<p>Did any of our recent presidents have any actual foreign policy experience before taking office other than BushI? Is a “resume” really relevant for this job?</p>
<p>Well, kluge, Obviously a little Foreign Policy experience can’t hurt.</p>
<p>Fortunately we have a candidate with TONS of it!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhh, Hillary’s foreign policy resume is NO more impressive than the late Lady Diana’s - I guess that would have made Diana (if she were alive today) to be qualified to be the PM of Britain.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Was she actually involved in the negotiations - according to everyone involved, she was NOT.</p>
<p>What Hillary did was to give speeches primarily to women’s groups (just like her speech on women’s rights in China - which she touts as one of her main “foreign policy experiences”) - but isn’t that “JUST WORDS”?</p>
<p>Please - this trump-up job is nothing but pathetic.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Exactly what I was thinking.</p>
<p>“and sokkermom you invariably post the Obama campaign communication to make your point.”</p>
<p>Not really. I have never seen a website that was by the Obama Campaign.</p>
<p>Kenshinsan - No one can argue that Foreign Policy experience is not a BIG plus for the job of POTUS.</p>
<p>In the realm presidential primaries, where neither candidate has all that much experience (and they both know they’re going to go head-to-head against a titan of FP experience), the candidates would be tempted to “pad their resumes”. </p>
<p>The irony is that both Obama & Hilary are trying to win votes by touting their (non-existant) experience, then when it comes to the GE, they’re going to try to say (as you have above), “Who needs FP experience anyway?”. </p>
<p>Wonder if that type of fallacious “circular reasoning” gets past the average voter. It’s kind of like saying, “Vote for me because my horse runs faster”, then trying to run dogs in the next race. (Hope my analogy works for y’all). It’s a “Bait and Switch”. </p>
<p>Don’t be fooled.</p>
<p>The things is - there isn’t any position which would give a candidate the “experience” he/she would need as President w/ regard to foreign affairs.</p>
<p>There are a few positions which may add some insight - but neither Hillary or Obama have that - nor for that matter, McCain.</p>
<p>You are right, k&s, but don’t you don’t think being on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would give a candidate valuable experience?? How about being involved in every Foreign Relations decision for over 20 years? </p>
<p>Other than actually BEING president, there is no way for one to really be “experienced” per se, but they can use the knowledge, experience & insight they have gained in other capacities to better succeed at the job they seek. It’s like being ready for a “promotion” in any field. </p>
<p>It has more to do with PREPARATION - no one can touch McCain as far as being prepared for the job.</p>
<p>I sincerely hope the folks at Saturday Night Live are paying attention. They could have a field day with this.</p>
<p>zm- Given that our whole world used to grind to a complete halt on Saturday nights so we could all crowd around the T.V. to watch SNL, I’m not surprized that the show plays an influencial role in politics nowadays.</p>
<p>I don’t know anybody who watches SNL, i really don’t think it has any more influence then South Park or Family Guy has…which isn’t that much.</p>
<p>The ‘more experience’ position seems to be hurting Hillary more than helping her at this point since she’s basically lied about her ‘experiences’ and the evidence is obvious to anyone reviewing it. I’ll bet she’s regretting ever using it as a means to try to be a more viable candidate than Obama. And if she thinks it’s that important, does that mean she’ll vote for McCain?</p>
<p>Rumsfeld and Cheney had plenty of experience…</p>
<p>Tyler - SNL did get a mention in the Democratic debate. Not saying it “calls the shots”, but it’s in the social consciousness.</p>
<p>When it comes down to it, Bush has the most experience - he’s had 7 years. And I sure wouldn’t vote for him again. So experience is not all that compelling to me right now. </p>
<p>As far as the Clinton airport controversy goes, I do understand the point made by Kluge and Hanna that human memories are vague. But I simply can’t imagine being confused about whether you’ve been shot at or not. I have been shot at, and I promise you, I don’t confuse it with listening to an 8 year old reciting poetry!</p>
<p>“Rumsfeld and Cheney had plenty of experience…”</p>
<p>True. It is a very complicated job. People with experience screw it up. </p>
<p>How bad a job person with zero experience will do?. </p>
<p>We know three of Obama’s solutions: 1. Ban Chinese Toys, (2) Talk with rouge nations unconditionally, (3) Bomb Al-Queda in Pakistan without the consent of Pakistani Govt.</p>
<p>What I don’t get, and this was echoed on a previous thread somewhere is, how do ANY of the candidates say they’re going to do something? Doesn’t congress decide?</p>
<p>Kenshinsan: In a word, no. Foreign affairs is primarily the responsibility of the executive branch. Congress has some input in the decision making process, but not a lot. In domestic and economic matters, Congress has a bigger role, but the president still has a lot of clout.</p>
<p>Hillary is in training for chickenhawk status. ;)</p>
<p>But then, who among us has not mistakenly recalled being under sniper fire?
;)</p>