Just how much experience does a presidential candidate need to have?

[Poiuyt]

I'm asking in reference to the possibility that Barack Obama may run for president. One of the biggest complaints that people have about him is that he doesn't have enough experience.

I think there are more important attributes that a candidate in general must have. He/she needs to have a great vision for America, he needs to surround himself with intelligent and ethical advisers, he needs to have common sense, and he needs to have the charisma and ability to inspire America, both in times of national emergency and also to accept his goals.

Yes, experience is great, but if he has good advisers, and the common sense to listen to them, that would go a long way to offset any inexperience he might have.

[Hosnon]

1. Just enough:)

Sorry for being so typically unhelpful!

[Bucky]

7. You know, MJDuncan, that was typically unhelpful.

Sorry about stating the obvious.

[Hosnon]

10. I can do better:

Not too little but not too much!

At least there are more words with this one...

[liberaldemocrat7]

29. Barack Obama has as much experience as Abraham Lincoln.

Yes that appears correct. Abraham Lincoln served 8 years in the Illinois state house and 2 years in the US House of representatives before he ran for President in 1860.

Barack Obama served 8 years in the Illinois state senate and 2 years as a Senator so I woul dsay that Brack Obama appears qualified to run for President.



Barack Obama 2008 tie at http://www.zazzle.com/maximus7

[Alexander]

2. More than half a term in the Senate, please. Is that too much to ask?

I couldn't vote for Edwards in the primaries, for the very same reason. He only had one Senate term and didn't accomplish a whole lot in that time. Inspiring and smart, yes. But I want to see results.

Obama's young, give him time. He'd make an excellent presidential candidate - and president - many years from now. If he won the 08 nomination I'd gladly vote for him. If he was in the VP slot I'd be happy. If he's in the Senate drafting legislation and getting some real things done before he makes a run for national office, I'll be even more enthusiastic about voting for him.

[Suich]

4. He served 7 yrs. in the Illinois State Senate.

http://www.barackobama.com/about/

:hi:

[Alexander]

6. So? That somehow makes him qualified for national office?

I am well aware of his Illinois State Senate experience. But that means hardly anything when we are talking about decisions which affect an entire nation.

[Bucky]

11. Abraham Lincoln: railroad lawyer (did a little criminal law on the side), 2 ys in Congress (a dove)

He once ran for senator, but lost. Oh, he connected with people, he was charming and inclusive in his leadership style. But the left wing of the party knew he was a compromiser, a sell out, a corporate shill who would water down their core message and gladly cut deals with the conservative nuts who usually ran the government and believed in abusive labor policies.

Totally unqualified, right? At least he doesn't sound like a competant wartime president.

[Alexander]

24. IMO, Lincoln was somewhat over-rated.

Anyone coming on the heels of that fool Buchanan would've looked like a stellar president. Lincoln's strength was that his party wasn't badly fractured between Northern and Southern wings. He had no interest in freeing the slaves until he realized it was the only way to preserve the country. He also went fairly easy on the Confederate states towards the end - especially considering the requirements the Radical Republicans wanted to impose on the states before they would be allowed to vote.

Yes, I would consider him a decent president. One of the greatest? Hardly. My point is that when untested candidates are fielded, the country runs a huge risk. My view is that Obama should be more patient, actually get some things done in the Senate, and not just use it immediately as a springboard for national office. When that happens, consituents get pissed. Hence why John Edwards' approval ratings took a dive in NC about 4 years into his term.

Not a single DUer has convincingly explained why Obama can't just wait until after 2008. What's wrong with him getting a little bit older and a little bit wiser before he decides to go for the big prize?

[pnwmom]

31. What's wrong with him getting older? We may need him NOW.

If he's the one that could unite this country and take us in a positive direction, then he has the main qualification that we need. Unlike Bush, he's smart enough to be able to find a great team to work with, and to be able to evaluate the advice they give him.

[Bucky]

33. the other thing wrong w/ him waiting is that senior senators are less viable candidates

When the spotlight hits you, you either bound all the way to the top or you settle in comfortably as a second stringer for the rest of your life. Not sure I buy the argument (Joe Klein originated it), but that's the buzz that got people pressing the skinny kid with a funny name to run this time around.

[Alexander]

36. The spotlight hit JFK in '56, Nixon in '48, Reagan in '64, and Clinton in '88.

And Clinton's "spotlight" was a decidedly negative one, based on his long-winded keynote speech for Michael Dukakis at the '88 convention.

Yes, Obama's a rising star. But let's see him do something besides give good speeches and present himself well. I want some Senate accomplishments from the junior Senator from Illinois, and I imagine his constituents want the same.

[Bucky]

44. You have a point about Reagan, but Republican nomination dynamics are different

The spotlight barely grazed Clinton in '88, JFK in '56, and Nixon in '48 and they all got elected to national office 4 years later. Anyway, my point is why he would run now, not why he should be elected now.

[Alexander]

35. Why him, as opposed to Gore or maybe a governor?

Why do we need Obama? Plenty of Democrats are smart enough to find a good team. But are they experienced enough to know when to listen to them and when not to?

If you ask me, the "need" for Gore is much more urgent - he's the only Democrat being pro-active on the environment, which we need to fix desparately, and soon. If we wreck the earth and kill ourselves off, nothing else matters.

And what's wrong with a governor, like Sebelius, Lynch, Napolitano, Rendell, or Easley? How do you know they won't be just as capable of uniting the country, albeit with more executive experience?

[Imagevision]

41. I want the best and I want him now! -- I want President Obama!!!!

[Suich]

12. Clinton was AG and Governor of Arkansas before he became President. n/t

[Alexander]

23. You're comparing statewide experience to districtwide experience.

Clinton as AG represented an entire state. Same as Governor. And he was Governor for a long time before he ran for president - about 12 years.

Obama just got elected statewide ONCE. If elected in 2008 he would have a grand total of 4 years statewide experience, minus the 1 year or so that would be spent campaigning. And that was mainly because the Illinois GOP couldn't find a decent candidate. I say, give him time, let his name get tacked on to some bills. I still wouldn't mind seeing him as VP. But what's the hurry? He's only 45.

I see some DUers are pulling for their candidate so much, whether it's Hillary, Kerry or Obama, that all logic and reason goes out the window.

[tenshi816]

25. Jimmy Carter had only

served two terms in the Georgia State Senate and one term as the Governor of Georgia before he became President. He had no experience at the national level. Do you have a problem with him too?

Just curious.

[Alexander]

28. Well, he did make a few blunders.

Carter had a rocky relationship with the Democratic Congress, something which a bit more experience probably would've helped. And while his foreign policies were helpful in bringing Begin and Sadat to the table, they proved rather ineffectual during the Iran hostage crisis.

I love Carter, I think he's a wonderful guy, and wish he had been re-elected in 1980. But I think that he made some mistakes which could've been avoided if he had more experience. Your assumption that I "have a problem with" politicians lacking experience is a nice straw man argument but isn't relevant to our discussion. We need some sparkling foreign policy skills these days, even moreso after 8 years of Bush's crap. And certain candidates simply don't have these credentials....yet.

Can you answer my question, which I think is a valid one?

Why can't Obama wait, and get some things done in the Senate first?

[pnwmom]

34. Because he may be the strongest candidate OVERALL even if he

lacks the political experience of some of the others.

Experience in the US Congress is just one factor among many.

[Alexander]

37. Yes, one important factor.

Most potential presidents without such experience already have executive experience elsewhere dealing with a legislature - a governor is already kind of a "mini-President" of their state.

But those that don't have such experience usually have spent some time in the Senate pushing bills through, observing and participating in the legislative process, creating consensus and building bridges, and getting their name added to pieces of legislation.

Obama currently has none of the first and barely any of the second.

This begs another question; what has Obama done yet? Please list all of his great accomplishments, then I will list all the accomplishments of the candidate I prefer.

[pnwmom]

40. I'm not interested in getting into a debate about his

accomplishments. We'll see how the various candidates stack up to each other once they start campaigning. I still have an open mind, and I'm not going to rule him out simply because he's had less experience in the dysfunctional Congress.

(In case you didn't realize, during the Bush years, the Republicans have been preventing Democrats from accomplishing virtually anything significant in Congress. The only bills that pass are the ones that can be passed with a majority vote from the Republicans alone.)

[medeak]

3. Clinton said he wanted to run...

earlier but realized he didn't have the experience or maturity yet.

Obama would do well being vice pres candidate.

[mike_c]

5. as a voter, I define "sufficient experience..."

...as a basis for being able to judge how a candidate will deal with the issues that are important to me. On foreign policy, what has a candidate done that is relevant, and how does that reflect their likely future policy choices? On the environment, on labor issues, on fiscal policy, on education, and so on. A candidate has "sufficient experience" when they have a track record that I can use to judge their performance relative to the issues that concern me. I'm not interested just in their statements or their philosophy-- I want to see performance, and enough performance to provide a reliable indicator of their future choices. Reliable in my judgement-- and I'm not easy to convince.

[saracat]

8. Wow, what a great definition! I need to keep this as a quote.

That is the best definition of sufficient experience I have ever seen.Bravo!

[madmusic]

9. Bush didn't have enough (any) foreign policy experience and we're paying for it.

That's vital right now.

[mykpart]

13. Lack of experience won't necessarily make him unelectable.

The only experience in public service that W had was six years as Governor of Texas. Really only five years at the time he became a Presidential candidate. Now considering how Bush's presidency has turned out, that's not the best example of how much experience it takes to be a GOOD president, but it doesn't seem to take much experience to get elected, as long as you have money and the political machine behind you.

[TahitiNut]

14. Obama has promise but I want to see more accomplishment.

One of the comparisons I often see is between the "inexperienced" Obama and the "inexperienced" JFK. In my view, there's no comparison other than age. In that same time, JFK had the opportunity to serve in a war as a commanding officer, in the House of Representatives, and in the Senate. He was 43 when he became President - with one helluva lot of experience. Obama is 45 and, with a somewhat unsettled childhood, demonstrated diligence in getting his J.D. from Harvard. He's practiced law in a big law firm, had 8 years in the Illinois State Senate and 2 years in the Senate of the U.S. I want to see more.

[Codeblue]

15. Ok honestly

I'd like experience but no more than one term in some national office. I think they all spend too much in office and get corrupt. My parents and I always talk about kicking all of the politicans out of office and not allowing them back in. Then we start over with all new candidates. People unsullied by the taint of politics.

[earthside]

16. Bush?

Yes, experience is great, but if he has good advisers, and the common sense to listen to them, that would go a long way to offset any inexperience he might have.

That sounds like the rationale the Republicans gave for overlooking George Jr.'s lack of experience in the 2000 campaign.

[Poiuyt]

22. Bush does not have good advisers, nor does he have the good sense to

listen to anyone who disagrees with his ideology. Bush has been about as close-minded as a person can be.

[sandnsea]

45. But that's what they said at the time

Your entire pitch for Obama was the pitch for George. Vision, advisers, common sense, charisma, inspiration, achieving defined goals. I'm not saying Obama is Bush, but that really is what Bush ran on.

[BlooInBloo]

17. JFK only had 8 years experience, I think - all legislative - the least exp...

... I'm aware of. And he did numerous jackass things (Bay of Pigs and Vietnam come to mind quickly).

[TahitiNut]

21. Well, there was a little thing called WW2 and a boat called PT-109.

:eyes:

The Bay of Pigs was an op set up by the Eisenhower adminstration, and the senior sponsor was VP Dick Nixon. Preparations were begun in early 1960 under CIA purview (remember the Dulles brothers?). It "went off" in April 1961, when JFK was less than 3 months in office.

There was also a little footnote to history called "The Cuban Missile Crisis."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2822659&mesg_id=2822894

[Jim Sagle]

18. The Corpocrock Media will decide that.

If he's a Dem he hasn't got enough, unless he's got too much. If he's a Pug, he's got just the right amount.

Funny how that works.

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[leftofthedial]

20. well, he has to know how to cash donor checks

and follow orders

[flyarm]

26. well looking at the current president .little lord pissy pants...

they do not have to know how to read ..other than books about goats

they do not need to know the names of leaders from foreign countries ..including our allies

they need not know the value of our armed forces and the care of our soldiers and our armies.

they need no understanding of national defense and securing our nation

they need not have ever traveled abroad

they need not read news

they do not need to know about history

they need not understanding economics nor deficits

they do not need speaking skills

nor have cognitive thinking skills

they can call themselves a rancher and yet be afraid of riding a horse

they can be awol or a deserter in our armed forces

they need not know how to read a map of the world ..nor pass a simple test of where many countries are located

they need not be a humanitarian..nor understand what that means

they need not understand the need for valid science nor appreciate its value

they need not understand the environment nor understand the dangers ignorance of it can effect the world's population for centuries to come

they need not understand diplomacy

they need not understand the value of health care for the populace

and that is just for starters.

personally i believe most people here are over qualified by the current standards in this white house today!!

fly

[Sapphire Blue]

27. Answering the 'experience' question

Answering the 'experience' question
November 28, 2006 at 7:54 AM

Obama skeptics (of whom there are few) say he lacks experience, particularly international experience. This complaint ignores Obama's service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, his high-profile trip to Africa, and his thoughtful policy address on Iraq.

But the best response to this criticisim, unsurprisingly, comes from the man himself.

"Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney had the best resumes from Washington, and still initiated the fiasco in Iraq."

Watch it all here.


http://www.runobama.com/blog/comments.cfm?entry_id=20

Related threads...

Netroots drive to get Obama to run runobama.com: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2822203

Petition for Obama to run: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2819638

[bklyncowgirl]

30. As a voter I see myself as hiring someone to do a job in management.

I want someone who is philosophically in tune with what I believe and who's life experiences indicate that he or she is someone who is capable of creative thinking, understanding facts and getting to the roots of a problem.

I want someone who has demonstrated good judgement throughout his or her life.

I want someone who has a good track record in a variety of positions, including administrative positions because this shows how he or she puts those ideals and judgement to work in the real world.

I want someone who knows the culture that he or she will have to deal with in Washington without being too much a creature of that culture.

Finally, I want someone who can inspire a beleagered nation.

My ideal candidate of course does not exist. Al Gore probably comes the closest in terms of experience but lacks charisma--although the "An Inconvenient Truth" version of Gore shows a great deal of improvement over the Campeign 2000 Al Gore.

[pnwmom]

32. If you want a fresh approach -- which most of us do --

then choose the candidate who can bring that -- not the one whose years of experience have entrenched him or her in the current system.

[Imagevision]

38. Ross Perot?? Forbes (Forbes magazine) experience isn't needed, leadership is!!!

[Imagevision]

39. Obama comes across as extremely intelligent, doesn't need a script or teleprompter...

[tinfoilinfor2005]

42. About as much as Al Gore has.

IMO.

[NNadir]

43. I'm not an Obama fan necessarily, but Abraham Lincoln's experience was this:

He served a few terms in the Illinois legislature.

He served one term in the House of Representatives - and was not nominated for a second.

He ran for the Senate - and lost.

He was a small town circuit lawyer with an extremely disorganized office.

He was also from Illinois.

All that said, I think Obama is popular for the wrong reasons. He's not even in my top 5 list of preferred candidates.