Obama's inexperience in perspective

[Jon]

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Why Obama is in Trouble

If elected president, Obama would be the fifth youngest president in U.S. history. The only younger presidents would be Teddy Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Ulysses S. Grant, all of whom were much more accomplished than Obama. Grant, Roosevelt, and Kennedy were war heroes. (Not Clinton, notoriously.) Roosevelt and Clinton had served as state governors. Grant had been the general-in-chief of the Union Army during the Civil War. The least experienced of the four, Kennedy, had served twelve years in Congress, six in the House of Representatives and six in the Senate, and had been a serious candidate for vice-president in 1956.

 

[busara]

experience is very important! thats why none of our soldiers should fight unless they have experience in live combat. and no one else should get a job unless they have experience doing exactly what the job will entail

 

[Red Dawn]

If elected president, Obama would be the fifth youngest president in U.S. history.

I'd rather have a 72 year old president, who will be 76 years old at the end of his first term.

 

[Jon]

Your sarcasm is noted, busara, but your message is foolish.

Running a country is something that certainly requires experience at a lower level. If you've worked at retail store for 10 years, would you like it if the new cashier were promoted to general manager over you just because he was well-liked?

That's the same thing happening here. Many qualified politicians are overlooked because Obama forced himself to the forefront based on "likeability."

 

[Jon]

I'd rather have a 72 year old president, who will be 76 years old at the end of his first term.

I'm not at all concerned about Obama's age. Clinton was younger, and he was a good President.

Obama's lack of experience is what bothers me, among his many other unflattering qualities.

 

[Red Dawn]

I'm not at all concerned about Obama's age. Clinton was younger, and he was a good President.

Obama's lack of experience is what bothers me, among his many other unflattering qualities.

I'm pretty sure you weren't concerned with George Bush's lack of experience when he ran in 2000, so I'll chalk this thread up to partisan concern trolling.

 

[Jon]

I'm pretty sure you weren't concerned with George Bush's lack of experience when he ran in 2000, so I'll chalk this thread up to partisan concern trolling.

I supported Gore in 2000, thank you very much.

I'm not a Republican. I'm not a Democrat.

How can you say someone wasn't concerned about Bush's lack of experience when they just said Clinton was a good President? That's silly.

 

[jreeves]

experience is very important! thats why none of our soldiers should fight unless they have experience in live combat. and no one else should get a job unless they have experience doing exactly what the job will entail

That's what training is for correct? What training has Obama had? A civil rights organizer, a state senator or a US senator for less than 1 term? You do realize he stated he wasn't qualified correct? That's before he changed his position and now states that experience isn't important.

 

[Bern80]

I have all kinds of reasons as to why I won't vote for Obama, but experience, or lack there of, is not one of them.

It is horribly overrated in therms of holding political office. In terms of the presidency it greatly decreases the number of eligible people that can become President. Last I checked the only two legal requirements were I believe being 35 years of age and a natural born U.S. citizen. But we have arrived at a place in our voting process where, in actuality, only previously elected officials can be President (which McCain/Feingold aided in). And we have the gall to wonder, why at the end of the day we see so little real change.

IMO one of the best things we could do is elect non-carreer politicians to office. The irony is absolutely amazing to me that we complain about what an old boys club the government is or what a tight grip it has on us, or that they don't listen to us, or how they sell out for votes, yet we have thread like this complaining about the fact that essential a person must have been a politician for x amount of time to qualify for the job.

 

[Jon]

Obama has made it clear that putting a new politician in office won't change the status quo. He's just as dirty as McCain, with less than 1/3 the experience. He's just as quick to sell a vote as McCain is. He flips and flops more than McCain does. And he wants to be the candidate of "change."

Change we can believe in? The only thing changing is Obama's stance on every issue.

 

[Chris]

Judgement is more important than experience.

Cheney had experience. Rumsfeld had experience.

How'd that work out?

 

[Jon]

Judgement is more important than experience.

Obama spent 20 years in Wright's church and calling Wright his "father figure." What's that say about his judgment?

 

[Chris]

Obama spent 20 years in Wright's church and calling Wright his "father figure." What's that say about his judgment?

Obama was against the war in Iraq from the beginning. That shows that his judgement is better than 99% of the politicians in America.

 

[DiveCon]

I'm pretty sure you weren't concerned with George Bush's lack of experience when he ran in 2000, so I'll chalk this thread up to partisan concern trolling.

Bush actually HAD the experience
he was a 2 term Governor

 

[Chris]

Bush actually HAD the experience
he was a 2 term Governor

Thanks for proving my point.

Bush is the worst president in U.S. history.

 

[chapstic]

Obama was against the war in Iraq from the beginning. That shows that his judgement is better than 99% of the politicians in America.

I was against the war from the beginning. Does that mean I should be president?

 

[Jon]

Obama was against the war in Iraq from the beginning. That shows that his judgement is better than 99% of the politicians in America.

No, it shows that he doesn't care about protecting America from an imminent threat. ALL the reports suggested that Iraq was just that, an imminent threat. The only people who voted against the war are those that vote against all wars. The American people supported the war handedly in the weeks before the invasion.

Obama had no evidence to know that the reports were false. And if he did, he should be hanged for treason for not announcing it to the rest of the country.

Again, as I've said before, if Obama is elected President (and that if grows stronger every day thankfully) and his intelligence teams bring him reports that say Iran is pointing nukes at us, and he doesn't react with immediate military action, I'll be the first to call for his immediate removal from office.

The sad truth is that Obama stood against the war because it didn't matter what he thought about it. He didn't vote against it, because he couldn't. He just spoke out against it. In the same speech, he noted that the only war he supported was the Civil War because it ended slavery. Does anyone in the world think that war was over slavery? Even the slaves knew that war wasn't about them. So, if Barack Obama were a prominent politician in the days before the Civil War, would he have supported it? It wasn't about slavery, it was about states' rights; the result was freeing the slaves. Iraq was about removing nuclear capabilities from a known enemy; the result could be turning a country upside down for the better.

Iraq was a mistake, yes. But we didn't know that going in, and Obama had no way of knowing. He had the same information was the rest of the country, and he stood against it. I'd feel real safe with him in office.

It was a mistake, and we that we have to fix. That's what responsibility is - fixing your mistakes. An immediate withdrawal (which Obama supported until the rest of the country changed their mind) is NOT the responsible course of action.

Oddly enough, if we were deciding rather or not to invade Iraq today, he'd probably vote for it. It just depends on what the rest of the country supported at that time.

 

[DiveCon]

Thanks for proving my point.

Bush is the worst president in U.S. history.

only it doesnt prove your point, it disproves it
being a governor is more experience than Obama has
by a LONG shot

 

[Chris]

only it doesnt prove your point, it disproves it
being a governor is more experience than Obama has
by a LONG shot

Judgement is more important than experience.

Obama is already more popular with world leaders than Bush.

 

[Chris]

No, it shows that he doesn't care about protecting America from an imminent threat. ALL the reports suggested that Iraq was just that, an imminent threat. The only people who voted against the war are those that vote against all wars. The American people supported the war handedly in the weeks before the invasion.

Obama had no evidence to know that the reports were false. And if he did, he should be hanged for treason for not announcing it to the rest of the country.

Again, as I've said before, if Obama is elected President (and that if grows stronger every day thankfully) and his intelligence teams bring him reports that say Iran is pointing nukes at us, and he doesn't react with immediate military action, I'll be the first to call for his immediate removal from office.

The sad truth is that Obama stood against the war because it didn't matter what he thought about it. He didn't vote against it, because he couldn't. He just spoke out against it. In the same speech, he noted that the only war he supported was the Civil War because it ended slavery. Does anyone in the world think that war was over slavery? Even the slaves knew that war wasn't about them. So, if Barack Obama were a prominent politician in the days before the Civil War, would he have supported it? It wasn't about slavery, it was about states' rights; the result was freeing the slaves. Iraq was about removing nuclear capabilities from a known enemy; the result could be turning a country upside down for the better.

Iraq was a mistake, yes. But we didn't know that going in, and Obama had no way of knowing. He had the same information was the rest of the country, and he stood against it. I'd feel real safe with him in office.

It was a mistake, and we that we have to fix. That's what responsibility is - fixing your mistakes. An immediate withdrawal (which Obama supported until the rest of the country changed their mind) is NOT the responsible course of action.

Oddly enough, if we were deciding rather or not to invade Iraq today, he'd probably vote for it. It just depends on what the rest of the country supported at that time.

Imminent threat? What imminent threat? You mean the one that Bush-Cheney forged the letter about?

No, this country faces two imminent threats....our dependence on foreign energy sources and our massive debt. Bush and Reagan created 90% of the National Debt, and Bush has ignored alternative energy for eight years.

Republicans are the greatest threat to America.