<p>If you count being a part-time state legislator as major league experience. I don’t. State legislator is considered entry-level minor league experience, one step above city council. Obama begain assembling his Presidential campaign in 2006, one year after his inauguration to his first big league political office. It is a stunning lack of experience. If he were white, he would be laughed at.</p>
<p>The least experienced candiate before Obama was Jimmy Carter, who had served one term as a governor.</p>
<p>Reagan had vastly more experience, having served as a two-term governor of the largest state in the country.</p>
<p>Interesteddad, you can move the goalposts around all you like. All you prove is that you will “interpret” anything in the world as “evidence” that Obama shouldn’t be President, which reveals a lot about you but not much about Obama.</p>
<p>Correction: Obama spent 8 years in the Illinois Senate, and is currently in his fourth year in the U.S. Senate. I apologize for misstating his experience previously.</p>
<p>I am with you! Let’s use a white democratic candidate who was a keynote speaker at the DNC and see where he got! If you need a hint is name is Edwards, and he couldn’t even carry his own state! Edwards is also a great orator, jr. Senator, poor child who made it, charismatic, champion for health care, champion for min. wages, champion against the war, so why didn’t he win over Kerry in 04, or against Obama in 08? Edwards has never been seen as a viable candidate, yet he is in alignment with Obama…why did Obama beat him hands down. Edwards was at least exposed to the national level as a vp b4 this latest run!</p>
<p>B&P, I’m not clear on your point. Are you saying that Edwards lost to Kerry because he was white (?) I mean, they’re both white. I know that Interesteddad is obsessed with race (and gender, too - he repeatedly insists that female Clinton supporters won’t vote for Obama not just because he’s black, but because he’s a man, to boot) but your point is harder to figure out. (And I say that as an Edwards supporter.)</p>
<p>If you’re going to make an emphatic statement meant to impugn a person’s name and reputation, you should first at least make sure it’s accurate. Obama’s Name is not “Islamic”, but Arabic. Islam is a religion. Arabic is a language—to wit, there are Christian Arabs and Jewish Arabs, Muslim Arabs and Buddhist Arabs. There are even Atheist Kenyans with Arabic names (like Obama’s father). </p>
<p>A man named Simon Edwards might be Christian, or he might be Jewish. He might be Buddhist, he might be Mormon, or he might reject the notion of God out of hand. His name has it’s origins in the English language, but certifies nothing about his religious beliefs. Timothy McVey (that young lad with the nice Irish name) was willing to blow up hundreds of innocent American men, women, and children in the name of…what was it he was committing mass murder in the name of…? If only we could have surmised just from knowing his name, what he believed, what he was capable of…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Let me try to make my point clearer. Both Obama and Edwards have identical philosphies…against the war, NH care, understanding of being raised poor and making it, both were keynotes and 1st term Sen., yet Edwards made it to the national level as a Veep, (lost but not by a landslide). Why did Edwards not have the following that Obama has. If both have the same platforms and Edwards was selected for Veep, would it not be reasonable to assume that Edwards had more experience, thus, it would be rational to expect voters to pull the lever for Edwards over Obama.</p>
<p>Another Edwards supporter here (I’ve been quite vocal about my preference for him), as many people know. I think he would have made a far stronger opponent against the Republicans’ nominee than either Hillary or Obama, and am still mightily disappointed that he wasn’t taken more seriously. At this point, it is neither here nor there…</p>
<p>Ok B&P, I understand about the VP reference now. We were posting at the same time.:)</p>
<p>
. </p>
<p>It makes no more sense to assume that Edwards had “more experience” because he was once selected to run for VP, than it does to assume Obama’s winning the Democratic Presidential nomination is “proof” that he’s qualified for the job. Experience was not the rationale behind voters’ support of either candidate. It’s possible that Edwards was damaged by his association with Kerry’s failed Presidential run. I don’t know…As I said, he was my choice, so neither race, relationship to Kerry, or his experience entered into my decision.</p>
<p>I haven’t moved any goalposts. I said in 2006 that Obama needed to get some experience before he would be qualified to be Commander-in-Chief. My goalposts haven’t moved.</p>
<p>B&P, the answer is: experience isn’t everything. If it was, Ted Kennedy or Robert Byrd would be president. (I figured you’d enjoy the thought.) Obama ran a better campaign than Edwards. He was better organized, he delivered his message well. I imagine the color of their skin both helped and hurt. But the assertion that Obama would have been “laughed off the stage” if he was white - well, Edwards had six years of U.S. Senate experience at the time of the 2004 elections, to Obama’s four, but with no prior political experience at all to Obama’s 8 years in the Illinois state Senate. And Edwards wasn’t “laughed off the stage” when he ran for the Democratic nomination in 2004; as you note he wound up as the VP nominee.</p>
<p>Interesteddad, the “goalpost” isn’t your opinion - I understand that it’s always been, and always will be “too soon” for Obama in your opinion. The goalposts you move are those you use to justify your claim that Obama is
Obama has 50% more years of experience in elected office than three of the past five presidents. So you say being in the state legislature doesn’t count. But apparently serving as Texas governor - a position which is mostly symbolic - does. Jimmy Carter’s four years in his state legislature plus a single term as governor of a small state does. Why? because you said so, apparently. Look: if you’re going to use Humpty Dumpty’s definitions to justify every claim you make, I give up: you win. If words mean what you tell them to mean, nothing more nothing less, then everything you say is right, no?</p>
<p>Speaking of Robert Byrd. I watched the video of his tribute to Ted Kennedy, after hearing of Kennedy’s brain tumor. It was heart wrenching—actually had me tearing up, his sorrow was so palpable…:(</p>
<p>On another note: I wonder what was behind his endorsement of Obama for the nomination? I mean, that had to have been the most shockingly unexpected thing anyone’s heard in years:eek:</p>
<p>* A round-table show featuring Mitchell and three other Christian panelists, Flamethrower is best known for a segment that never aired. Produced in January, Mitchell’s video Making Mohammed Cookies! shows a chef, wearing Islamic headdress, baking a cookie in the shape of the Muslim prophet. He’s interrupted at one point by his roommate, whom he shoots with a handgun while yelling, “Jew!” *
[Christian</a> Soldier Is Behind the Obama Smear Video | Threat Level from Wired.com](<a href=“Christian Soldier Is Behind the Obama Smear Video | WIRED”>Christian Soldier Is Behind the Obama Smear Video | WIRED)</p>
<p>Good luck with your New Democratic Party. Your shouts of racism towards anyone who doesn’t support your candidate are driving voters away from your New Democratic Party in droves. </p>
<p>But, as Donna Brazille says, the New Democratic Party doesn’t need traditional white voters anymore. The arrogance is breathtaking. We’ll see if she’s right in November.</p>
<p>Obama is certainly not my candidate. In fact because there are so many voters in America who think as you do about guys like Obama, I think America has gotten what it deserves in George Bush, and that it should have even more of what it deserves in John McCain.</p>
<p>KLUGE: “So, Spideygirl, you take seriously a moronic assemblage of out-and-out lies (Obama attended a Muslim sciool!) rank stupidity (Ooooh - Obama has not just one, but three “Islamic names”!) and oh-so-thinly veiled racism (Obama’s father was a black Muslim (picture), his mother (picture) a white American!) presented by a buffoon who actually succeeds in making Anne Coulter look almost sane by comparison? (And that was all just in the first 2 1/2 minutes. I didn’t have the stomach to keep watching. ) Have you ever bothered to check the nonsense in your favorite web-smear? You know - against those things we call “facts?” Aren’t you embarrassed to actually urge people to watch that tripe?”</p>
<p>You might want to actually read (OK, maybe read two or three times) my posts regarding the video, which I described as a crass but decent example of what some of the concerns are about Obama. It summarizes a lot of what is out there about him, approach aside, and I offered it to people so they could address the specific accusations. I never offered it as a valuable piece of journalism. It may be a parody, but it certainly does address real concerns that voters have. Studying the political cartoons of a specific time period is a valuable tool for understanding history.</p>
<p>I hope that helped.</p>
<p>Sometimes, instead of frothing at the mouth and going on an agressive attack, it is useful to address the issues, one by one. It would be a lot more persuasive, and would certainly be a better contribution to the debate.</p>
<p>KLUGE: “Actually, with six years in the state Legislature and being in his third year in the U.S. Senate Obama currently has more experience than President Bush and former presidents Carter and Reagan, each of whom had only eight years in office, all at the state level, had when they were elected…I know - why should “facts” get in the way of a good rant?”</p>
<p>Well. that doesn’t really work, Kluge, when the “facts” are wrong. </p>
<p>Even a high school student with a minimum knowledge of US Government would grasp that experience in a state legislature isn’t even close to the experience of being a state governor. </p>
<p>It just thrills me to realize how educated the voters are out there who get to have a direct hand in building my future!</p>
<p>The fact is, Obama has hardly any experience. He has never managed people, he has never had to make a payroll, he has never grown anything of a significant nature. He is a brilliant, charismatic, goodhearted, left wing, Socialist supertar, who is WAY too inexperienced to be at the helm of our economy, our armed forces, our government. </p>
<p>We are choosing PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Even McCain worries me. He is a senior, most experienced senator, and has wonderful management experience (he oversaw thousands in the army, where results count). But he has never run a business. However, he is the best of the Big Three. </p>
<p>Obama is a junior senator, which means he is at the BOTTOM in terms of experience. State government is what you do after city council, it’s true. </p>
<p>Obama may be smart and have good intentions, but he is ridiculous as a candidate. If you really want to vote for a Socialist, let this one develop a little more and choose someone else.</p>
(I figured you’d enjoy the thought.) Obama ran a better campaign than Edwards. He was better organized, he delivered his message well. I imagine the color of their skin both helped and hurt. But the assertion that Obama would have been “laughed off the stage” if he was white - well, Edwards had six years of U.S. Senate experience at the time of the 2004 elections, to Obama’s four, but with no prior political experience at all to Obama’s 8 years in the Illinois state Senate. And Edwards wasn’t “laughed off the stage” when he ran for the Democratic nomination in 2004; as you note he wound up as the VP nominee.</p>