My argument here is in three steps. First, I'm saying that the experience argument in general is a valid argument. Second, I'm saying that it applies to Obama (i.e. he's inexperienced). And third I'm saying that he hasn't really showed enough strength to make up for it.
The first one we've pretty much covered. I will try one more time to explain what I was saying on correlation anc causation since your reply "one would be mistaken" didn't really seem to adress that very thoroughly. If someone says that we have a study showing, for instance, that there is a correlation between high levels of watching TV and alzheimers and that this suggests watching TV increases the risk of alzheimers you can argue against it from the grounds of "correlation does not equal causation". The argument would then usually claim EITHER something like people who have alzheimers probably can't do much but watch TV, hence it's alsheimers causing TV watching, not the other way around, OR people who are a bit fudgy in the brain will tend to slouch in front of the TV and also develop alzheimers, so there is a 3rd factor causing both. I don't see either one of those being a good fit when it comes to experience and presidential performance.
I understand that concept, but "A correlates with B, so A causes B" is a logically fallacious statement. That's all I was saying there. You don't need to explain the concept; I understand it.
I'd say Bush's second term has been an enormous improvement on his first. Most of his major mistakes was from the first term. The same is largely true of Bill Clinton, imo. Again, because the number of variables involved are so many and the sample is really small (n=43) neither one of us will have a very sold case based on empirical evidence here. But in general in life it seems true that experience goes a long way to help you deal with things.
I still maintain that competence is significantly more important, so I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree.
However, we seem to have a fundamental disagreement over the value of experience that I doubt we can get over. I do think that a basic grasp of facts is a tremendous help in making decisions, even if there are many things involved where you have to rely on specialists. I don't think it's a minor difference at all.
You're again confusing "basic grasp of facts" with experience. It's a strawman.
On the 3rd point I'm arguing I never claimed Clinton was a super-competent legislator. I'd say McCain has them both beat in experience and legislative achievement, but that also isn't really my point. My point is this: people counter the inexperience-argument with saying things like "well, Obama may be inexpereinced but he has such amazing talents that he will sweep into the Oval Office and accomplish great things anyway".
Those people are delusional; I do not disagree.
And I'm pointing out that it didn't happen during those past 4 years in the Senate. If Clinton ties him on that and beats him in experience that's still a "win" for her overall, if you see what I mean.
No doubt - but I don't really think Obama is significantly less competent than Clinton, or all so much less accomplished relative to his time in office. I do trust Obama more. He is untested, though. But on this count, John McCain beats both of them.
I'm beginning to get that sneaking "I don't think we really disagree, other than semantically and in cadence" feeling.
