigs/Cuban Missle Crisis, the closest time we ever came to a true nuclear war during the Cold War. Beyond that, however, JFK majored in Foreign Policy whilte at harvard and was a decorated war hero. JFK's father had decades of political dealings and insider knowledge for his son to draw upon. These types of things do help a president who lacks years of political experience. Unfortunately Obama holds none of these types of advantages.

JFK's political inexperience also played a part in his inability to get major civil rights bills passed. Lyndon Johnson, who had far more political experience and political muscle, did what JFK could not: get the civil rights ball rolling. The backroom deal-making and political arm-twisting helped get many congressmen on board...and those types of political tools are necessary aspects of the job were things Johnson's experience allowed him to excel at, and JFK's inexperience put him at a disadvantage in that respect.

3. Some will claim Eisenhower's CIA was responsible for coming up with the botched "Bay Of Pigs" operation, as well as blaming Eisenhower and his inexperience for letting Castro take over cuba to begin with. Others have blamed his adminstration for their handling of France's request for help in stopping the Vietnamese Communist in French Indochina, believing that if he had helped, the Vietnam War may have started far earlier, ended much sooner, and had a more desirable outcome. While I'm not sure I totall agree with this last statement (apparently Eisenhower wanted a coalition before intervening), I do understand the validity behind the opinion.

4. I'm not really sure including Lincoln in this debate is relevant, considering there were only so many people with any real political experience at the time he ran for the presidency. Not to mention that many western states only became states right before Lincoln was elected President. California became the 31st state in 1850...a mere 10 years before Lincoln was elected president. It was much easier to be an inexperienced-yet-effective politican back then.

5. Nixon was probably a better president than Eisenhower, and possibly even better than JFK. During his administrations, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was established...the The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was established...the military draft was ended...he re-established our relationship with China...signed an agreement with Russia to limit nuclear missle production...and cut federal spending and slowed down inflation. His political experience definitely helped in regards to all of the above. If you objectively assess Nixon's presidency and not just give it the glance through the hindsight of Watergate, you'll see that he was a much better president than you may want to believe.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

So after a few years in the Senate, exactly what "ins and outs" involved in being the President would he have missed out on by now?

Read my post above...

[Hubbs]

I purposely avoided getting into a lengthy analysis of Presidents because it's pretty easy for anyone who's good at debating to twist an Administration into a favorable or unfavorable light, depending on what they want to see. We could get the partisan hacks on this board to do it for pages. I'm merely going with what seems to be very general public opinion.

Your point about Lincoln, however, is irrelevant. The thread isn't about the number of alternatives out there; it's about whether or not political experience is all some are cracking it up to be. Lincoln faced perhaps the greatest test of any President other than George Washington, and however you want to nitpick, he succeeded. Most would agree that his success makes him one of the greatest Presidents in our history. While it's impossible to prove that he didn't just get lucky, he does fit the argument of pointing out some of our former leaders who succeeded without a lot of previous political experience.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

I purposely avoided getting into a lengthy analysis of Presidents because it's pretty easy for anyone who's good at debating to twist an Administration into a favorable or unfavorable light, depending on what they want to see. We could get the partisan hacks on this board to do it for pages. I'm merely going with what seems to be very general public opinion.

In other words, you have no real rebuttal for any of the points I just made, or else you would have made them. Far easier to just chalk it all up to "twisting" an administration's record into a favorable or unfavorable light.

You listed inexperienced Presidents as proof that their lack of experience didn't keep them from doing a good job. I countered that by showing that these same Presidents definitely had a lot of moments in their respective administrations where their inexperience lead to some very serious and very real consequences.

You also hinted at a President who you think didn't do a good job even with his wealth of political experience, and I showed you the long list of accomplishments that President actually achieved precisely because of his experience.

You asked a question about the relevancy of experience...and I answered thoroughly. Your only retort is to chalk it up to "twisting" facts.

Your point about Lincoln, however, is irrelevant. The thread isn't about the number of alternatives out there; it's about whether or not political experience is all some are cracking it up to be.

It's insanely relevant. The issues you deal with as President of a still-burgeoning nation that is self-sufficient are significantly different than the ones you deal with as President of the world's lone Super Power leading a global economy. Experience matters FAR more with the latter than it does with the former. The world has "shrunk" a million times over since Lincoln was president. Political experience plays a much bigger role now. That was my point.

Lincoln faced perhaps the greatest test of any President other than George Washington, and however you want to nitpick, he succeeded.

Hmm, you'll have to go back and show me where I said Lincoln didn't "succeed" as President due to his inexperience. Here's a hint: I never said it.

Debate non-existent topics all you want, just don't claim that I'm the one making the arguments you're debating.

Most would agree that his success makes him one of the greatest Presidents in our history. While it's impossible to prove that he didn't just get lucky, he does fit the argument of pointing out some of our former leaders who succeeded without a lot of previous political experience.

See the two points I just made, then get back to me.

[Thiebear]

So after a few years in the Senate, exactly what "ins and outs" involved in being the President would he have missed out on by now?

He actually stated before taking office he was unqualified, he'd need a few years. And then started running the very next year. His last bill was in 06.

He's getting paid to run for the Presidency...

[Hubbs]

In other words, you have no real rebuttal for any of the points I just made, or else you would have made them. Far easier to just chalk it all up to "twisting" an administration's record into a favorable or unfavorable light.

You asked a question about the relevancy of experience...and I answered thoroughly. Your only retort is to chalk it up to "twisting" facts.

Ha, whatever you say, compadre. If you honestly think that no case can be made for vastly different views of those Presidents than the ones you outlined, by all means, go ahead and assume that I'm trying desperately to convince you that political history can be a hot topic.

You listed inexperienced Presidents as proof that their lack of experience didn't keep them from doing a good job. I countered that by showing that these same Presidents definitely had a lot of moments in their respective administrations where their inexperience lead to some very serious and very real consequences.

Not really. You said that "some have said" a few things, talked up Teddy's two and a half years, and claimed that a college major counts for something.

You also hinted at a President who you think didn't do a good job even with his wealth of political experience, and I showed you the long list of accomplishments that President actually achieved precisely because of his experience.

If the crux of your argument is defending Nixon, I think we both know where this is going.

Hmm, you'll have to go back and show me where I said Lincoln didn't "succeed" as President due to his inexperience. Here's a hint: I never said it.

Perhaps I shouldn't have used the general "you" in that sense, as I was writing that in case someone felt like jumping in and debating Lincoln's decisions during the Civil War, not in response to your personal post.

Oh, and speaking of the Civil War, I'm gonna go way out on a limb and guess that, should he be elected, Obama will never face a crisis of that magnitude even with America's changing place on the world stage.

[Hubbs]

He actually stated before taking office he was unqualified, he'd need a few years. And then started running the very next year. His last bill was in 06.

That was an incredibly vague answer to the question.

He's getting paid to run for the Presidency...

Is his check coming from the same people who make your tin foil hats?

[Thiebear]

That was an incredibly vague answer to the question.

Is his check coming from the same people who make your tin foil hats?

Tin foil hats? So your saying his complete lack of participation in the Senate while he runs for President ISNT getting paid to run?

See Hillary and McCain also...

And it wasn't vague: Obama said he wasn't qualified.. seems to me that is very spot on specific by the person himself...

[twa]

I don't know if experience would make him make better choices in cabinet members ,judges,staff and other positions or not....probably not(based on his liberal leanings),but perhaps he would learn from past mistakes with time.

Personally I don't value Senate experience much at all as it relates to the Presidency..(which obviously include McCain's)

Perhaps coming up in the Chicago political crap taught him some lessons,but I'm not sure they were good ones.

I also don't think more senate time would cure his naive positions on foreign policy...but who knows.

[Koolblue13]

It's upsetting when people say "a vote for Obama is a vote against the big Gov't who's wrecked everything".

He is right in line with it, as are his advisers.

Another lawyer with history of corruption and connections to people I wouldn't want near my White House. He is just the new Clinton (Bill), nothing different.

And the fact that his most appealing quality is not having experience is disturbing.

The three biggest problems we face under the next POTUS IMO.

1. WAR and the ME foreign policy.

2. Economy and the falling dollar.

3. Intrusive Gov't and losing civil liberties.

What's he got and what exactly has he said or done to help any of those three things. I know he started a group inside the senate to watch for corruption, but that is hardly enough. A group designed to watch themselves is silly.

Increasing taxes and doubling federal spending on "green" tech is fine and all, but offers no solution.

[Burgold]

Boy, this thread is starting off well. Attacks already.

My feeling is that experience is a double edged sword.

Obama's lack of it in being "the man" in critical situations worries me, but McCain hasn't been "the man" either. Being President is unique in some ways and I think few enter ready for it... maybe VP's. Still, I think that this is a question that Obama has to answer. He has experiences that are valid, but we don't know quite how they'll translate. Can he assemble a good team? Well, he out teamed Hillary on the campaign trail and that speaks well, but does it actually say anything?

On the flip side, knowing Washington can be bad thing. People get awful cynicial and corrupted awfully quick. I think that's why we like electing Governors.

I don't think I've actually contributed much to this question, but here's what I think in a nutshell. Obama must answer the experience question. It's a fair question. Experience could harden him, but they could also ready him. Is he ready? I'm not sure. Is McCain ready? Probably more so, but is he the right guy? Republicans don't seem to think so, they seem to talk about him as a lesser evil candidate. That the guys who know him best don't like him all that much swings me again back towards Obama.

[Thiebear]

Are current choices:

Keating or Rezko: congradulations.

[DCMONEY]

I guess Obama should take some notes from Bush. He'd be really experienced then. Bush has done an excellent Job. This country sure is headed in the right direction under his great leadership. Obama go get your notes from Bush so you can know how to do things the right way.

[chipwhich]

I guess Obama should take some notes from Bush. He'd be really experienced then. Bush has done an excellent Job. This country sure is headed in the right direction under his great leadership. Obama go get your notes from Bush so you can know how to do things the right way.

He doesn't need the Bush notebook, he has Hillarys.

Lets create Medicaire II to cover health care for all americans with MONEY WE DON'T HAVE!

Wow now thats change in Washington.

[Thiebear]

I guess Obama should take some notes from Bush. He'd be really experienced then. Bush has done an excellent Job. This country sure is headed in the right direction under his great leadership. Obama go get your notes from Bush so you can know how to do things the right way.

So Bush had no experience as its said: (his fathers son was the exp.).

So we should repeat this but use race as the reason this time, not lineage.

[DarrellsMyHero28]

He doesn't need the Bush notebook, he has Hillarys.

Lets create Medicaire II to cover health care for all americans with MONEY WE DON'T HAVE!

Wow now thats change in Washington.

Or you can vote for McCain and continue to fight a war in Iraq, attack Iran, stay in Afghanistan with MONEY WE DON'T HAVE!

Your choice.

[twa]

Or you can vote for McCain and continue to fight a war in Iraq, attack Iran, stay in Afghanistan with MONEY WE DON'T HAVE!

Your choice.

Didn't Obama say he would not allow Iran to go nuclear?

Didn't he (and you) call for focusing on Afghanistan,and even advocate attacking Pakistan?

Hasn't he advocated taking on the Darfur mess?

So his upside is abandoning Iraq when it is finally coming together?

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/04/obama-i-will-do-everything-in-my-power/

http://www.nhpr.org/node/13507

Obama says there's no reason to give the president's troop surge more time.

"Here's what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, 'Well, even in September, we're going to need more time.' So we're going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president's plan."

[DarrellsMyHero28]

Didn't Obama say he would not allow Iran to go nuclear?

Didn't he (and you) call for focusing on Afghanistan,and even advocate attacking Pakistan?

Hasn't he advocated taking on the Darfur mess?

So his upside is abandoning Iraq when it is finally coming together?

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/04/obama-i-will-do-everything-in-my-power/

http://www.nhpr.org/node/13507

Obama says there's no reason to give the president's troop surge more time.

"Here's what we know. The surge has not worked. And they said today, 'Well, even in September, we're going to need more time.' So we're going to kick this can all the way down to the next president, under the president's plan."

Not what I'm talking about.

Obama will raise taxes so that we can actually afford whatever it is we're doing in Iraq/Afghanistan. You Republicans loove your low taxes, but don't realize that this deficit spending is killing us slowly and it will all eventually fall on the backs of the taxpayers.

[Tweedr01]

Yeah, I just find it hilarious that the OP shoots down anyone who thinks differently than him. He was given very good facts that were right in line with what he brought up, and then started calling names when he was called out. Way to keep the thread moving...:doh:

[twa]

Oh I'm sure he will raise taxes,rather than trimming federal spending.

Going to have to for his expanded gimme programs as well.

going from bad ideas to worse is not a improvement :2cents:

[Koolblue13]

Not what I'm talking about.

Obama will raise taxes so that we can actually afford whatever it is we're doing in Iraq/Afghanistan. You Republicans loove your low taxes, but don't realize that this deficit spending is killing us slowly and it will all eventually fall on the backs of the taxpayers.

Okay, so you want to raise taxes so we can bring the war to 2 more countries and be more involved in another, while lessening the troops in the one we are already in and at the same time increase domestic spending.

How much more are we going to be paying?