Bill Clinton and George Bush were governors before running for President. Isn't Obama's experience better than that? That is my perception. He about 11 years between the US senate and Illinois state senate (longer than Hillary and Edwards). I think the inexperience is getting overblown. It's not like he isn't going to have a whole team of advisers anyway. Look at Arnold in California. He's not doing a bad job for a prior experience of body building and acting. Because these people have large teams working for them I find the most important things to be analytical/comprehension ability, beliefs, and vision. On the other hand, if you don't have a good team of people under you it is important to be somewhat self-sufficient. Even people with good reasoning can be fooled. i.e., most presidents don't have much science background, and as we all know, it is easy to misrepresent science.
Obama's inexperience, though, is showing through in some of the things he's doing. His spat with Hillary over national security and what to do about Pakistan likely led to his six-point slide in Iowa polls earlier this month. (Hillary paid a similar price.) What he needs to do is use his "outsider" image to transcend the traditional fights of presidential-cycle politics. He struck a chord trying to take the high road on the "Are you black enough?" question; he ought to consider his handling of the issue, and figure out how to reproduce the effect according to other issues.
Obama rejects the notion that the American moment has passed and believes that America must neither retreat from the world nor try to bully it into submission. Obama believes that America must lead the world, by deed and example, and that America cannot meet the threats of the century alone and that the world cannot meet them without America. Under his leadership America will lead in five specific ways: First, we will bring a responsible end to the war in Iraq and refocus on the critical challenges in the broader region. Second, we will rebuild and transform the military to meet 21st-century threats. Third, we will marshal a global effort to secure, destroy, and stop the spread of weapons of mass destruction. Fourth, we will renew the alliances and partnerships necessary to meet common challenges, such as terrorism and climate change. And fifth, we will strengthen impoverished, weak and ungoverned countries that have become the most fertile breeding grounds for transnational threats like terror and pandemic disease and the smuggling of deadly weapons.
Before responding to this I must admit bias. I love Obama and have for years. I also believe the whole experience thing is overblown. He has spent a great deal more time in public service than George W Bush had, or any president for that matter. I think Senator Clinton is not electable... and I don't like the idea of electing family of previous presidents. It hasn't seemed to work for us so far in history... FDR aside.
Personally, what disturbs me most about the presidential field of candidates, Obama included, is their lack of executive experience. The president is the the chief executive, which is similar but also vastly different from being a legislator. In other words, what makes for a good Congressmen doesn't necessarily make for a good president. Guilliani aside, none of the so-called front-runners have serious experience being chief executives in charge of large operations. You have to go down the list to names like Huckabee and Richardson before you find others with such experience. That, in my opinion, should trouble Americans more.
Hey, if everyone's favorite actor-president can do it, anyone can! It's all about who is working under the president, running the real show. With Bush, we got Cheney and a whole list of neocons. Just too bad Bush isn't as charismatic as some. But perhaps with Reagan and Bush having so little experience, that might account for why their administrations were so corrupt. - N
Reagan was a former governor of California and former head of the screen actors guild when he became president, so he had substantial experience as a chief executive, despite your post's claims to the contrary. You might not like the man or his policies, but suggesting that he was somehow unprepared for the job strikes me as factually incorrect. Given the size of the government, there's an element of what you say that may be true. Part of being a successful executive is picking the right people so that when you delegate authority to them they can perform. I would argue that's exactly why we need candidates with executive experience. Right now, we don't have that so much.
I'm with Zero. Executive experience is what counts. Senators rarely win for just that reason. JFK is the only Senator I can think of who was elected president, despite the fact that tons of them run every election cycle. Being one of one hundred who casts a vote on an issue but never having to be the one who actually decides anything is way different from being the guy responsible. The buck stops here and all that.
I think Senators rarely win because more dirt is inevitably gathered on them. I don't put a lot of stock in executive experience personally. I think people with good leadership qualities will be good executives as long as they have a team of people under them. The job Arnold does in California exemplifies this. Plus Senators have great experience because the work they do is very closely tied with the President. Every issue the President faces, they also face. I like what I see of Obama's ability to understand and analyze things, as well as the quality of his ideas for the future. That makes me think he'd be a great President. In fact, for once I can say I'm not dissatisfied with the options/choosing the lesser of evils. I can't realistically ask for more than Obama. Although there are some important issues where I've yet to see where he stands, I think I've seen enough to begin trusting his judgement.
Hillary was fine until she got bought by drug companies. I like Obama, but I doubt he will get elected; Americans haven't had their moral epiphany yet. They can’t comprehend a leader who wants peace and mutual international interests.
I think Obama won't get elected for reasons that have been expressed in this thread: He lacks experience and leadership. Per my reckoning, he's a celebrity candidate. Nothing more.
I like Obama, however, in listening to some of his policies and statements on the issues they do not appear to be fully thought out. For example, his health care policy seems to have holes and morphs over time. By now I would have expected a much clearer perspective and position on the issue. Clinton and Edwards both have had more clearly defined positions on the issues. Also, it is important to have good people working for you. But an executive needs to know when he/she does not have good people working for them. And the executive must clearly think through each issue and ask the tough questions. An executive must clearly map out a battle plan…I unfortunately do no see where Obama has demonstrated this ability. He is certainly charismatic and saying some good things. But he has not yet demonstrated his ability to clearly think through the issues…that is a big part of bush junior’s problem. Clinton and Edwards have both demonstrated Executive ability in the way they have run their campaigns...especially Clinton. I am not a big fan of Clinton as I think she may have been bought and paid for by special interests, and her first health care plan was not successful.
The thing that worries me about Clinton is more of the same. If she wins, by the end of her first term in charge, the country will have been run by a Clinton or a Bush (and their hanger-ons) for 24 years...
Don't forget to count GHW Bush as VP under Reagan, so tack on another 8.. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! VP Bush: 8, P Bush: 4, P Clinton 8, P Bush 8, P Clinton: (assuming just one term) 4. 32 whopping years, oh boy. - N
It's hard to debate w/o specific examples at this point, but personally I've seen ability to think clearly from him. Depending on the details of what you are talking about, what you see could actually be a good thing. If he is willing to adapt his views, great. Look at It could also due to him being a pretty frank person. I always see him speaking his mind. I don't understand why Hillary is thought to have good executive qualities by you and others. Take Iraq. Hillary not only supported the war, she helped make the case for it. Obama was against it from the start. Since this was an actual presidential/executive decision, it shows Hillary made a completely disastrous one. It really makes me wonder too. I assume ulterior motives on the Bush administration for Iraq, so what could drive a sane person to same end? I'll be so miserable if she is nominated. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Bush/Cheney lite.
The longer they stay in politics, the more adapt they become in using the system to their advantages. I really don't like any politician that has been in any office more than 4 years to get another better position within the government for they already are being manipulated by businesses and other entities that only want something from them.
I think Hillary's vote for the war was a political one. The Republicans have traditionally and effectively painted Democrats as whimps. And at the time, the shrubs were effectively painting a false picture of Iraq and the war on terror. I remember there for a while, Republican pundants were calling folks traitors for disagreeing with the president.
I think she voted for the war because she wet her thumb in held it in the air. Her husband did this, too. As another post above pointed out, Hillary did not just vote for the war, she actively campaigned — and helped make the case — for it.
