"Shame on you, Barack Obama"

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

He has about as much experience as Abe Lincoln. He's been a community organizer, a civil rights lawyer, a state legislator and a US Senator. He's not 23 and fresh out of college.

But he's been a US Senator for a relatively short period of time, and I don't usually think that community organizer, civil rights lawyer, state legislator, 1/2 a Senate term, President of the US is the usual progression. And isn't Lincoln kind of the exception, rather than the rule? Aren't most serious candidates either long term US Senators or Representatives or Governors, in which position we assume they have experience with the executive branch?

On the other hand, Hillary's own experience isn't all that much deeper if we judge her strictly for positions she was elected to or selected for on her own merits. I only mean experience that we'd think for the Presidency; I think she's an accomplished lawyer in her own right and I'm not trying to diminish that.

(I say this knowing I would have voted for Fred Thompson and he's have the same "experience" weakness using this standard.)

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But he's been a US Senator for a relatively short period of time, and I don't usually think that community organizer, civil rights lawyer, state legislator, 1/2 a Senate term, President of the US is the usual progression. And isn't Lincoln kind of the exception, rather than the rule? Aren't most serious candidates either long term US Senators or Representatives or Governors, in which position we assume they have experience with the executive branch?

On the other hand, Hillary's own experience isn't all that much deeper if we judge her strictly for positions she was elected to or selected for on her own merits. I only mean experience that we'd think for the Presidency; I think she's an accomplished lawyer in her own right and I'm not trying to diminish that.

(I say this knowing I would have voted for Fred Thompson and he's have the same "experience" weakness using this standard.)

Well, some of the most "experienced" presidents have been the worst. Nixon ran on experience for example. He has a decent amount of state legislative experience, he's familiar to politics without being an "insider" which appeals to me. And Senators don't usually do well in national elections because so many of the Senate votes are "bad" no matter which way you vote.

Honestly the fact that he's not stuck in the Washington politics is more appealing to me. I think he and Clinton have similar levels of experience and I like him better. Thus making that choice relatively easy for me.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Honestly the fact that he's not stuck in the Washington politics is more appealing to me. I think he and Clinton have similar levels of experience and I like him better. Thus making that choice relatively easy for me.

I think it's sometimes easier to run with no record because you're untainted, but consider the Jimmy Carter era. He's regarded as a man of great character today, but it's hard to make a case that his Presidency was good time for the USA. I think Obama would be better than Jimmy, but I'm still finding Obama a little insubstantial and not having been inside DC forever can have some drawbacks.

I prefer Obama to Clinton too, but McCain to both of them, I think.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I think it's sometimes easier to run with no record because you're untainted, but consider the Jimmy Carter era. He's regarded as a man of great character today, but it's hard to make a case that his Presidency was good time for the USA. I think Obama would be better than Jimmy, but I'm still finding Obama a little insubstantial and not having been inside DC forever can have some drawbacks.

I prefer Obama to Clinton too, but McCain to both of them, I think.

Yeah I pretty muched missed the Jimmy Carter era and since recent history is the least taught (how much do you know about the Revolutionary War? The Civil War? WWII? Now, what about the 70s ((if you weren't alive for them)) ) I'll admit to not having a lot of perspective.

McCain, well I just don't trust him. He's a panderer and, imo, a liar. And I don't give a damn who he slept with or whether he did but lobbyists should not be making phone calls from a campaign bus. He's in bed with them, if you'll pardon the pun.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

Yeah I pretty muched missed the Jimmy Carter era and since recent history is the least taught (how much do you know about the Revolutionary War? The Civil War? WWII? Now, what about the 70s ((if you weren't alive for them)) ) I'll admit to not having a lot of perspective.

McCain, well I just don't trust him. He's a panderer and, imo, a liar. And I don't give a damn who he slept with or whether he did but lobbyists should not be making phone calls from a campaign bus. He's in bed with them, if you'll pardon the pun.

Obama may be squeaky clean in this area, but I don't think most candidates are. I don't know how long he'll stay clean if elected.

McCain is at least my third choice, but I don't think I'm going to be able to vote for Obama. I don't care about him being unproven domestically very much, but his inexperience in terms of foreign policy and national security has me thinking I'm going McCain.

And I strongly prefer Obama to Clinton.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I don't care about him being unproven domestically very much, but his inexperience in terms of foreign policy and national security has me thinking I'm going McCain.

While most of what McCain has on his website regarding his ideas surrounding foreign policy is tame, some of his comments in person have been a bit disconcerting. I'm in favor of more diplomatic measures and I'm rather tired of America's hubris and isolationism when it comes to other world governments. For example, we currently have a very pro-American French ally and we are not fostering that relationship in any useful way.

[texas*princess]

[Velocity_14]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But he's been a US Senator for a relatively short period of time, and I don't usually think that community organizer, civil rights lawyer, state legislator, 1/2 a Senate term, President of the US is the usual progression. And isn't Lincoln kind of the exception, rather than the rule? Aren't most serious candidates either long term US Senators or Representatives or Governors, in which position we assume they have experience with the executive branch?

On the other hand, Hillary's own experience isn't all that much deeper if we judge her strictly for positions she was elected to or selected for on her own merits. I only mean experience that we'd think for the Presidency; I think she's an accomplished lawyer in her own right and I'm not trying to diminish that.

(I say this knowing I would have voted for Fred Thompson and he's have the same "experience" weakness using this standard.)

I am not agreeing or disagreeing with you. Reading your post made me think about this because I have heard this before.

"Experience" is very objective depending on who you talk to. And even because you have "experience," it still does not make you the better candidate.

I wonder if George W. was considered an "experienced" candidate prior to his first election. Well, that was all shot to hell huh...so whether Obama is the SENATOR (D) of Illinois or the governer and Hillary is a former first-lady and Senator of New York....at the end of the day...it doesn't seem that "experience" really matters judging on what we as a country has "experienced" for almost eight years with the same President.

McCain...I would just hope that if he is elected he would live through his term...he is too old to me...that probably shouldn't matter very much but...hey...oh well...

This is just my opinion on this concern of "experience." Oh well, time to go to the library...

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Velocity_14

I wonder if George W. was considered an "experienced" candidate prior to his first election. Well, that was all shot to hell huh...so whether Obama is the SENATOR (D) of Illinois or the governer and Hillary is a former first-lady and Senator of New York....at the end of the day...it doesn't seem that "experience" really matters judging on what we as a country has "experienced" for almost eight years with the same President.

George W. was considered George Sr.'s son, JEBBY JEB Bush's brother, a Yale graduate, and Skull and Bones member. He knew the "Conservative Right and Republican ideals" and took it from there. The "nation of prayer" emphasis got him a lot of support from those who were not initially impressed with his political and social platforms.

If Obama had a lackluster political experience but came from a line of politicians or had some other networks that his criticizers appreciated, law degree and Harvard Law Review are not enough networks, they'd be able to give him more of the benefit of doubt.

[nittanyalum]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Jett Bush's brother

psst... Jeb

[Velocity_14]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

George W. was considered George Sr.'s son, Jett Bush's brother, a Yale graduate, and Skull and Bones member. He knew the "Conservative Right and Republican ideals" and took it from there. The "nation of prayer" emphasis got him a lot of support from those who were not initially impressed with his political and social platforms.

I see what you are saying, but for me---at least as "W" is concerned---those things show me very little about his ability to be the President---on his own terms...but apparently those things mattered to a lot of people...lol

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

If Obama had a lackluster political experience but came from a line of politicians or had some other networks that his criticizers appreciated, law degree and Harvard Law Review are not enough networks, they'd be able to give him more of the benefit of doubt.

I really want to believe that but even if he came from a family of respected politicians and had other networks his criticizers appreciated (which I think he does but critics will be just that in my opinion no matter what you do), I still don't think he would be given the benefit of the doubt for a number of reasons I won't even get into.

But, we will see what happens...

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by Velocity_14

apparently those things mattered to a lot of people...lol

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Velocity_14

I still don't think he would be given the benefit of the doubt for a number of reasons I won't even get into.

He may be given more of a benefit of the doubt by some but we agree that it would be something else that comes up. They would have a harder time veiling their criticisms of Obama under "experience and networks," though.

[BabyPiNK_FL]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

George W. was considered George Sr.'s son, Jett Bush's brother, a Yale graduate, and Skull and Bones member. He knew the "Conservative Right and Republican ideals" and took it from there. The "nation of prayer" emphasis got him a lot of support from those who were not initially impressed with his political and social platforms.

If Obama had a lackluster political experience but came from a line of politicians or had some other networks that his criticizers appreciated, law degree and Harvard Law Review are not enough networks, they'd be able to give him more of the benefit of doubt.

His brother's name is JEB. (lol Nittanyalum!) I should know, he was the sh*tty governer of my state for some time...and both of his kids had drug and law issues. And for some reason the media was obsessed with the fact that his wife was Mexican...

Anyways-I was looking at McCain (even as a Dem.) because I will not vote for Obama come hell or high water. But I couldn't bring myself to go to the "dark side" because I enjoy certain rights that they don't endorse. So if Obama wins the candidacy, I will be looking elsewhere (Nader), because I'm not one to stay home on an election day (whether they're counting ballots or not) because there is nothing I enjoy more than my right to vote! I know that a lot of people are groaning, but I can't stand Obama and if that's my party's choice...well whatever.

[UGAalum94]

I think that Bush's lack of international experience would have hurt him had he been running for the first time under the same conditions as the present candidates.

But I think most of us were more concerned about domestic issues back then, and remember at that time , he ran against Gore, who let's be honest, probably couldn't have won the nomination against present day Obama, especially if we think pre-canonization as a Global Warming Saint, Gore, as he was then.

All the retroactive comparisons are hard to pull off because so much of the reason any particular candidate was electable had to do with when they ran and who they ran against. Don't you think that B. Obama, or bizarrely even McCain, could have beaten Bush in 2004, had either found himself running in the general election against Bush*? But instead, Bush got to run against Kerry, probably the only person that three million voters could reliably like less than Bush.

* I realize that this wouldn't work in reality; my point is just that we've had people win nominations and elections that they couldn't have won had they run in a different year.

[Velocity_14]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Don't you think that B. Obama, or bizarrely even McCain, could have beaten Bush in 2004, had either found himself running in the general election against Bush?

Nope.

But, I feel where you are coming from though.