Barack Obama and the Myth of Inexperience

M

midcan5

Member
by John K. Wilson

"Obama's experience in state and national politics also exceeds that of Ronald Reagan (eight years as governor), Jimmy Carter (four years in state senate, four years as governor), Dwight Eisenhower (no political experience), and Harry Truman (10 years as US senator, one year as vice president). In fact, Obama's total political experience exceeds Thompson's eight lackluster years as a senator or Giuliani's two terms as mayor of New York City, which they felt made them qualified to be president.

I did a quick study of presidential experience (see the results here) and discovered that out of 42 presidents, only 20 had more experience as an elected public official than Obama does now. Only 22 presidents had more experience than Obama as an elected official in Washington, D.C. In terms of his experience, Obama would be a typical president. Yet you won't find anyone in the media reporting on the fact that Obama has more foreign policy experience than four out of the last five presidents."

http://www.obamapolitics.com/node/132
 
:lmao:

Yet you won't find anyone in the media reporting on the fact that Obama has more foreign policy experience than four out of the last five presidents."

Thats a good one, first term senator with two years in office is labeled a foreign policy expert. You must have had a really big swig of kool-aid to believe that one.
 
webbway said:
Yet you won't find anyone in the media reporting on the fact that Obama has more foreign policy experience than four out of the last five presidents."

Thats a good one, first term senator with two years in office is labeled a foreign policy expert. You must have had a really big swig of kool-aid to believe that one.
Click to expand...

Seems I'm not alone in that opinion.

Let's hear from a few republicans:

"Well, Abraham Lincoln served two years in the U.S.House, and seemed to do all right." Newt Gingrich, commenting on Obama's experience

"He [Obama] has ten years experience in public office, more than the two other leading Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton (six-plus years as Senator from New York) and John Edwards (six years as Senator from North Carolina). Barack's first eight years spent in the Illinois senate before his two years (and counting) of service in the U.S. Senate, should not be forgotten. Far away from the Washington spotlight, he introduced, voted on and passed bills, debated with his colleagues—something that was missing in Washington, where everything is settled in the backroom—and arduously worked to satisfy his constituents. Most important of all, he learned that how to work across the aisle, and get stuff done.

"When you come in, especially as a freshman, and work on something like ethics reform, it's not necessarily a way to endear yourself to some of the veteran members of the Illinois General Assembly," said state Sen. Kirk W. Dillard, a Republican who became a friend. "And working on issues like racial profiling was contentious, but Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics.""

http://www.obamapedia.org/page/Does+Barack+Obama+have+enough+experience+to+be+president??t=anon

Obama has plenty of experience compared to:

"Freddoso's lies begin on the very first page of his book (repeated on the back cover) when he proclaims that Obama is "the least experienced politician in at least one hundred years to obtain a major party nomination for President...."(ix) Freddoso seems to be conveniently forgetting that George W. Bush in 2000 had served only six years as governor, far fewer years of experience as an elected public official than Obama's 12 years of experience (eight as state senator, four as US senator). Obama's experience in politics also exceeds that of Ronald Reagan (eight years as governor), Jimmy Carter (four years in state senate, four years as governor), Dwight Eisenhower (no political experience), Harry Truman (10 years as US senator, one year as vice president), Herbert Hoover (eight years as Secretary of Commerce), Woodrow Wilson (two years as governor), and William Howard Taft (four years as Secretary of War, two years as Solicitor General). Compared to 17 presidents in the past century, Obama has more political experience than eight of them, and less experience than eight of them (he's tied with Warren Harding). "

http://www.obamapolitics.com/node?page=2

from:
Book Review: The Case Against Barack Obama
 
midcan5 said:
Seems I'm not alone in that opinion.

Let's hear from a few republicans:

"Well, Abraham Lincoln served two years in the U.S.House, and seemed to do all right." Newt Gingrich, commenting on Obama's experience

"He [Obama] has ten years experience in public office, more than the two other leading Democratic candidates, Hillary Clinton (six-plus years as Senator from New York) and John Edwards (six years as Senator from North Carolina). Barack's first eight years spent in the Illinois senate before his two years (and counting) of service in the U.S. Senate, should not be forgotten. Far away from the Washington spotlight, he introduced, voted on and passed bills, debated with his colleagues—something that was missing in Washington, where everything is settled in the backroom—and arduously worked to satisfy his constituents. Most important of all, he learned that how to work across the aisle, and get stuff done.

"When you come in, especially as a freshman, and work on something like ethics reform, it's not necessarily a way to endear yourself to some of the veteran members of the Illinois General Assembly," said state Sen. Kirk W. Dillard, a Republican who became a friend. "And working on issues like racial profiling was contentious, but Barack had a way both intellectually and in demeanor that defused skeptics.""

http://www.obamapedia.org/page/Does+Barack+Obama+have+enough+experience+to+be+president??t=anon

Obama has plenty of experience compared to:

"Freddoso's lies begin on the very first page of his book (repeated on the back cover) when he proclaims that Obama is "the least experienced politician in at least one hundred years to obtain a major party nomination for President...."(ix) Freddoso seems to be conveniently forgetting that George W. Bush in 2000 had served only six years as governor, far fewer years of experience as an elected public official than Obama's 12 years of experience (eight as state senator, four as US senator). Obama's experience in politics also exceeds that of Ronald Reagan (eight years as governor), Jimmy Carter (four years in state senate, four years as governor), Dwight Eisenhower (no political experience), Harry Truman (10 years as US senator, one year as vice president), Herbert Hoover (eight years as Secretary of Commerce), Woodrow Wilson (two years as governor), and William Howard Taft (four years as Secretary of War, two years as Solicitor General). Compared to 17 presidents in the past century, Obama has more political experience than eight of them, and less experience than eight of them (he's tied with Warren Harding). "

http://www.obamapolitics.com/node?page=2

from:
Book Review: The Case Against Barack Obama
Click to expand...

That's just crazy. So congratulations midcam there is you and this writer, that's two people, who think time spent in a state senate is better experience than being a Govenor. Why can't the rest of America see this then and elected more Senators than the Govenors we continually elect?
 
midcan5 said:
by John K. Wilson

"Obama's experience in state and national politics also exceeds that of Ronald Reagan (eight years as governor), Jimmy Carter (four years in state senate, four years as governor), Dwight Eisenhower (no political experience), and Harry Truman (10 years as US senator, one year as vice president). In fact, Obama's total political experience exceeds Thompson's eight lackluster years as a senator or Giuliani's two terms as mayor of New York City, which they felt made them qualified to be president.

I did a quick study of presidential experience (see the results here) and discovered that out of 42 presidents, only 20 had more experience as an elected public official than Obama does now. Only 22 presidents had more experience than Obama as an elected official in Washington, D.C. In terms of his experience, Obama would be a typical president. Yet you won't find anyone in the media reporting on the fact that Obama has more foreign policy experience than four out of the last five presidents."

http://www.obamapolitics.com/node/132
Click to expand...

"Yet a campaign of misinformation has greatly exaggerated Obama's alleged inexperience. Fred Thompson's Sept. 2 speech to the Republican National Convention proclaimed that Obama is "most inexperienced nominee to ever run for President." The next night, Rudy Giuliani repeated the accusation about Obama: "He is the least experienced candidate for president of the United States in at least the last 100 years." Giuliani and Thompson seem to be conveniently forgetting that George W. Bush in 2000 had served only six years as governor, far fewer years of experience as an elected public official than Obama's 12 years of experience (eight as state senator, four as US senator). Nor did they seem to care that McCain's Vice Presidential pick, Sarah Palin, has only two years of experience as governor of Alaska. "

This is some funny shit... so you are saying that Obamas time as an IL state senator and US Senator is more exerience than being the governor of GA, TX and CA just because it was a longer duration?

Well hell, by those standards Palin is the most experienced out of like everybody, because she had like a decade as mayor and governor.
 
midcan5 said:
Read my friends, read, and you shall see, well maybe not, but there is plenty there to demonstrate Obama's experience.


A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23316912/makebelieve_maverick
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/23318320/mad_dog_palin
>
Click to expand...

that rolling stone article about being mavericky is great I read it a few days ago.
 
I don't worry about his experience, I worry about bad policy. We cannot afford this stupid bailout let alone doubling the cost by adding all those spendthrift programs.

Same for all the "What will government do for you" programs that McCain promises.
 
midcan5 said:
Read my friends, read, and you shall see, well maybe not, but there is plenty there to demonstrate Obama's experience.


A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote against the fundamental principle of America, the right of the individual to lead their life privately without the government interfering.

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/23316912/makebelieve_maverick
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/23318320/mad_dog_palin
>
Click to expand...

Now you're trying to argue Obama has enough experience now to be President when before you were arguing he has more experience than most of our recent Presidents before they took office.

As I said, there are two of you (well 2 1/2 if you count citizen) that believe that.
 
did you read the article about McMaverick CAW. It is very good and a lot was from McMavericks own book.
McMaverick is clearly not presidential material.
 
McCain should have never ran. His year was in 2000 and I would have voted for him with out reservation that year. Ones imagination fairly boggles at how much better off this nation would have been with out the Bush years and had a truely competent Persident.

But that was then and this is now. This election is mainly going to be a referendum and rejection of the conservative cause, its underlying inadequecies and inability to govern affectively.

Who ever wins will be inheriting the mess of Bush's disastrous policies. McCain will have a more difficult time cleaning up the mess because he will have to fight his own party as well as the democrats. I don't think the party beleives McCain can deliver the change that we need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top