Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama's Experience

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 11:14 AM
link   
When people talk about Obama's experience (or lack thereof), they tend to ignore or discount the 8 years he spent in the State Senate, where he sponsored over 800 bills on health care, poverty, crime, civil rights, ethics, the environment and more.

Obama's Record in the Illinois State Senate

In addition, he may be black, but he's Green. His environmental work has earned him accolades.



Beyond the unabashed idealism, stirring oratory skills, touching life story, and knee-buckling smile that have made this candidate for Illinois' open Senate seat the new beau ideal of progressive politics, it so happens that this guy is a bona fide, card-carrying, bleeding-heart greenie.
...
His efforts on behalf of the environment have been so consistent and comprehensive, in fact, that LCV and the Sierra Club endorsed Obama in his bid for Congress this year over half a dozen other Democrats competing in the primary. Last month, the LCV named him a 2004 Environmental Champion, one of 18 sitting and prospective members of Congress to receive the award.

Obama is "by far one of the most compelling and knowledgeable politicians on the environment I've ever sat in a room with," Mark Longabaugh, senior vice president for political affairs at LCV, told Muckraker. "I've been playing national politics for more than 20 years and I quite literally can't remember one person I've met -- even on a national level -- who was more in command of facts, more eloquent, and more passionate on these issues than Sen. Obama."


Political Wisdom



While not refuting that Sen. John McCain has more experience, Ehrenhalt writes: “But here’s something I bet you didn’t know: If Obama becomes president, he will have spent more time serving as a state legislator (eight years) than anyone who has occupied the White House since Abraham Lincoln.”


And he has a lot of experience reaching across the aisle:



And perhaps most important, there is simply more personal contact across the aisle than there is in Congress. Legislatures have grown more partisan in the past decade, as all of American politics has. But in most state capitols, the wall of partisan separation is nowhere near as high as it is in Washington.”


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.

Dwight Eisenhower, George Washington and Ulysses S Grant had NO political experience when they took office.

Woodrow Wilson was a governor for 2 years as was Teddy Roosevelt, who was also a VP for a matter of months. Franklin Roosevelt was a governor for 4 years.

Obama has more political experience than all of these men when they took office.

Source

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




posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 11:59 AM
link   
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...



posted on Jun, 24 2008 @ 12:04 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:38 PM
link   
In 2004 Obama said it himself in 2004...





Seems he obtained quite a bit of experience in 4 years....

Facts is, as liberal and socialist as he is, his experience will not come into play...

Semper



posted on Jun, 26 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 06:53 AM
link   
reply to post by jamie83
 

I guess you can say that about both candidates. However being a senator does require managerial skills. You have an office with staff and you are the CEO of that office. The difference on a national level is that you have access to better personnel, and as POTUS that is an even higher level. Obama has convinced me that when it comes to being in a position like this, he makes it clear that HE is in charge, but will also listen to advisors. What more could we ask for in a candidate?



posted on Jun, 27 2008 @ 07:02 AM
link   
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]





new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join