<p>Does it bother you that none of the presidential contenders have any executive or governing experience? It bothers me that both of them are legislators, but have done nothing running anything.</p>
<p>Legislating is very different than governing. To me legislating is like writing papers in academia. You pick a topic that catches your fancy and try to push it through. There are very few people in academia who after staying there for ages have been successful in private industry. When I was working we used to call those people living in ivory towers. Other example might be a professor who teaches fantastic treatment on heart disease, but would you trust him to do open heart surgery?</p>
<p>It would bother me if the candidate did not show good judgment, did not seek advice from people who have recognized expertise in their fields, did not know what questions to ask. Obama has run a superb campaign. It says something about his management style. McCain, by contrast, has shown that he is a Lone Ranger; he does not need a VP, merely a VP nominee to help him win the election. HRC’s campaign showed that she ran a campaign where her advisors were at each other’s throats and not giving her good advice–or, that she ignored good advice when it was offered.
Sarah Palin has some executive experience, but it’s been on a par with that of the mayor of a large city (Alaska has a population of 600,000).
For all his flaws, Mitt Romney had the best executive experience.</p>
<p>I just addressed this in post#1101 on the Palin thread, without having seen this thread started. When it came down to it, with Hillary and Obama being so close on the issues, it did, to me, become a difference of how they ran their campaigns. It became clear that Obama had a better handle of management. It was the closest thing I could come to in comparing executive experience and which one I thought illustrated it best.</p>
<p>I do not hold that administrative skills alone are a valid criterion (you brought that up). I believe judgment is even more important. And the candidate needs to share my own values (which GWB did not).</p>
<p>I totally agree with teriwtt. Although I preferred Obama from the beginning, I would have been okay with Clinton.</p>
<p>McCain, on the other hand, actually undermined the respect I had for him going back a long time. His shambolic campaign, his Lone Ranger style had a lot to do with it.</p>
<p>George W did not run a superb campaign in my opinion. He delegated all the power to Karl Rove, who ran an effective, but filthy, campaign based on the exploitation of fear. There’s nothing superb about that. </p>
<p>At any rate, with W as with Obama, how he ran the campaign did tell us a great deal about how he would run the government. He delegated to Cheney and Rumsfeld, they ran a filthy administration based on the exploitation of fear, and it continued to be effective politically until (roughly) Katrina.</p>
<p>At the end of elction, if Obama wins the McCain qualifications will not matter and everone will say he picked up a wrong VP. Simlarly If MCCain wins, lot of democatrs will attack Obama that why he did not choose Hillary. </p>
<p>It will be interesting and historical election no matter what.</p>
<p>I owe you an apology. as I went back and reread the threads. Yes you did not say that Obama was suma cum laude. Somehow I misread it but I did not name you at all in my thread. So me cupla for misstating that Obamas qualification that people are claiming that he was suma cum laude.</p>
<p>It bothers me that McCain will flip-flop a lifetime of proud service over the past 8 yrs to become Bush’s sidekick to the detriment of the country just to get the nomination. It bothers me he then makes such a rash/reckless/dangerous decision re Gov Palin just to try to win votes. Thank God the Dems finally nominated a strong team to protect the country. In order to protect my kids Ill have to vote Dem this yr. Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, and Reagan are rolling over in their graves right now.</p>
<p>The same could be said about Obama. A lot of power was delegated to Axelrod. He also chose a very experienced Veep in Biden, like Bush with Cheney. The 2000 campaign was ran on change and pegging Gore as a Washington insider, same strategy Obama is using against McCain now . I remember Bush appearing with his Democratic senate leader from Texas (can’t remember the exact detail now) demonstrating his record of working across the aisle. </p>
<p>The exploitation of fear only came after 9/11. In 2000 we were prosperous and not fearful, just tired of Clinton and his moral lapses.</p>
<p>Given that our two worst presidents in recent memory (Carter and Bush) had plenty of executive experience, and Clinton made a hash of healthcare in his first term because he didn’t understand how Washington works, I am not particularly bothered.</p>
<p>I agree with Hanna, that the way Obama has run his campaign tells us a lot about how he would run his presidency.</p>
<p>IMHO only, there is a difference between running a campaign and governance. Obama better not run the government as if he is campaigning - he would be the leader of all of us, not just Democrats. And please no more over reaching promises - like delivering expanded govt services without a corresponding increase in revenue, as in tax increases.</p>
<p>It does bother me, Simba, but I also get concerned when governors run for office because their experience is limited to the matters concerning their state and usually doesn’t include meaningful experience with non-domestic issues. There are weaknesses in both situations.</p>
<p>I’d rather have the president have previous executive governance experience. Apparently many others do as well since presidents are usually former governors. We’ll have to make do this time without that choice.</p>
<p>I knew enough about Cheney not to like his being VP. For a lot of Republicans, though, it was a reassuring choice: he would be in effective control of the government. And he has.<br>
I do not see this being a problem with Obama who has shown he is the one in control. Being the chief executive does not mean you have to do all the jobs yourself. The hardest thing, anyone who has ever being in a position of leadership will tell you, is to delegate. Knowing what to delegate, when and to whom. And not interfering, second-guessing, micro-managing.</p>
<p>All things being equal, some executive experience would be a good thing. But all states are not equal in size, population and types of problems that face their governors. As well, we are asked to choose the best of two sets of candidates, not an ideal type.</p>