Keep 'em coming, BH! It can be hoped, that on a board where ignorance is denied, maybe a steady diet of facts can eventually overcome the mass of rumor, innuendo and outright lies that seem so prevalent regarding Obama...

If experience is an issue - let's look at GW Bush. He ran a couple of companies into the ground, spent 4 years as governor of Texas and then became president. Obama has far more public service and did it without having GH Bush as a father.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

So, when people say he doesn't have the experience to be the president, I have to wonder about that. He has more political experience than many of our past presidents. Some GREAT presidents.

So, what exactly is the problem with Obama's experience?

You highlighted the problem yourself. "Political experience" is ALL Obama has. He has no other experience except within the halls of academia.

And he has NO, ZERO, NADA experience managing ANYTHING. This is an important skill set for somebody who wants to be chief executive. He's already shown he's very weak in picking people to surround himself with. Probably one of the lamest things he ever said was when he acted like he shouldn't have been expected to "vet" James Johnson as "vetter" of the VP.

The POTUS must be skilled in running one of the most complex organizations in modern society. Obama has no experience in this area at all. A Senator is more akin to a lawyer running a private practice. The POTUS is more akin to a CEO of a fortune 500 company.

So yes, Obama's lack of experience in this arena is a major problem.

For my part, I really couldn't care less about a politician's time in state-level politics. Foreign/national defense policy experience is the #1 factor I look for in a presidential candidate and while its not necessarily make-or-break, it is extremely important. I wouldn't expect a state senator to get much experience in that category whatsoever.

As far as domestic policy is concerned, yes, it is somewhat relevant, but at the same time, I know little of the internal political bickerings of the state of Illinois (except for Chicago's rather unsavory reputation for corruption). Don't much care, either. National politics, with all of its diverse groups and interests, is an entirely different ballgame compared to keeping a relatively small group of like-minded constituents placated in a single state. I *do* tend to give more credence to the experience of a governor, simply because the experience in the executive branch seems more applicable to the highest position in the land, at least to me. Your mileage may vary.

You can place whatever value on his time in the Illinois state senate that you wish. One thing I can tell you: If Obama's political leanings tend to be in line with your own, you're going to be much more likely to overlook the experience aspect. The further your views deviate from his, the less likely it becomes that you'll give him a free pass. I think we all agree with that.

I have similar misgivings about some of the VP candidates being mentioned over on the Republican side. Bobby Jindal and Sarah Palin are both conservative governors that I like a lot, but I would, at this time, consider both to be lacking the experience to be president or VP. But going back to my last paragraph, yes, I would be more likely to forgive that lack of experience, simply because I agree with their overall political philosophy.

In the end, its all a matter of perception, largely based on political ideology, the aspects of the job that each individual voter considers to be important, and whether the experience that a candidate does have properly prepares him for the position he/she seeks. In this case, as indicated above, I do not believe that time as a state senator is particularly beneficial to a candidate running for president of the United States.


[edit on 27-6-2008 by vor78]