TheWraith
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-12-06 07:10 PM
Original message |
Experience is not a prerequisite for governing. |
|
I'll preface this by saying that I'm not neccessarily "for" Obama in 2008, and I too would feel more comfortable perhaps if he had more experience. But I do like him, and find him to be possibly the most appealing of the candidates who are assumed to be running.
But I must say, as far as the experience issue goes, it is not now and never has been a requirement in American politics. Lincoln's only experience in national government was two years in the House of Representatives, where he ended up getting kicked out after a speech against the Mexican-American War, 14 years prior to running for President. George Washington's only political qualification for office beyond having won the war was as a Virginia provincial legislator.
Yes, you can point at Bush as an example of inexperience being bad, but experience was the least of Bush's problems: he's insular, a rigid thinker, simple minded, and always convinced that he's right, among other things. Even being president hasn't cured him of that. So I don't see it as being a valid comparison.
Yes, it would be nice to have everything. But given the choice between someone, say like John Kerry, who has experience but not that sense of vitality and charisma, and somebody like Obama, I'd choose the latter.
|
WHEN CRABS ROAR
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-12-06 07:16 PM
Response to Original message |
1. Even a bad actor can be a govenor and president. |
wtmusic
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-12-06 07:28 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Why don't you fast forward and build a monument for the guy? |
|
At the bottom it will say, "Barack Obama -- He Called Paul Wellstone a Gadfly".
Pretty optimistic for someone who hasn't connected himself to one controversial position or piece of legislation.
|
beaconess
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-12-06 07:29 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Edited on Tue Dec-12-06 07:30 PM by beaconess
:applause:
|
AJH032
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-12-06 08:49 PM
Response to Original message |
4. no, but often it's a prerequisite to winning |
|
As the opposition will make it a central issue.
|
beaconess
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-12-06 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. The fact that the opposition makes it a central issue doesn't make it a prerequisite to winning |
|
Candidates with less lengthy resumes often beat their more "experienced" opponents.
JFK v. Richard Nixon Jimmy Carter v. Gerald Ford Ronald Reagan v. Jimmy Carter Bill Clinton v. George H.W. Bush George W. Bush v. Al Gore (we all know Bush didn't "win," but he got close enough to steal it)
|
SaveElmer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-12-06 10:28 PM
Response to Original message |
6. Largely correct...a couple minor points... |
|
George Washington was also President of the Constitutional Convention. His presence and subsequent support for the Constitution, plus the assumption that he would be the first President, insured its passage...this was a significant addition to his resume.
|
Clarkie1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-12-06 10:30 PM
Response to Original message |
7. Excellent points about some of our greatest presidents! K & R |
sendero
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-12-06 10:32 PM
Response to Original message |
|
.... but it might be a prerequisite for getting elected. And that's a good thing.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon May 13th 2024, 03:15 PM
Response to Original message |