It seems like a cop out to me. I mean, Washington was our first president and he had no experince, right? Well, to constantly harp Palin and Obama over experience is useless.
Washington had scads of experience as both a military commander and as the leader of the Continental Congress.
People are trying to form an opinion about someone that they don't know, and make a prediction of what they will do in the future based on that opinion.
On of the ways you can do this is to look at that persons past behaviors and decisions. This gives you an idea on how that person thinks and behaves.
I find it humorous that people attempt to say that Gov. Palin has the same or less experience as Sen. Obama. She is a sitting governor, she has had to actually make decisions and suffer the slings and arrows over those decisions. She has not been allowed to vote "present".
I remember Obama once said in an interview I saw "Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney have lots of experience and look how much good that did."
This is the one job that ever yvoter gets to have a say in. Everyone has different interviewing techniques for jobs.
I certainly agree. Did Washington have experience... well not quite because the great american experiment had yet to completely commence yet he was the first president noone else did it before him... but still yes he did... Washington led the Colonial Army during the Revolution as a general long enough to let the British up and quit. Back then it mattered little and today it shouldn't matter if you have "experience". What should matter is the fact if the candidate is running for the right reasons which I don't think we have had for quite awhile... I do think Palin has had more "experience" than Obama has for she has been a governor and running a state while Obama has just been voting on whether laws should be passed on or not... But overall I don't think it should really matter.
I agree.
Experience was only briefly mentioned in the Reagan - Mondale (?) debate and then only as a quip.
Experience has been manufactured as a prerequsite for Presidents this campaign as a way to attack Obama.
I do, because I would not want someone who just finished working on their internship, performing major surgery on me. Obama has no experience, as an executive, no experience in the military, and no experience in foreign policy. Obama is a beginner, plain and simple, and that is a fact. Palin has to make more decisions for her state in a day than a Senator makes in a year. Governors have to be able to balance a state's budget, which Palin did and reduced her state's spending by 124,000,000 while Obama got earmarks for Illinois in the amount of just under one billion dollars in the first two years that he was in office in the US Senate. Compare that to John McCain who has never requested the first dollar for pork for his state. Senators choose three issues and work on them for one year.
"Numerous US presidents were governors first, perhaps representing the faith of the people in the office of governor. If a person can successfully lead a state in the US, then they may also be able to lead the country, since the state is a somewhat miniaturized version of the country. Several other presidents were governors first and then held many different political offices, including senate and house representative positions, and/or serving in the vice presidency.
In all, 16 presidents were governors first. A few of them were not governors in the modern sense of the term; that is, they governed territories rather than states. Andrew Jackson acted as military governor to the Florida Territory and as governor to the Northwest Territory in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. William Harrison governed the Indiana Territory for twelve years at the beginning of the 19th century. Lastly William Taft served as Governor-General in the Philippines at the beginning of the 20th century.
In the early years of the US, the following presidents were governors first:
Thomas Jefferson: the first president to hold the position of governor, served as Virginiaâ ™s governor from 1779-1781 James Monroe: served as Governor of Virginia from 1799-1802, and again served for a brief period as the 16th Governor of Virginia from January through April in 1811. John Tyler: another Governor of Virginia, serving from 1825-1827
Following governors from Virginia, other presidents were governors first from a variety of other states:
Martin Van Buren: Governor of New York in 1829 James Polk: Governor of Tennessee, serving from 1839-1841 Andrew Johnson: Governor of Tennessee from 1853-1857 and then appointed by Lincoln to serve as military governor of Tennessee from 1862-1864 Rutherford Hayes: Governor of Ohio from 1868-1872 and again from 1876-1877 Grover Cleveland: Governor of New York from 1883-1885 William McKinley: Governor of Ohio from 1892-1896
Numerous presidents were governors first in the 20th century. The list begins with Theodore Roosevelt, first Governor of New York from 1899-1901. Others on this list are:
Woodrow Wilson: Governor of New Jersey from 1911-1913 Calvin Coolidge: Governor of Massachusetts from 1919-1921 Franklin Delano Roosevelt: Governor of New York from 1929-1933 Ronald Reagan: Governor of California from 1967-1975 Jimmy Carter: Governor of Georgia from 1971-1975, and the first elected governor from the South post Civil War Bill Clinton: Governor of Arkansas for two separate terms, from 1979-1981, and from 1983-1992 George W. Bush: Governor of Texas from 1995-2000."
Wow. Are you serious? The country was a much different place at that time. Way off-base.
obama, 1961-2008.
google: obama,
this is man is ready to be president of taco-bell.
Well, I think helping to found the country counts as experience, but I see what you mean.
This is supposed to be a government of "we the people", but people don't even want to vote for people anymore. They want rich, Christian people with big expensive educations, and tons of congressional hours.
I have no problem with people like Sarah Palin running, since she is as close to "people" as we've come in a long time. My problem with her stems not from her "inexperience" since I could really care less, but more from just her overall demeanor and what she says. I've seen high school drop-outs word things better than that (which further proves that experience means nothing).
So ya, I'm sick of people harping on Palin and Obama, since this IS supposed to be a government run by "we the people" and I don't see how experience makes an ounce of differenc. We could elect someone with TONS of experience who is a moron, someone with no experience who is wonderful, etc.
True Washington could not have had experience as the president because he was the first president. But he had experience as a leader, I believe during this time you actually got your hand dirty in war time. The world is much bigger and more complicated than it was during that era and history teaches us that experienced leaders might not fumble when we need a touchdown.
Experience isn't what this country needs, we need someone with good judgment and Obama has it. Obama was right on Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the economy.
Yes, it is a cop out. And Palin doesn't have good judgment as we can see or what we know of her anyway.
Right.. I mean my 12 year old is smarter about spending and saving than either of the assclowns we have to choose from this election.. How come she cant run? LOL
 Red Hat's Rough Recovery From CFO Exit
 Windows Live Finds a New, Pre-installed Home |
Why do folks focus on the experience of anybody when looking at Presidential candidates?