I, for one, would rather have an inexperienced person with whom I agree with more on issues, than an experienced person with whom I disagree. If it ever happens that it’s a toss-up on issues (which has never happened in my adult life) then maybe I’ll consider experience.
Sure, expose my ignorance, thanks a lot.
This may or may not be true, but it is not objectively measurable the way experience is.
You demonstrate one of the problems with debate on the SDMB - the tendency for people to ask for cites that water is wet when an argument tends to be trending against one of their pets.
I am afraid it is hard to take seriously a request to prove that people with no leadership skills, no courage, and no experience are just as likely to be successful in the Presidency as anyone else. And I don’t think I am alone in this.
But by all means use this to trumpet Obama for the highest office in the land -
“Obama - Mediocrity Is Just Another Glass Ceiling!”
Regards,
Shodan
You can still make comparisons.
Obama took on the entrenched juggernaut that was the Clinton campaign and beat them. That is no small accomplishment.
He managed to keep tight control over the tenor of his campaign. No major missteps or in-fighting arising from within his campaign staff or scandal there.
He has, I believe, shattered records for fund raising and his campaign is in the black (and if not shattered records certainly done exceptionally well). The Clinton juggernaut finished in the red requiring Clinton to write herself multi-million dollar checks. I seem to recall he also has something on the order of 3:1 of the on hand cash that McCain does. More importantly he has largely avoided big money checks so this is a well he can go back to again and again.
By all accounts Obama’s campaign is the envy of most any other politician…ever.
This is the first time I have seen McCain’s military experience equated to executive experience.
Well, the one bit of proof (either way) that we do have in this thread is the list of presidents and their experience prior to taking office provided above.
Looking through that list I do not see anything like a trend in either direction. To me this argues that prior experience is not a metric worth using no matter how measurable it is.
That said I think saying Obama has no worthwhile experience is just false. Not like he was unemployed on welfare the last 25 years and then decided he’d make a good president.
Courage? The kind of courage required of a soldier has nothing whatsoever in common with the kind of courage required of a president.
Thank you. It’s a little funny that Shodan claims the campaign’s quality isn’t objectively measurable, when I bet you anything any national corporation would kill to have the kind of numbers he does.
The comparison to Google is a highly apt one, I think. In a very short time, Obama’s become a ubiquitous household name, is capably competing with the old veterans of the arena he’s playing in, his employees/volunteers are energized and active, and he’s bringing in money and votes by the truckloads. Some may disagree with his policies and believe he has ulterior motives (Google wants to collect all the information in the world and centralize it on their networks, which most certainly doesn’t sit well with some people), but as far as anyone’s been able to determine, he’s the real deal.
You know the old saying: Desperate times call for desperate measures.
“War hero” is an executive position? Do they have to do payroll?
I get the impression that legislative experience provides diminishing returns in regards to “presidental” experience. I’m not saying that Obama has hit that threshhold but I suspect McCain has. His legislative tenure wouldn’t suddenly pale to that of Senator Byrd, for instance, when you’re deciding who should be president. Does McCain have any examples of stunning, above-the-call committee leadership or anything?
I suppose my impression of McCain’s legislative experience is tainted by the opinion of my wife who used to work as a staffer on Capitol Hill. She said that her impression (and the general opinion) of McCain as that he was a good man who loved his country, however he benefited entirely from a good staff who kept him directed. Without them steering him along, he makes any number of foolish errors. Her personal favorite event was McCain going onto the Senate floor to argue against a bill he had co-sponsored because his staff failed to prep him. McCain’s response was a lengthy drought of co-sponsoring bills after that in order to save himself the same embarassment twice.
My point here is just that a lengthy legislative career doesn’t necessarily amount to much in regards to how well you can take the reins.
But experience isn’t objective measurable, especially when you’re equating it, as you are, with some item on a resume. How do you match up two years of studious experience with ten years of goofing off? One person might have 20 years of experience in a particular position simply because he can do no better. When I employ people, I’m always careful to find out just exactly what they did with their experience. I wouldn’t, for example, count McCain’s finance reform disaster as an example of good leadership or experience. Thanks to his “leadership”, campaigns can be more hostile, more misleading, and more full of lies than ever. A long career filled with compromises and contradictions might constitute lots of “experience”, but that doesn’t make it a good thing.
No, it’s perfectly legitimate to compare their experience now. After all, they are running against each, so that is the choice.
If you were looking for a community organizer, then certainly on paper Obama has more recent experience. If you are looking for a national politician, executive, Commander-in-Chief possessed of a nearly incredible level of demonstrated courage and leadership, well, perhaps not so much.
One of the issues before the country seems to be that of torture. One candidate certainly knows what that means, and most people would agree that he therefore has a perspective worthy of consideration on the subject. After all, he has five and a half years of experience to draw on when considering what is and what is not torture. The other seems mostly to have suffered the discomfort of hard pews while listening to some anti-American bigot scream urban legends.
One candidate is a best-selling author, who drew the inspiration for his book from the rantings of the above mentioned bigot. So is the other candidate, except that his book was inspired by his father, a CINCPAC in war time.
Obama has organized groups for valuable purposes, you say. Good for him - were they in a concentration camp being beaten and starved at the time?
By all means, let’s compare the candidates. You might even conclude that Obama has qualities that better fit him for the Oval Office than his opponent. But he’s done very little to show it.
Regards,
Shodan
Well, you have to look at what he did.
I would never equate my own service with executive experience - though I can make an argument that I learned some management and leadership skills while I was in.
John McCain, though, at one point was commanding officer of the largest air squadron in the Navy - which meant he had hundreds of enlisted men and officers and billions of dollars worth of equipment under his direct command. And by all accounts, he did pretty well in the job - the unit earned a Meritorious Unit Commendation under his watch, its first in 26 years.
Now, is this enough executive experience by itself to qualify for the presidency? Probably not. But it shouldn’t be dismissed either, anymore than Obama’s leadership of the Law Review should be dismissed. They should be taken as parts of a whole.
How about a cite for Jeremiah Wright being a “bigot,” Shodan?
Let;'s not forget that McCain is the one who goes around screaming that he hate gooks and calling his wife a cunt.
First of all, no one who voted for Bush over Kerry has any credibility in trying argue for the virtues of military experience. You’ve already proven you don’t really believe that, so quit wasting our time.
Secondly, history shows that military experience has never had any application to the job of POTUS, so it merits no consideration whatsoever.
Well, I’m not going to stop calling bullshit on it.
And I guess I might as well also point out that Jeremiah Wright is not running for anything (nor was he the “inspiration” for anything in Obama’s second book except the title).
Oh, and John McCain’s own self-professed “spiritual guide,” unlike Wright, actually IS a demonstrably bigoted nutbag.
Are the skills and methods used to command troops in the field the same as the skills used to push an agenda through Congress? Seems to me they are very different skills unless negotiating with your troops and making compromises is now part of the military.
And while the POTUS is the Commander-in-Chief I never knew that position to be about leading troops. CINC tells his generals his goals and it trickles down from there.
What exactly makes McCain a war hero? Getting shot down and being a prisoner for 5 years? That’s either incompetance or maybe just bad luck. I’m not sure being a POW is heroic. It no doubt called for a lot of endurance to be sure though.
What kind of experience does McCain have outside of government?
I think Obama actually has more experience, or more relevant experience. McCain has been inside Washington so long that I actually don’t think he has enough “real world” experience. The guy is admitted computer illiterate. I’m not saying it is the most important thing, but I find it telling. McCain’s experience is outdated and narrow.
Obama, multi-racial, lived abroad, worked as a community activist, professor, accomplished author, state senate, US Senate, ran a 21st century campaign that will be the template for campaigns for years to come. The guy is 46 years old, it isn’t like he has done nothing with his life.