Obama's inexperience

Commentary removed due to whinging.

I think you’ve blown the poll with the bias of the question.

I selected the 3rd option, but it’s all a matter of degree. His lack of experience hurts him in my eyes, but isn’t necessarily fatal. His smoking hurts him (less), but isn’t necessarily fatal.

Given that there will only be 2 major party candidates in the general, it is difficult as a voter to have too many binary issues, or else you will rapidly run out of possible choices :)

Add up the positives (weighted), subtract the negatives (weighted), and the one with the higher score gets my vote, more or less…

Commentary removed due to whinging.

Damn banbers.

His inexperience will be this year’s Swift Boat scandal. And some of you dipshits will fall for it.

Loved how they pulled the inexperience card on John Edwards last time.

A man who had exactly as much time in office as GWBush had at the time of his election.

Oh, wait…

Obama is inexperienced, though. That’s not spin. I like him anyway, and I might well vote for him anyway, but there’s no point in pretending about this. He doesn’t have a lot of time in politics, to date.

Why is that a bad thing? I want experience in Congress, I want idealism and strong moral character in the white house.

That being said, I don’t think I can vote for Obama, he’s just a bit too idealistic.


I don’t think that it is necessarily a bad thing. I’m just saying that it is true.

I don’t get too worked up over the experience thing for a presidential candidate. Most people who do go into a campaign touting their experience don’t have what I feel is very applicable experience. Experience in congress would help a president in dealing with congress, experience in a state governorship would help a president in being an executive, but the job of President of the USA has a lot of wrinkles that neither governorships nor congressional experience can prepare one for. Most state governors don’t sweat foreign policy a lot, most don’t have to get briefed by military officials and then make decisions that can risk the lives of thousands of our soldiers, etc.

I’m still don’t know enough about Obama to say if I’d vote for him, but the experience thing doesn’t bug me.

his lack of experience isn’t his biggest problem.
You really think flat staters would vote for a person of color?
or a woman?

Flat states will almost always go for a Republican anyway.
Obama (or whoever the Democratic candidate is) only needs
to take all of Kerry’s blue states plus an extra 2% of Ohio to
take the presidency.

On-topic, I’m not immediately put off by Obama’s inexperience;
I just don’t know much about his actual policies besides that
he’s against the Iraq war and Walmart.
I like him mainly just from reading about him, but I want issue
positions to dissect.

IMO, lack of experience is a plus. It means he hasn’t turned in to a politician yet, and there’s probably still some amount of will to do good in there.

Is a president supposed to have any particular, y’know, skills, or is it enough that they be intelligent and have good intentions and a competent staff to carry out the Big Ideas?

I can’t help thinking of my experience in film school. To be a cinematographer you had to know your shit. To be an editor you had to know your shit. To be a grip you had to know your shit. To be an assistant director you had to know your shit. To be a sound mixer you had to really know your shit. (Those guys kinda scared me.) The one guy who could conceivably get away with a lack of specific skills and/or technical knowledge, without bringing the whole operation to a crashing halt, was the director.

Lack of experience also means there’s less chance for Republicans to cry about voting against a good looking bill because of a retarded rider bill.

Less of that “Voted for the war, then voted against it” bullshit.

Well that’s the thing. If job experience is a necessary prerequisite for being president, then only three people in the world besides the current president are up to the task, and one of them isn’t eligible to run. It’s farcical to assume that being a Senator or whatever is actually going to prepare someone to be in charge of the most powerful country on Earth.

Umm, Illinois is rather… flat.

And before they elected Obama, they elected Carol Moseley Braun. Missouri had Jean Carnahan (yeah, I know we technically voted for her dead husband, but still) and now has Claire McCaskill, Kansas’ governor’s name is Kathleen, and Oklahoma had J.C. Watts for many years.

After half-agreeing with extar in the Hillary thread, I’ll half-disagree with him here. I don’t think Barack’s inexperience is a deal-killer, but a huge amount of running “the most powerful country on Earth” consists of understanding and having positions on national issues, arm-twisting and horse-trading with congress, assembling and making good use of a diverse and high-profile team of experts to be one’s cabinet and advisers, assimilating assloads of information … there are a lot of things that being governor or senator can help prepare you for.

Not governor of Texas, apparently. Zing!

But ok, I kinda see your point. But being President is just on a whole nother level of intensity, and lord knows there are plenty of examples of Presidents who didn’t learn how to do a lot of those things from their time as Governors and/or Congressmen.

Hey, I never said Bush was qualified. I still think McCain should have beat him like a rented goalie in '00.