Barack Obama lacks experience.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

2 years of primetime experience. He has no experience growing up a woman, like the majority of Americans. He has no experience running in a competitive election and winning. He would be probably be the least experienced president ever. Lincoln is often cited, since he had only 2 years of elected experience. It is absurd to compare Obama to Lincoln. Lincoln saved the union; Obama gave one hyped speech with a bunch of fluff in it like "we coach little league in blue states." Obama is also often compared to JFK on experience. The problem? JFK had 14 years of experience in Congress when he took office; Obama has 2. Besides, as someone once said: Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy. At this crucial juncture in American history the nation is unlikely to put someone who has such little experience in the Oval Office, particularly in the light of the damage done by the ignorant and inexperienced George W. Bush, who had zero foreign policy experience when he took office.

Barack Obama lacks experience.

[AtomicKitten]

1. The OP can't add.

Obama was in the Illinois State Senate from 1997 to 2004
and the U.S. Senate 2004 to the present ...

7 + 2 = 9 years in office.

On the other hand, the OP has plenty of experience slamming Obama.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

3. name one bill that

hillary sponsored.
Kucinich has sponsored many. Obama has a few, Biden, old hat at it.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

5. Obama's whoring for the coal industry hardly qualifies him to be prez nt

[TeamJordan23]

7. I guess whoring the country into the Iraq War is okay. nm

[draft_mario_cuomo]

10. Obama is running on his bipartisanship. On what? Whoring for the coal industry was huge

After all, who cares about the environment? :crazy:

Al Gore on Obama's precious liquid coal: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbNImXTEkNA

[Adelante]

16. Edwards voted against limits on mountain top removal mining

Pleasing the Bush administration very much, no doubt.

What does Al Gore think of this, do you suppose?




Our poor, poor Earth.

[CarolNYC]

31. Yep, that mountain top removal mining is some pretty ugly stuff....n/t

[draft_mario_cuomo]

32. Good question. How about starting a thread about Edwards and that issue?

This thread is about Obama. I would gladly compare voting for mountaintop removal with carrying the coal industry's water, sponsoring two $8 billion bills for the coal industry with Republican Jim Bunning. Of course, I don't expect you to post a thread on that. There is a difference in degree, like there is between someone actually voting for the IWR and someone saying they "probably" would have voted for it. The MO is to deflect attention from Obama by invoking Edwards, not to actually discuss Edwards. ;)

Your consistent stream of posts on Edwards raise an important point, though. All of our candidates are flawed. These flaws need to be discussed now, not when it is too late at this time next year.

[Adelante]

64. My mistake, I thought this subthread was about corporate "whoring"

You know, as Edwards did for the financial services sector when he sat on the Banking Committee, back when he was known as one of the "Mercantile 8" along with six Republicans and Chuck Schumer. Or when he invested part of his wealth in the war machine he helped get going or invested half of his wealth in a hedge fund that profits off subprime lending foreclosures.

But, seriously now .. ;)

I appreciate some of what you say. All of our candidates are certainly flawed and I don't expect human beings, especially politicians, to be perfect. But discussing those flaws, doing our due diligence as voters, is extremely important. With the current top three candidates - Obama votes around 90% with Hillary as Edwards voted around 90% with Hillary - they are all Democrats so it stands to reason there is similarity in positions - it's in the 10% difference in record that you figure out what flaws you can live with and which would kill you. Comparing the candidates in any thread is pretty normal and the only way to avoid continuous and useless campaign puffery in GDP. It's a weigh and measure game with all the various elements applied candidate to candidate, and so you decide on one and not the other.

As it happens, I have two areas of conflict with Obama. One you hit on, liquid coal, and the other his judicial votes. Liquid coal could be a deal breaker, I'm still struggling with it, and I am hoping that his supporters see their way to trying to pull Obama away from this direction. If I do become a supporter, I would exert pressure on him, as a supporter, in this area. I appreciate his position overall that a president has to be able to make appointments to the federal bench, I do, but there comes a time (court-packing in California) when the rubber has to hit the road and it didn't with Obama (for me).

That said, in the weighing and measuring, applying my standards to all eight candidates, his coming up two short isn't unusually bad. In fact, I am generally supportive of seven out of eight of our candidates, which isn't bad either.

What keeps Obama inside the rope and Edwards outside the rope is what Edwards did that Obama didn't do.

You know what's coming ...

Obama is not the one:

-who was the ONLY senator to sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2002 and NOT read the National Intelligence Estimate

-who had the unmitigated gall to co-sponsor a war resolution without reading the National Intelligence Estimate

-who had the tragically poor judgment to not only co-sponsor the IWR but to vote against every single alternative which could have provided any redirection or controls on Bush

-whose op-ed hawking the war was carried on government websites worldwide it was so appreciated by the Bush administration

-who has the insufferable arrogance to think he should lead the country in peace after taking it to war out of hubris and political opportunism

-who is sorry for his actions, yet immune as he believes himself to be from accountability, since he's confessed his sorrow, not only thinks he shouldn't PAY for it, but thinks he deserves to be rewarded with the presidency


I want justice for the blood and sacrifice. I want all of the IWR YES voters to pay, but especially Edwards because of all of the above. I want him to pay way more, way, way more.


Luckily, half the candidates in the field qualify for my primary vote. I will support one of them over the rest of them, especially John Edwards, in the primaries. I will vote for the nominee. If the party leaves me no choice and that's Edwards, I will vote even for him though very sorry to do it.

If the nominee is Obama, I will be proud to do it.

[AtomicKitten]

36. I would suspect the OP doesn't want to talk about that --

or will try to marginalize you even bringing it up.

[Mind_your_head]

53. Looks like a blister.

on edit: a huge, big, bad, ugly, painful BLISTER!

[Adelante]

63. Consider the collateral damage and it's even worse

Hundreds and hundreds of rivers and streams and reservoirs filled in with toxic waste. Think of the aquifer and what condition the drinking water takes on as it seeps through the ground. Hundreds of thousands of clear-cut trees - gone. Even old family cemeteries are not respected - they can just get scooped right up and a primary source of cultural history is gone in a flash. Imagine living on one of these tortured mountains, the noise and the filth. Imagine trying to sleep when your bed is jumping around as these monstrosities blast day and night. Imagine being a child with small lungs and developing hearing. There is nothing good to be said about it.

"a huge, big, bad, ugly, painful BLISTER!" - in more ways than one and a thousand times uglier than it looks.

[alteredstate]

59. Edwards has a low 63% rating with the League of Conservation voters

not good.

[jillan]

2. Like I always say -

Give me Barack Obama in 4 or 8 years.

I like the guy and believe he would be a dynamic leader.
Just want to see him get more experience under his belt.

[JeffR]

4. Empty-headed attack on a candidate other than HRC. Kewl.

BTW, neither Obama nor Clinton gets my primary vote.

[MonkeyFunk]

40. The OP

is an Edwards supporter.

[Forkboy]

44. The OP is something...

I had a different term in mind. :)

[TeamJordan23]

6. Racist comment by DMC?

He has no experience growing up a woman, like the majority of Americans.

Are you saying that Obama, or anyone running for President, needs to be part of some American majority group to be considered a valid presidential candidate.

Under your reasoning, is anyone who shares a certain quality or skin color, that is not aligned with the majority of Ameicans, unqualified to be President?

I find that very ignorant.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

8. Apparently that is the standard Obama fans use

Notice TJ is silent in that thread? I bet he even recommended it.

calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Aug-26-07 07:55 PM
Original message
Hillary Clinton lacks experience.

Edited on Sun Aug-26-07 08:00 PM by calteacherguy
She lacks the necessary experience in community organizing, growing up as a minority, living in a foreign culture, constitutional scholarhip and teaching, and forcefully opposing the worst foreign policy blunder in American history. Additionaly, she participated in unwisely ceeding important constitutional powers of the legislative branch to the President.

It is a President's duty first and formost to defend the constitution of the United States. She just isn't experienced enough to be President.

[ElizabethDC]

9. Well, I think that comment is a take-off of a comment made in a similar thread. n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

11. This is just as stupid and childish

as the thread it's copycatting.

Come on, people.... grow the fuck up. It's like a kindergarden playground in here.

[CarolNYC]

12. There definitely are some kindergarten mentalities here, eh? n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

24. It's one thing to support a candidate

but it's entirely another to constantly post threads attacking a candidate, for absolutely no purpose than to tear him or her down. It's just assholish behavior.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

25. So why are you in this thread? nt

[MonkeyFunk]

37. Why shouldn't I be?

[jefferson_dem]

13. What the fuck?

Seriously, dude. I feel compelled to set you straight over and over and over but enough is enough.

Why recycle and rehash this nonsense...unless you're just here to fuck with people?

I have yet to ever employ the ignore function but i'm not sure i can hold out any longer.

[AtomicKitten]

14. yep

IGNORE FUNCTION. Never used it. I couldn't stand the suspense.

[alteredstate]

15. Now if you really want to send him over the edge....

All you'd have to do is start a "John Edwards lacks experience" thread.

[AtomicKitten]

19. I'm thinking we are going through a cycle --

either that or we are at the County Fair dunk tank.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

26. Jeff_Dem's double standard on display again. Where is your whining in the similar HRC thread?

You know, the one that has 12 recs already--which likely includes some of the people whining in this thread... There cannot be one standard for Obama and one for everyone else. The arrogance of Obama supporters has no bounds. They actually think Obama should be above criticism while they have license to attack his rivals routinely.

In case you "missed it" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3479415&mesg_id=3479415
Now that you are aware of the thread surely you will promptly be in it whining about it, right? Somehow I doubt it...

[cleveramerican]

17. Passion

He has it like nobody else, and he is a TV star. The camera loves the guy.
If he can somehow wrestle the nomination away from Hillary, He will roll over the republican nominee on an unstoppable tidal wave of momentum.

[zulchzulu]

18. Being an Edwards supporter, does John have more experience than Barack?

AK schooled you on your inaccuracies, but since you bring this up as an "issue", do you feel that John Edwards has more experience than Barack Obama?

:popcorn:

[jefferson_dem]

23. Well, let's put it this way. Edwards has almost as much experience running for president as

he does actually serving the people in any "publicly elected" capacity.

So...this particular smear effort probably won't take hold the way the OP is hoping...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

28. Jeff_Dem calls this thread a "smear" but is silent on the similar thread about HRC

That says it all about Jeff_Dem's "principle" on such matters...

[draft_mario_cuomo]

27. 3x more--and voters agree. You don't see JE try to prove he is experienced everyday

Who is AK? Is that the arrogant Obama fan who likes to tell posters what they should, or should not post; what they should and should not think? If so, I have that individual on ignore so I missed whatever that individual posted.

[backscatter712]

20. I'll paraphrase Barack's own response to this...

Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld's resumes are among the longest in Capitol Hill. Look where that got us.

I consider experience to be a handicap in this game. The longer you play the game, the bigger your rolodex, yes, but the more money you get from backers, meaning the more favors you owe, and the more of your soul you have to sell to stay in the game.

If it were up to me, I'd remove every single person in elected office from Congress and the Presidency, and replace them with complete newbies. They could hardly do worse than what the experienced people have done...

[illinoisprogressive]

21. Obama, 8 yrs in state and 3 in US. Edwards: 6 yrs in US. who again lacks experience?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

30. What percentage of voters think 2 years of experience is enough?

The fact that Obama is the only one who constantly has to prove he is experienced enough should give Obama fans a hint as to how everyone outside of Obamaland views his stint in the minors.

[Mojorabbit]

22. My dream is the most progressive

candidate wins. If we have a majority in both houses the president sets the tone and congress makes the laws... It would be wonderful. I am not sure how it would work out with a conservative dem as prez and a mixed dem congress. I am not sure congress will hold it's dem majority if they don't get up off their butts. I have not made up my mind but I am disturbed at the number of people here who are willing to overlook decidedly non progressive planks in a candidates platform as their policies emerge because they have already decided.

[ecstatic]

29. Lincoln saved the union after being elected

Compare apples to apples already. LOL

[draft_mario_cuomo]

33. So you are saying if Obama is elected he will perform like the greatest president ever?

And this is based on him uttering vague, generic poll-tested rhetoric? Is there a limit to the Obama hype?

[ecstatic]

34. Maybe, if haters like you quit dogging him and let him fulfill his destiny

It's quite possible that he could make history and change this country for the better.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

35. In other words, people should stop questioning His Majesty because he is inevitable? nt

[ecstatic]

58. Not saying that. I'm saying that if he, or even Clinton gets elected

we need to work WITH them, not against them.

[emilyg]

38. Fulfill his destiny??? Get real.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

47. It often resembles a cult nt

[killbotfactory]

39. What the fuck does a constitutional scholar know, anyway?

[draft_mario_cuomo]

41. So being a law professor qualifies you to be president?

Do you think Jonathen Turley is qualified to be president?

[killbotfactory]

42. Being over 35 years old and an american citizen qualifies you to be president.

And yes, I'm pretty sure a constitutional scholar knows something about how to run the USA.

He's not some fucking dunce of the street.

Oh fuck it, I'm putting you on ignore. Too much bullshit to wade through, and you obviously aren't interested in anything other than being an anti-Obama propagandists. Bye.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

46. There are many intelligent people. That qualifies them to be president?

Of course, you know that was coming, right? Even you couldn't defend such a proposition. There is a difference between being legally qualified to be president and being qualified in reality. Do you think the 40 year old next door is qualified simply because he meets all the legal qualifications to be president?

Bye. :hi: I'll have to put you on ignore as well. There is no point reading your posts and replying to them if it will be a 1 way street.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

45. Psst... (thanks for sharing your arrogance, though)

:boring: Another self-appointed keyboard quarterback.

This thread received 12 recs (from many of the same people whining about my thread). I am sure you will be there shortly lecturing the OP of that...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3479415&mesg_id=3479415

==calteacherguy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Aug-26-07 07:55 PM
Original message
Hillary Clinton lacks experience.

Edited on Sun Aug-26-07 08:00 PM by calteacherguy
She lacks the necessary experience in community organizing, growing up as a minority, living in a foreign culture, constitutional scholarhip and teaching, and forcefully opposing the worst foreign policy blunder in American history. Additionaly, she participated in unwisely ceeding important constitutional powers of the legislative branch to the President.

It is a President's duty first and formost to defend the constitution of the United States. She just isn't experienced enough to be President.==

[Forkboy]

57. I'll comment on the stupidity as I come across it.

That's as dumb as yours,but if you want people to see the connection maybe you should explain to people that haven't read every single thread yet.

Assuming people care enough about you to follow the action from thread to thread is the height of arrogance there,Sport.

And just because someone writes something asinine doesn't mean you have to follow suit.Grow the fuck up.

[jefferson_dem]

60. Words of wisdom there.

:applause:

[guruoo]

48. "He has no experience growing up a woman"

That does it. Obama's out!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[draft_mario_cuomo]

50. That is satire. See post 45 nt

[calteacherguy]

49. Who cares about how long they've been in the senate?

What difference does it make? Actually, less time in the senate is better most poltical strategists would say.

As for the rest of your post, it's not even worth engaging you on it it's just so silly.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

51. Who cares? Most voters. The difference? Electability and effectiveness if elected nt

[calteacherguy]

52. No, less time in the senate is an advantage.

Any political strategist who understands modern politics will tell you that. There is no advantage to serving in the senate. A governor is a different story.

In any case, Hillary hasn't spent significantly more time in the senate, so I don't know where you are coming from. You don't make any sense, even arguing your own point of view.

[draft_mario_cuomo]

54. Why do you think Obama is the only one of 18 candidates constantly claiming he has enough experience

He does it because he realizes most voters consider him inexperienced.

You confusing different things. Having a long senate record offers more things for the opposition to cherry pick and use for attack. However, it is an advantage in being seen as experienced, and more importantly, understanding the federal government and Washington politics. Clinton and Obama are the same on the issues. However, Clinton will be a far more effective president in the White House than Obama because of her experience. The only area where Obama has an advantage is he can sell some things to progressives that progressives otherwise would oppose or have long opposed. When it comes to getting legislation passed Clinton will be better. Clinton gives us the better of both worlds. If Clinton pulls a pro-corporate move progressives will be all over her; when she does progressive things she would be more likely to achieve it than Obama. Obama, on the other hand, would be more likely to get pro-corporate legislation enacted because he would pacify the Obama wing of the netroots/progressive base and get enough Republican votes to pass it but be less likely to push through progressive bills.

How many times has Hillary had to argue that she is experienced enough to be president? She has spent 3x more time in the senate than Obama, who would be the least experienced president ever, and was in the WH for 8 years.

[calteacherguy]

55. Dude, you just don't get it.

Obama is tearing down Hillary's meme that her experiences make her the best choice, and he's doing it successfully. The reason he's doing it successfully is voters recognize his character and judgment. The American people care far more about that then Hillary's experiences, as you will learn to your dismay.

Goodnight. :-)

[draft_mario_cuomo]

56. Only in Obamaland has he conquered the experience question

If he had he would not need to constantly argue he is experienced enough. Obama supporters are so enamored with Obama that they cannot see why most Americans--even most DUers--view 2 years of senate experience as not being enough to prepare you for the presidency. I don't expect BO supporters to vote against him because of this but they should be able to recognize why Obama has this unique problem among the 18 people who have run for president this year.

[alteredstate]

61. Obama has more experience

Let's see.....
Hillary Clinton - 6 years in the Senate
Barack Obama - 6 years in the State Legislature, 3 years in the Senate, Professor of Constitutional Law

[retread]

62. Everyone has experience. You think his life so far disqualifies him. I think

it uniquely qualifies him and gives him a potential of being one of our best leaders ever.