But no president will last more than eight years.
Not true. It was Bush’s gubernatorial record that convinced me he wasn’t fit to be President back in 2000.
It’s true that Obama didn’t have to compete after the Democratic primary, but just to straighten out the facts: Keyes was nominated because the race was already a joke - Seven of Nine’s ex dropped out first, due to scandal, but he didn’t have a chance either. Illinois Republicans actually approached Mike Ditka about running at one point, but he turned them down. After sorting through a few other potential losers, they settled on Keyes.
After the scandal Mr. Seven didn’t have a chance, but early on he was leading in the polls. But it’s not really material and I didn’t mean to imply that Keyes was the only thing that made that race a joke. Fact is, the closest he came to a national election is a Senate race, if one can even consider that a national race. And the Senate race he did compete in was not one that told you much about his electability against a strong candidate.
Again, I see very little basis for any Bush supporting Republican to object to his lack of experience. Democrats might fear that he doesn’t have enough campaign experience, or that Presidents should have lots of experience. Republicans, however, spent 8 years fighting for a man with just as little experience: arguably less, given that the governorship of Texas is extremely weak. Bush’s only other experience was his business experience, which frankly, was mainly a bunch of awful disasters. They did this over a man they derided as being a “lifelong politician” (Al Gore) with far far more experience, and then again with a man who had had many many more Senate terms than Obama (Kerry). In both cases, experience was played up as a NEGATIVE by Republicans.
So them complaining that Obama is inexperienced is nothing but rank opportunistic hypocrisy. If Obama spent two more terms in the Senate before running, they’d label him a Washington politician and then run a man who has never held any federal or statewide office at all.
I am less concerned about “experience” than I am about native intelligence and announced positions.
I am very comfortable with what I hear about Obama’s positions, and my sense is that he has more native intelligence than any recent President except maybe Clinton.
As for “experience,” I have another perspective on that. The fact that he isn’t a lifer in the Senate means that (maybe) he hasn’t had time to be corrupted by the campaign financing system and all the special interests attached to it.
Can he function as a President with limited experience? I don’t see why not. He’s very smart, and he can always surround himself with a cabinet that knows the ins and outs of the Presidency.
Why not give a smart idealist a shot?
Well that, and a shitload of daddy’s money to buy the senate seat and subsequent presidency. Johnson had a big advantage - as he was an extremely experienced politician and spent years in congress - and knew how to get things done - politics it is often said, is the art of the possible - and Johnson was able to twist arms and call in favors and that sort of thing. Carter was the antithesis of Johnson - a long-shot nobody outside the beltway who managed to win - but had no clue of how Washington operates.
John Mace/ makes a good point that almost all of the [early early] favorites are Senators or ex-Senators. Considering the low regard people have for Congress right now, inexperience may be a virtue for Obama.
I’ve wondered why this is a bad thing for Obama. It always seems like we’re clamoring for an outsider candidate. Not one of these usual Washington types. Then, we get one, and we decry his lack of experience.
Not that I’m a Bush supporting Republican, but why? 9/11 really did “change everything” in that respect. Bush was inexperienced in 2000, but we weren’t fighting two wars then, so people were more concerned with ideology than with experience. And Bush had Cheney as his running mate. Say what you will about his policies, the guy’s got a resume that looked perfect for the spot. He oozes experience-- too bad he doesn’t act on it.
Ah, but that wasn’t what caused at least one centrist to vote for him. It wasn’t that Bush was qualified. Hell, I thought his qualifications were rather lame at best.
Instead, it was that despite Bush’s lack of an impressive resume, he still looked like the better-intentioned, more honest, less potentially batshit crazy in a conflict candidate when things got tough.
Blame it on an unexcusable lack of quality choices. He was to apparently many of us the best of a rather sorry lot. Even after all that’s happened I still look at Gore and Kerry and think gawd, could I ever have actually said “yes” to either?
Thankfully, '08 is shaping up to provide some real quality choices. How refreshing to be able to vote not against the worst but, instead, for the best.
I agree with this. Too often “experience” comes into question. Well I have to ask, who is really prepared and has the experience to be the President of the United States? IMO, a blank slate is what we need. Frankly, I’m a bit tired of the “experience” we currently have, and have had.
I think “experience” is gained as you learn to work the system in Washington. Building alliances, playing games, buying and selling favors…all the things that we hate, but that make the system (as we know it today) work. I’ve always said, if you want to ruin a perfectly good politician, elect him! We all say we’d never do what so-and-so did if we were in office, but unfortunately, the system tends to paralyze those who don’t play the game. Not always, but sometimes.
The jury’s still out as far as I’m concerned. I think I’d like to see him wait another four years. I really like him, but I’m not sure the presidency is the most effective spot for him at this point. And would an unsuccessful run in '08 ruin his chances for ever beoming president? We’ll see…a lot can happen in two years. He’s bright, he connects with the people, and above all, I think his heart and head are in the right place. I’d love to see him change the tide in Washington. Will they/we let him? That would be the $64K question.
It was his business experience (or, rather, inability to learn from past mistakes) that convinced me.
In any event, the notion that a Presidential candidate must be “experienced” seems vastly overrated, IMO. What I’m putting more emphasis on nowadays is a candidate’s good judgement – Is the candidate able to analyze various data and make decisions based on their accuracy/urgency/reliability? Is the candidate’s long-term vision something that would truly benefit all of the nation, or just a select few? Can the candidate choose good advisors/underlings to help make decisions? Is the candidate truly willing to listen to advisors who know more than he/she does? Can the candidate admit when he/she has made mistakes and take truly corrective actions as needed?
Granted, “good judgement” is not something that’s easy to quantify, as “X years serving as position Y” does. But it beats the system we’ve got now, where any self-delusional megalomaniac who listens only to the voices in his head and surrounds himself with yes-men can get into office as long as he’s chalked up enough time warming his backside in a corner office.
It is not for nothing that Obama is going to use Springfield and the backdrop of Abraham Lincoln for his offical announcement. Lincoln was a trial lawyer before becoming President, having previously quit politics after one unimpressive (well humiliating) term in the House of Representatives. During that time he had showed no evidence of having learned the how things are done in Washington. But then, after years as a practicing lawyer, he began to reveal his oratory prowess. Still, he lost his bid for a Senate seat to Douglas.
Lincoln had no meaningful “experience” to be President.
Lanky, relatively inexperienced in the ways of Washington, and able to articulate a vision of what our country should be. That was Lincoln.
Sounds good.
(Kennedy, Schmennedy … he’s going for Lincolnesque: “A House divided …” “America is tired of the politics of division …” He’s slicker at it than Clinton, Bill that is)
I think a lot of you are setting yourself up for some major disappointment. There seems to be a widespread attitude that any politician with an established record is a proven failure. And then you project Obama’s lack of record into the assumption that he’s another Lincoln.
Let’s face facts - Barack Obama is a politician. If you consider every other person in American politics to be flawed, the odds are you’re going to find the same flaws in Obama when you get to know him a little better. You’re going to be disappointed by whatever person gets nominated and elected because they won’t be as perfect as the Obama of your dreams - especially if that person is the Obama of reality.
You misunderstand. I am not saying that he’s another Lincoln. (Heck, I doubt Lincoln was really a Lincoln.) Merely pointing out that the claim that Presidents need some critical mass of gubernatorial or inside the Beltway experience is not based on much precedence of past great Presidents. And that Obama is using his planned announcement venue to not so subtly point that out.
What has made for great Presidents and who among the plethora of possible presidential prospects have the most of those features? I maintain that a great Presidents have been those who have been able to skillfully articulate a vision of a greater America. They have been able to provide a persona that Americans can identify with and by virtue of that identification and that oratory skill they do not follow the prevailing public opinion winds, they set its course. “Experience” does not play that much of a role other than as a means of honing those skills.
Will Obama end up being like that or will he turn out to be another arrogant puff ball of self promotion? It really is too early to tell. But an election season is enough time to test that mettle and so far he seems more likely to have those characteristics than anyone else running from either side. So far.
Not a national race, but he was certainly vetted by southern Illinois.
I’ve said this before (and probably better) but if you had driven through southern Illinois – an area that has a lot more in common with the deep South than it does with Chicago – you would have seen Obama signs in front of farm houses, bumper stickers on pickups and campaign buttons on bib overalls. Those people didn’t just hold their noses and vote against Keyes. They actively and publicly said they were voting FOR the black guy with the funny name.
Experience may or may not be overrated, but Obama definitely has the ability to win over a bunch of people who weren’t predisposed to vote for him.
But there’s more than being vetted in an election than just getting the attention of the voters. Obviously the guy is good speaker and connects with people, but how is he (and his family) going to hold up under the pressure of a national campaign? And what’s going to happen when every reporter in the country is following him around, just waiting for him to slip up? (Yeah, this is happening now, but what happens after 2 years of such close scrutiny, when you have pundits parsing every word you say and photographers stalking you night and day?)