The Gullible Believe Obama Lacks Experience

[Infinite Hope]

Obama has more time in elected office than Hillary Clinton.

To be fair, Obama has 3 years of national experience while Hillary has 7.

Obama has more national experience than Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan, or Jimmy Carter did when they were elected - combined. All three had zero.

To the Republicans and the few Democrats who buy the Obama-lacks-national-experience argument, don't be so gullible.

[JimGinPA]

His Judgment Is More Important To Me

K&R

[Kittycat]

1. He also has the most comprehensive plan I've seen to safely get us out of Iraq.

And refocus on the right wars in the process.

[Muttocracy]

9. out of McCain, Hillary, and himself, or out of all the plans out there? nt

[Kittycat]

13. Out of the 3 of them.

[billbuckhead]

2. What a bunch of hooey, governors have long been the preferred candidate

because they have executive experience.

[democrattotheend]

4. But there are no governors left in the race

So it's a moot point. Was Richardson your first choice?

[papau]

15. indeed the change the atmosphere Obama has never negotiated a major compromise

[annie1]

3. Bill Clinton Governed a state for 14 years and was AG before that...

so it's really hard to compare his experience to barack, barack doesn't come close.

[Infinite Hope]

5. The argument was about "NATIONAL EXPERIENCE" not experience in general. Two different debates. n/t

[annie1]

7. i evaluate someone's total experience when i look at their creds. that being said...

i agree with the other poster that in his case judgement is his strength. when barack was first choice for me, that's what i looked at. b/c 2 years in the senate, and 8 as a state senator is not all that great.

[ingac70]

8. You don't include the years Obama taught Constitutional law?

That makes him most qualified in my eyes. Someone who actually has read the Constitution. How novel!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. He was also endorsed by Laurence Tribe.

Tribe is probably the most highly-regarded constitutional scholar in the US. Most endorsements don't mean a damn thing to me, but that one really did.

[annie1]

12. no, i don't. she's a lawyer, bills a lawyer, the wife's a lawyer, all the pols are...

they all know the constitution very well. it's an asset. and i'm very glad he knows the constitution as well as he does. actually there's a lot of things i like about barack's resume.

[rug]

6. The Gullible Believe Obama.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

10. The "he lacks experience" argument is getting really tiresome at this point.

As is the "he doesn't have any specific plans" one. For fuck's sake! People have had over a year to research the guy. If you haven't figured out what he stands for and what his plans are, that's an indication of your laziness and not a failure of his campaign to communicate it to you. As for experience, he kicked the ass of every supposedly more "experienced" candidate in the Primary thus far. Obviously the more "experienced" candidates weren't able to marshal their experience to beat him.

[Muttocracy]

14. The media, donors, and Iowans decided yrs of experience didn't matter

Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kucinich, Gravel have more years of relevant experience. Edwards, Clinton, and Obama had the least in #s of years. Anyone who was for Clinton from the start was not basing it on experience unless they think being First Lady is better preparation than being a governor, long-term congressman, ambassador, or cabinet secretary.

While I would have been happiest with one of the most experienced, it's too late for that, and the primary is a style/personality/judgement/trust/electability decision, with minor policy differences. And the GOP picked their most experienced candidate, so it's not a good argument for the Dems anyway at this point.

[metalluk]

16. Well, you've just argued that Obama is gullible,

since he stated in is recent Iraq speech, with uncharacteristic modesty, "the way to win that debate is not to compete with John McCain over who has more experience in Washington, because that’s a contest that he’ll win."

Obama himself, apparently, understands what you cannot admit. He is far and away the least experienced of the candidates still in the contest.

You could argue that experience doesn't matter or that judgment is more important (the American people don't agree with those arguments, based on polls in which they rate Obama least likely to deal effectively with the War in Iraq), but the media, the voters, Obama himself, and every objective observer knows full well that Obama has the least meaningful experience in foreign affairs.

Obama missed an opportunity in his recent Iraq speech, laying out no new specifics, but merely taking another opportunity to say "I told you so," for no better reason than one irrelevant speech in Illinois in front of a crowd of antiwar protesters. Between that speech and his decision to run for the presidency, he took no concrete steps, as a Senator, to try to end the war or to publicly voice his opposition.

[Infinite Hope]

17. Who said he should compete with McCain on experience?

These are two different issues. My point is only the gullible believe he lacks adequate national experience to be president. Your point is based on a comparison between he and McCain and somehow that makes Obama gullible? Let's repeat: "The gullible believe he lacks the national experience to be president." OBAMA DOES NOT BELIEVE HE LACKS THE NATIONAL EXPERIENCE TO BE PRESIDENT, so for you to claim the original post somehow means Obama is gullible seems to indicate you didn't comprehend the original post.

Now instead of realizing your error, feel free to get defensive and irrational.