Experience or Message more important in '08?

[Radical Activist]

Every time one of the many discussions comes up about potential '08 candidates someone says candidate "x" doesn't have enough experience. I've pointed out repeatedly that in election after election the public has chosen the candidate with less experience who had a message the people responded to. In choosing a winning candidate in '08, which quality is more important to look for?

[wyldwolf]

1. just out of curiosity

I've pointed out repeatedly that in election after election the public has chosen the candidate with less experience who had a message the people responded to.

Which elections were those?

[Radical Activist]

7. Many

Bush over Gore, Clinton over Bush I, Reagan over Carter, Carter over Ford, Kennedy over Nixon. All of the winners in those races had less governing experience. They also typically had a message for the moment that resonated with people.
Yes, you can point out that Gore really won, but it says something that it was so close when there's not even any comparison in the experience levels between Gore and Bush in 2000. The fact that Bush had almost no experience or qualifications for office didn't stop the Republicans from picking who they thought would be a winner.

[mrgorth]

2. Doesn't matter

people vote for charisma.

[Javaman]

3. Neither, just someone with fucking brains will do. nt

[Totally Committed]

4. We had a candidate with an impressive resume as long as my arm

the last time and it all meant a big nothing. At the end of the day, that resume was the albatross around his neck that dragged him under. Never again.

Nope. The message... A MESSAGE I CAN CAST A VOTE FOR WITHOUT FEELING I NEED A SHOWER WHEN I'M DONE... a message that reflect TRUE DEMOCRATIC values... is all-important.

Note to all candidates: There is a message sent by the company you choose to keep. No candidate who belongs to the cynical, corporatist, war-monger wing of this Party (aka the DLC) will get a vote from me. If you are on their rolls when the primaries start, you are automatically off my list. Think about it... I'm not the only one who feels this way... and find the guts to publicly resign your membership or you are as good as Republican to me. End of story.

TC

[wyldwolf]

5. LOL! We'll send memos out that TC won't vote for you if you're DLC

...I'm sure they'll all be shaking in their boots.

[Totally Committed]

11. I'm not alone... and, they should be concerned, but thanks for passing

that memo for me. People who say you're a disingenuous, confrontational, sarcastic, ill-tempered, persnickety DLC shill must be wrong. You're a prince! :)

TC

[wyldwolf]

12. Of course you're not alone

and thanks for sticking up for me!

[StoryTeller]

6. Both

I didn't vote in your poll because the "experience" option of "long resume" isn't descriptive of what I consider experience.

Lots of candidates can have great message and delivery, or long resumes. But to me, it really matters what their credentials are for sending those messages. If the resume--long or short--doesn't pertain to the issue they are discussing, then I don't see why I should trust either their experience or their message.

Talk is cheap, no matter how eloquent it is. I want to vote for someone who has proven their credentials in their message topics over the long haul. Someone who has consistently shown integrity both publicly and privately, and who has had to deal with a depth and variety of situations relating to their message.

I don't know what the "public" at large feels about this, but that's my take on it.

[Totallybushed]

8. Message, it's always message.

Who wants a competent person in charge who is opposed to everything that you believe in??

[FrenchieCat]

9. It should be BOTH! Doh! But.....

It's more complicated than that.....but simply stated, we are operatingMore and more under an "American Idol styled democracy"....although instead of the one that sings best being voted the winner, it's usually the one that looks best on the album cover after retouches are done.

FACT: Most VOTING folks vote for who the Corporate media is pushing (hence Hillary is doing best) So whomever you hear the most media buzz about ends up with national name recognition, and therefore gets higher poll results, and in turn becomes a "frontrunner" candidate because the punditocracy says so.

FACT: Most folks know very little about any of the candidates, so popularity is not based on what a candidate has actually done over their lifetime, but based more on what "they say they will do" at the time that the voters are paying attention.

We operate under the allusion of democracy....but in reality, it isn't really there.

[wiley]

10. Most people vote based on looks.

Good looks, or similar looks, or looks aspired to that represent position or inclusion in a society or a subculture.

[WildEyedLiberal]

13. "Experience or message" = "substance or style"

America voted for style over substance in the past two elections and now the country is going down the shitter. If people haven't learned their lesson by now, then America deserves what it gets.

We're not voting for American Idol - we're electing someone competent enough to fix America. A good stump speech doesn't cut it.