Obama's experience vs. Bush's experience

[MarkWarner08]

Bush's experience:
Rejected by University of Texas law school
Oversaw failed several failed energy companies
Traded Sammy Sosa
Was the Governor of Texas -- Bob Bullock did most of the work.

Obama's experience:
President of the Harvard Law Review
Community organizer
Eight years in the State Senate
Three years in the U.S Senate

[MarkWarner08]

Who has more pertinent experience for a President?

[TheresNoMoney]

Obama was also a civil rights lawyer and constitutional professor.

[MarkWarner08]

Obama was also a civil rights lawyer and constitutional professor.

Good points. He was the number two professor (by student ratings) at the University of Chicago.

[Beet]

Oh, so experience matters now?
Obama had 2 years of experience in federal government before he started running for President.

[MarkWarner08]

Oh, so experience matters now?
Obama had 2 years of experience in federal government before he started running for President.

Three out of the last four U.S Presidents had zero.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Intellectuals don't always make wonderful presidents. In fact, most people in academia tend to be pretty extreme in their political views.

Obama has been in office since January 2005. Take away a year since he's been on the campaign trail.

[Sam Spade]

Oh, so experience matters now?
Obama had 2 years of experience in federal government before he started running for President.

Three out of the last four U.S Presidents had zero.

And so why do you think Bush picked Cheney?  Because Cheney was Darth Vader, controlling Bush with puppet hands or something?

[MarkWarner08]

Oh, so experience matters now?
Obama had 2 years of experience in federal government before he started running for President.

Three out of the last four U.S Presidents had zero.

And so why do you think Bush picked Cheney?  Because Cheney was Darth Vader, controlling Bush with puppet hands or something?

Actually, David Addington controls Dick Cheney. Your argument is that the experience of a VP candidate can make up for the shortcomings of the guy at the top of the ticket. I'll accept that view. Obama/Biden '08!

[Lief 🗽]

Woodrow Wilson was also a professor. And all he did was lay the foundation for the worst war in human history!

One's resume is no indication of one's ability to be President.

[MarkWarner08]

One's resume is no indication of one's ability to be President.

You just concisely made the argument against experience.

[Sam Spade]

Oh, so experience matters now?
Obama had 2 years of experience in federal government before he started running for President.

Three out of the last four U.S Presidents had zero.

And so why do you think Bush picked Cheney?  Because Cheney was Darth Vader, controlling Bush with puppet hands or something?

Actually, David Addington controls Dick Cheney. Your argument is that the experience of a VP candidate can make up for the shortcomings of the guy at the top of the ticket. I'll accept that view. Obama/Biden '08!

I'll argue that in this day and age, it doesn't just make up for shortcomings, it's vital.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yeah and it can be EASILY argued that George Bush defeated two people with miles more experience and we can see the consequences of that now.

Btw - settle down I'm not comparing Bush to Obama. Obama's actually had real "jobs" as opposed to appointments.

Actually Wilson is a good example why academics should change caps when they get into office. The League of Nations was essentially an academic exercise for Wilson in Paris.

[Beet]

Oh, so experience matters now?
Obama had 2 years of experience in federal government before he started running for President.

Three out of the last four U.S Presidents had zero.

Yeah, and look how that turned out for Carter, Clinton, and Bush Jr.

Btw, T.R. was on the United States Civil Service Commission for 7 years and then Assistant Secretary of the Navy before becoming VP. Jimmy Carter was a one-term governor. So those examples don't make the case.

I'm sure you could think of others that would.

So experience isn't a guarantee of good or bad Presidents, but I think that although outsiders look like they'd be better at changing Washington because they seem more different from it, an insider, if committed to change, is actually much more capable of changing it.

It's hard to change something you don't understand.

But if a guy's been in D.C. for years and he's still a fighter and still holds to his beliefs, then whatever D.C. will have done to him is already done and I'd be more confident that I'll get what I expect as President. The problem is those types don't get elected because they don't seem as fresh as the 'outsiders'.

[MarkWarner08]

Oh, so experience matters now?
Obama had 2 years of experience in federal government before he started running for President.

Three out of the last four U.S Presidents had zero.

And so why do you think Bush picked Cheney?  Because Cheney was Darth Vader, controlling Bush with puppet hands or something?

Actually, David Addington controls Dick Cheney. Your argument is that the experience of a VP candidate can make up for the shortcomings of the guy at the top of the ticket. I'll accept that view. Obama/Biden '08!

I'll argue that in this day and age, it doesn't just make up for shortcomings, it's vital.

Would a Obama/Biden ticket assuage your concerns? Biden supports a brilliant tripartition plan in Iraq that could help settle finally settle the issue of Iraq, a broken state that cannot exist as one nation.

[MarkWarner08]

Oh, so experience matters now?
Obama had 2 years of experience in federal government before he started running for President.

Three out of the last four U.S Presidents had zero.

Yeah, and look how that turned out for Carter, Clinton, and Bush Jr.

Btw, T.R. was on the United States Civil Service Commission for 7 years and then Assistant Secretary of the Navy before becoming VP. Jimmy Carter was a one-term governor. So those examples don't make the case.

I'm sure you could think of others that would.

So experience isn't a guarantee of good or bad Presidents, but I think that although outsiders look like they'd be better at changing Washington because they seem more different from it, an insider, if committed to change, is actually much more capable of changing it.

It's hard to change something you don't understand.

But if a guy's been in D.C. for years and he's still a fighter and still holds to his beliefs, then whatever D.C. will have done to him is already done and I'd be more confident that I'll get what I expect as President. The problem is those types don't get elected because they don't seem as fresh as the 'outsiders'.

All great points, but it's important to look at the political realities of the 2008 election.

The top three Democratic candidates have a combined four Senate terms of experience. The most experienced candidate for President is Mike Huckabee. Does that make you more likely to support him? Huckabee also raised taxes, pardoned Wayne Dumond, wanted to quarantine AIDS patients etc.