Comments on: Why Experience Isn’t Everything

By: Sean

Sean — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:15:34 +0000

Well the easiest way for her to answer it is, if you have two choices from candidates from the same party, experience should be the tipping point. I know she threw McCain’s name in there, but I think that was her way of saying the Republicans chose an experienced guy and it will take that same experience to beat him. McCain may have his hard line stances on certain things, but he’s more middle ground than Obama is and that, coupled with his experience is going to make a hard candidate for Obama to take swing voters because he has neither significant experience or a middle ground voting record.

I wouldn’t mind Hilary or McCain. I just can’t get into the whole Obama craze. His lack of experience definetly shouldn’t throw him out of the race, but it is an appropriate concern in an election where we should be overly careful (last 8 years /sigh) on the candidates.

By: Ilya Burlak

Ilya Burlak — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:12:59 +0000

This is a “powerful” example because Buchanan was arguably the worst president in the history of the US, while Lincoln was among the best, but I have a feeling that one can find many examples of the opposite nature, when experience proved an asset.

Or, rather, human history is rich enough to provide examples to support any point of view, but none of those can absolutely predict how it’s going to play out in the future.

Me, if the only criterion was experience, I would always pick the one who has it over the one who doesn’t. But there are certainly many more criteria in addition to that…

By: rayyy

rayyy — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 14:50:40 +0000

How much “experience” did the Founding Fathers have?

By: SMD

SMD — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 06:20:29 +0000

Michael,
I have done research (as I said, this is the time I start really paying attention). Obama lost my vote with his immigration policies, Hilary never really had my vote, and McCain lost it because he’s Bush-lite. This isn’t a matter of picking the worst of two or three evils for many anymore. I did that last time with the Kerry/Bush deal, hoping that picking someone that didn’t really appeal to me would at least give the option of changing what Bush had gone off and screwed up. But if this is going to be a repetitive theme for politics, I really don’t see a point anymore. I might throw my vote for an independent, or not at all. I don’t like a lot of Obama’s policies, but others I do like. The same for McCain. The sad thing is that McCain ticks me off where Obama has it right and Obama ticks me off where McCain has it right.
The short run of this is I don’t have a candidate because both are going to end up doing or pushing for things that are just going to make this country worse. Right now it’s just a vote for the lesser of two evils…
(I went to a site that showed their positions and their voting records on the various subjects. Don’t remember what it was, but it was pretty in-depth, so I got a good idea where they all stood).

By: Christopher Davis

Christopher Davis — Wed, 12 Mar 2008 00:22:55 +0000

Michael Canfield (#18): some might say that Dick Cheney has almost 8 years of experience as President already.

By: Frank

Frank — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:43:44 +0000

Spherical Time @37

If I had to bet on it, I’d still probably guess that Obama will change more than McCain would, but that’s just my personal feeling on the subject.

Which is fine, just so you know that there is no evidence to justify your feeling while there is years of evidence that McCain can and does work across the isle in a successful manner.

In fact this is true enough that it is this very fact that put his nomination in doubt.

Of course, in an election year, there will be all kinds of Johnny-come-lately’s

The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) today participated in a rally to support the amendment being offered by Sens. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) to the 2009 budget resolution that will impose a year-long moratorium on congressional earmarks. The co-sponsors include three Senate Democrats, Barack Obama (D-Ill.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), and Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), along with five other Senate Republicans.

Sometimes, an election year is a good time in which to get things done

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:13:40 +0000

SMD,

It doesn’t matter what you hear from Obama. All you hear from any candidate is stump speeches, and if you expect substantive policy analysis in a stump speech, well, sorry.

One good place to check out what Obama thinks is his website, linked above. It’s quite comprehensive and detailed. Or, if you want analyses of his legislative record, you could do worse than this one from Hilzoy at Obsidian Wings: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html.
Nub ‘graph: “I do follow legislation, at least on some issues, and I have been surprised by how often Senator Obama turns up, sponsoring or co-sponsoring really good legislation on some topic that isn’t wildly sexy, but does matter. His bills tend to have the following features: they are good and thoughtful bills that try to solve real problems; they are in general not terribly flashy; and they tend to focus on achieving solutions acceptable to all concerned, not by compromising on principle, but by genuinely trying to craft a solution that everyone can get behind.”

For more, here’s a comparison of bills sponsored by Obama and Clinton: http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/solutions-adden.html
And here’s a comparison of bills co-sponsored by them:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/but-wait-theres.html

There’s plenty more out there. Those are just some posts from one of the more informative and unbiased political sites I like.

On a general note, it’s hard to say that Obama (or Clinton, for that matter) lacks substance unless you a) don’t look for the substance, or b) ignore it when you see it. I understand a completely. It’s a matter of rational ignorance–it’s not worth most people’s time to get informed on issues when their votes matter so little. But a person who doesn’t know what a candidate stands for shouldn’t blame the candidate when it’s only his or her ignorance that’s to blame.

So that’s my suggestion. Watching the debates might help, but I’ve never learned anything from a debate. Listening to stump speeches and rallies certainly won’t teach you anything. Sometimes, all that’s left is, y’know, research.

By: SMD

SMD — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 20:06:56 +0000

Rip, if you look at the site he gives you’ll notice that when you lay it all out it only turns out that the field is somewhat even. There are some presidents with lots of experience who sucked, and some with little experience who sucked, and some with lots of experience that were good and others with little experience that were good. The way I see it, it all just evens out and says that experience really doesn’t necessarily matter, cause it could go either way.

By: Rip

Rip — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:23:15 +0000

“Logical” games like this bug me because they obscure the discussion. Just because Lincoln was better than Buchanan, doesn’t mean that all people with little experience will be better than those with experience.

By: Spherical Time

Spherical Time — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 19:10:37 +0000

Frank @31: Laura @29: I want a candidate that will make change, not just champion it.

Are you sure this is what you want?

Because if it is, clearly you want McCain.

Are you sure about that, considering McCain’s improper relationship (i.e. the gifts) with a lobbyist and the nearly overwhelming number working on his campaign?

He has championed reform in the past, while at the same time doing things that I think are questionable.

If I had to bet on it, I’d still probably guess that Obama will change more than McCain would, but that’s just my personal feeling on the subject.