[QUOTE=Saint Cad]
A lot of people (not necessarily on SD) seem to equate not supporting Obama as racism. For me, it is simple - he lacks the experience I think someone should have to be President in the 21st Century.
His political experience amounts to:
Illinois State Senator for 8 years
US Senator for 4 years
How do you address Barack Obama’s complete lack of executive (e.g. governor) and minimal federal experience when supporting him for President?
[/QUOTE]
I want to answer this cold without reading the thread. I will then read the thread.
Here are my reasons and responses.
First off, when considering which candidate I wanted to support this election, I did a lot of homework and went to every major candidates websites and read their policy & position papers. Obama and McCain both did very good jobs in this area. Hillary was lagging at first and then caught up. Edwards also had a good site with no shortage of details, but I did not agree with his positions.
In my reading I found most of my questions about Obama answered.
How I address his lack of executive experience is simple. This election came down to three Senators running against each other. Obama put together the best team to accomplish his goal and was the best organized despite the decades head starts that Hillary and McCain had. This speaks volumes to his organizational skills and ability to build a good and successful team.
His 12 years of experience is actually more than Hillary’s and far less than John McCain’s. I don’t think 12 is too little though. It is more than either JFK or Theodore Roosevelt. He knows how to handle the Senate and Congress already, so where he is lacking is dealing with the government bureaucracy. This can be addressed by how he builds his cabinet. If he picks experienced capable people, they will handle the departments for him and he can handle the big picture.
Finally I see no reason why not supporting Obama is racism. Your concerns are valid and many will have valid reason to support John McCain who is another good candidate.
Executive experience is one of the things to be considered in choosing a candidate for President (or any other executive position, for that matter). An advantage of considering experience is that it is objective and measurable.
…
One of Obama’s disadvantages is that he lacks executive experience. That can be measured.
…
McCain and Clinton have more experience in national politics and the Senate. This is capable of objective verification - four years for Obama, twenty two years for McCain (and four in the House), eight years for Clinton. McCain has more executive experience (and arguably, Clinton). Again, this can be measured. Obama (as mentioned) has never been elected to executive office, never led as an individual, but always as a legislator. McCain is a war hero, squadron commander, etc., etc.
…
[/QUOTE]
Are you seriously suggesting that military experience gives McCain the “executive” experience that Obama lacks?
Because his “more experience in national politics and the Senate” is pretty obviously an apple to the executive orange.
A lot of my reasons for my unconcern with Obama’s lack of executive experience have already been articulated. There’s one more which I’m having trouble putting into words, and it sounds clumsy and a little mean, but I’ll give it a shot anyway: I don’t WANT anyone who’s been successful in the executive branch of our government for the last 8 years to be my president. I think they’re all a bunch of lying manipulative greedy backstabbing human rights violating assholes. If Obama HAD experience as part of that group, I wouldn’t vote for him.
So I’m not only dismissing his lack of experience as a strike against him, I’m viewing it as a positive.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
McCain and Clinton have more experience in national politics and the Senate.
[/QUOTE]
Don’t forget Herbert Hoover! And Richard Nixon. And of course, George Bush.
Obama has also been a law professor and a community organizer. Being a community organizer in inner city Chicago is bound to require a level of conflict resolution, compromise and arm twisting that is applicable to the job of POTUS.
The most analogous experience to POTUS is governing a state, but since none of the candidates have done that, it’s a wash. None of the heads on Mt. Rushmore did that either.
My answer to the question of Obama’s alleged “inexperience” is that he has more experience than Lincoln did, that no experience really prepares anyone for the job anyway and that it’s kind of a scrabbling, straw clutching objection. McCain has been in the Senate longer than Obama. BFD. Obama is still smarter, more honest, more analytical and more decent than McCain is, and at last he knows the difference between Sunni and Shia.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Obama’s never led a formal organization
[/QUOTE]
His campaign? Granted, we have yet to see how he does in the general, but the primary’s been pretty grueling in itself. It’s a national organization that requires him to touch almost every part of it at some point during the campaign. He’s been running around nonstop since the beginning of the year. By nearly any metric, he’s run a solid organization. He’s Google to Clinton’s Microsoft; he managed to go from a quiet nobody to holding just over an equal share of the market. And as far as anyone can tell, his hands are cleaner than any other politician’s. (He may have sold his soul, who knows?)
He may not necessarily have experience, but he clearly has talent. His campaign alone proves he has the ability to lead, regardless of where that ability comes from.
[QUOTE=Dinsdale]
Are you seriously suggesting that military experience gives McCain the “executive” experience that Obama lacks?
[/QUOTE]
Yes - you know, “leadership”, courage, all those things that Obama has never been called on to demonstrate.
If you’re a conservative, chances are you voted for GW in 2000 based on a gut feeling.
Liberals and moderates are going for Obama for similar reasons. We can point to how he’s run his campaign all we want, but truthfully, we’re responding to Obama on a gut level. We like the guy, and we can see him as a strong president.
I don’t really see that experience is all that valuable as president. In fact I would think that a more experienced politician is more cynical (understandably so) and probably more used to (and probably better at) lying to the public. I will take my own assessment of who has more integrity and leadership ability over the experience of someone who’s spent his whole life doing whatever it takes to try to become as powerful as possible.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Yes - you know, “leadership”, courage, all those things that Obama has never been called on to demonstrate.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, mentoring inner-city kids — creating hope where there was dispair — is a damn cowardly act.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
And when Obama runs against any of these folks, then it will be perfectly legitimate to compare his experience to theirs.
[/QUOTE]
Gee, I dunno. When McCain leads community renewal projects and Obama joins the Air Force, will it then be perfectly legitimate to compare their experience?
Some of the worst presidents have had military backgrounds, some of the best ones have not. It’s an indicator of nothing. Hell, Hitler had combat exprience.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Yes - you know, “leadership”, courage, all those things that Obama has never been called on to demonstrate.
[/QUOTE]
Hell, the current occupant hasn’t exactly shown a ton of leadership and courage in his past 8 years as an executive.
And since you feel like moving the goal posts away from “executive experience”, I’ll offer that Obama has exhibited more courage in becoming a successful black man in America than McCain or any other white man possibly could.
Sure, that’s a BS argument - but no more so than yours.
It’s a legitimate question. I’m with those who see McCain’s experience as a negative- decades of greasing the skids and establishing powerful friends and building up favors owed and earned- these do not make me more inclined to trust someone with the Oval Office.
But if someone feels differently, I can’t really argue with that. I just don’t value prior experience that much in a President. I think it’s actually the ultimate entry-level job because no job is remotely like it, even if it does involve executive or management experience. Further, every administration is different and every president’s role is different.
I think generally the feeling is that McCain has been around longer, if he was going to flip out or fuck up, or punch an ambassador, he’d have done it by now. Obama is more of a risk, objectively. I think I agree with that. But when comparing the two side by side my subjective judgement tells me that Obama will be a more stable and less risky president.
As others have said, I also find it compelling that he was able to create and manage such an extraordinary campaign, and continue to be impressed with his forceful consolidation of his own party’s support in the last week or so. The man can lead, he can be a strong advocate for a position, and yet he is open to surrounding himself with people who challenge his views. I like that combination and it vastly reinforces the smaller amount of experience that he does have.
[QUOTE=Shodan]
Again, not much to distinguish him from any other nominee, who by definition ran a successful campaign.
[/QUOTE]
It’s not just that it was successful. To be successful, you merely have to get more votes than the other candidate. A bad campaign can still beat a good campaign if enough people want that candidate. Obama’s run a tight, efficient ship and has been able to keep his employee base energized and productive. Other than his few personal slips (I refuse to say gaffes any more), there’s very little you can point to in his campaign and say “He failed at this.”