GatewayRedbirds.com

This continues to come up and stick in my craw. So just for the record, here's the years served in elected office for the three Democratic front-runners.

Obama:
Illinois State Legislature: 7 years
US Senate: 3 years

Hillary:
US Senate: 7 years

John Edwards:
US Senate:6 years

Not only does he have more time in elected office, he's also climbed the ladder. It's not like he won American Idol and got a record contract. He played dive bars and rode in a van.

I suppose if you want to credit Hillary with some experience as First Lady and her work there, you can. But IMO, she was unaccountable and never had to sit in committee, deal with consituents as an elected official, etc...

This critique annoys me as well. The most important thing to me is that the president be intelligent, honest, and able to make good decisions based on facts, not politics. I'd prefer not to have someone enter office who immediately owes years worth of favors to campaign contributors and cronies. I suppose there is something to be said for being politically savvy enough to get your agenda through.

From a character standpoint I'd pick Obama. And being in the state legislature, he met a lot of characters.

I've haven't really been following the campaign coverage since it still seems really early to me, and I'm not interested in the endless stories about political maneuvering or how the polls are looking six months ahead of the first primaries. However, I am curious what people think about the importance of experience. I generally consider this to be a secondary factor behind the candidates' platforms, proposed programs, etc., but I think maybe it's more important than I give it credit. For example, LBJ was able to get a lot accomplished domestically because of his experience as Senate Democratic leader.

bush proposed a trade between america and canada to switch names and for canada to pay some of americas debt...but it fell through before the deadline.

ghostrunner wrote:This continues to come up and stick in my craw. So just for the record, here's the years served in elected office for the three Democratic front-runners.

Obama:
Illinois State Legislature: 7 years
US Senate: 3 years

Hillary:
US Senate: 7 years

John Edwards:
US Senate:6 years

Not only does he have more time in elected office, he's also climbed the ladder. It's not like he won American Idol and got a record contract. He played dive bars and rode in a van.

I suppose if you want to credit Hillary with some experience as First Lady and her work there, you can. But IMO, she was unaccountable and never had to sit in committee, deal with consituents as an elected official, etc...

You think our senators are accountable? I think that's a stretch.

I think that the rap on Obama is that he pretty much has NO political experience outside of his Senate duties. Compared to Hillary's time spent as First Lady of the U.S. and of Arkansas, I think it's a fair criticism.

Socnorb11 wrote: I think that the rap on Obama is that he pretty much has NO political experience outside of his Senate duties. Compared to Hillary's time spent as First Lady of the U.S. and of Arkansas, I think it's a fair criticism.

I fail to see how experience as a First Lady really helps.

--P--

taking charge in the easter egg hunt on the south side of the white house lawn is comparable to foreign relations with middle east countries

Popeye_Card wrote:

Socnorb11 wrote: I think that the rap on Obama is that he pretty much has NO political experience outside of his Senate duties. Compared to Hillary's time spent as First Lady of the U.S. and of Arkansas, I think it's a fair criticism.

I fail to see how experience as a First Lady really helps.

--P--

It helped her become a Senator, I think.

It should be noted that George W. Bush's experience leading up to his presidency was 6 years as governor of Texas, a position that is largely ceremonial (The Texas constitution places most powers in the hands of the lieutenant governor).