<p>
</p>
<p>OK, one specific accusation - he attended a Muslim school.</p>
<p>NOT!</p>
<p>
Well, to begin with, you’re not arguing that my “facts are wrong” - you just interpreting their significance differently than I do. Furthermore, maybe the high school students in your area are taught that; around here I hope that they teach them that under our federal system of government the way state governments are organized varies significantly from state to state. To take one currently pertinent example:
It's commonly stated that the Lieutenant Governor has more actual power and responsibility than the governor in Texas. George W. Bush may well have had less significant experience in politics than any other candidate in the past 50 years, but I don't recall anyone wringing their hands over that - do you?</p>
<p>
Wrong again (at least in California.) After City Council, the next step up is typically either a county supervisor position or in some cases school district Board member. U.S. Congressmen and State Senators are pretty much on a par here. (We have more congressmen than state senators.)</p>
<p>As a couple of extras here, I’d note that Spiro Agnew had exactly 2 years experience in elected office at the state level before becoming Vice President; Nixon had 4 years in the House and 2 in the Senate. Adlai Stevenson had one term as governor before running. FDR had two years experience as a state senator before running on the national ticket as the Democrat’s vice presidential candidate. For all of your musical chairs approach to what you want to call “experience” it remains that Obama has a pretty average amount of political experience for a person running for President. You just don’t want to count the particular experience he has because, well, because it’s Obama’s experience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhmmm, let’s see…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>Could it be because the issue of Wright, as well as video of the extended Wright sermon was brought up first—as was the request that you both view it and address the specific questions concerning it which I posed? You had made very specific charges of racism and hate-speech against Wright, comparing him to David Duke:eek:! You were provided a link to an extended video clip which put the “chickens coming home to roost” sound bite into full context. The clip is pretty straightforward. It is what it is—unfiltered, and devoid of second hand “interpretation” (unlike the link to the absurdly distorted, politically motivated video you posted, obviously with the intent to avoid having to honestly address your allegations against Wright, and by extension, Obama). No, you chose to react as if I’d asked you visit the original Roswell Alien crash site and gather artifacts from the mothership:rolleyes: You brought forward a propaganda piece by a political nut job, and suggest it’s perfectly reasonable that we discuss it instead…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>ROTFLMAO! Mr Pot, meet Mr. Kettle…Ha, ha, ha! Heeeeee, he he! (Poetsheart wipes tears of laughter away). Thanks, Spidey. That was a good one:D</p>
<p>Oh, and this one was really good, too:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oh my God, stop it. My stomach muscles are getting sore!
:D</p>
<p>Notice how even though you are still avoiding addressing the extended Wright Clip, I was gracious enough to address at least one glaringly stupid rationale your friend, “Molotov” used to discredit Obama’s candidacy—that of his supposed “Islamic” name. Kluge addressed another still. But somehow, it’s we who are avoiding honest intellectual discussion…ha, ha, giggle, gasp! Siiiiiiiigh…</p>
<p>Off the top of my head (not looking to check other facts) you left off some of FDR’s experience before he ran for President (not vp) as Obama is doing. He was appointed Assistant Secretary of the Navy in 1913 and served until 1920 (during a time of war), and was elected Governor of New York State in 1928 to 1932. Some seem to be confusing running for vp with running for President, as BO is doing.</p>
<p>It is also a commonly held belief that being governor of a state, especially a large one, is better experience for being president of the u.s. than being a senator. Thus we have elected many more governors to the position than senators.</p>
<p>I’ve heard that theory before, Ilsa. But none of the current candidates have been a governor. And as noted above, being Governor of Texas isn’t much experience for anything. Reagan was governor of California, which is a big state, but Carter and Clinton were governors of Georgia and Arkansas, respectively. Of the nine Presidents since Eisenhower, four were governors, three had been Senators, and two had been in the House. Looks like the Senate is going to make it even this time.</p>
<p>Carter (former governor one term), Reagan ( former governor, two terms). GHWB (one term-former senator), Clinton (two terms - former governor), Bush (two terms former governor). Past forty or so years we’ve been governed, for better or worse, by former governors. Not really a “theory.” </p>
<p>And I think keeping the debate to people elected for Pres., not vp, will help clarify the discussion.</p>
<p>And do you count Ford, who was not elected to office? And Johnson not elected first time around?</p>
<p>^^I agree about the prominence of ex-governors among recent presidents, however GHW Bush was never a senator. He served in the House 1967-71. Also Clinton served more than two terms as governor. He was elected governor of Arkansas in 1978, 1982, 1984, 1986, and 1990.</p>
<p>What is really unusual about this election is that we are going to elect a <em>sitting</em> US senator as president. That has happened only twice before in history – Harding in 1920 and Kennedy in 1960.</p>
<p>It’s true, Ilsa, that four of the past five presidents had been governors. But prior to that you have to go back to FDR to find a governor who was later elected President, and the next one won’t have that background, either. I don’t think the sample size is statistically significant. And what do you do about former Senator Al Gore, who won the popular vote in 2000? </p>
<p>State houses and the Senate are fertile ground for Presidential candidates. But I don’t see any significance, statistical or otherwise, in any particular background for becoming President. That’s why the yammering about Obama’s claimed lack of “experience” is just that: yammering. Noises made in search of a justification for a position which is actually based on something else. Anybody can make a plausible argument for why one set of life experiences is or isn’t “suitable” experience for holding that office, but it’s all just hot air.</p>
<p>And of course we haven’t discussed Dwight D. Eisenhower.</p>
<p>I was referring to their terms as presidents, sorry if I was unclear. Stand corrected about GHWB!</p>
<p>My point is that trying to cover for BO in terms of experience is a losing battle, imo. The contest will be between experience and the unknown, (cast as “change.”) Any fair minded person must concede that. To not do so is pretty silly, imo.</p>
<p>And on the point of going back to FDR to find a former governor for pres., there really weren’t that many presidents between 1932 and Eisenhower,were there?)</p>
<p>Comparing Eisenhower and BO? Wouldn’t go down that road either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>More like a contest between the familiar and “safe”, and the unfamiliar or “risk”. It will indeed be interesting to see how America votes. How desperate are we to realize “change”?—Because, no doubt about it, most Americans feel that we’ve been headed in the wrong direction for quite some time now, and want a “change” in direction. But, What sorts of changes do we want? Who do we perceive is most likely to get us there? When we can answer those questions, we’ll pick a President.</p>
<p>There’s no question that McCain has more legislative experience that Obama. He’s been doing pretty much the same thing for the past 25 years. That gives him more experience at being a US Senator. But would you compare McCain to DDE either? Or to a former governor, for that matter? That’s why I call it yammering - and moving the goalposts. What I was responding to was Interesteddad’s over-the-top insistence that Obama would be “laughed off the stage” if he were white due to a significant difference in his “experience.” That’s simply unwarranted. Obama has a pretty average level of experience in the political arena. Every candidate brings a slightly different mix of experience to the table; some have more, many have similar levels of experience, some have less (in my opinion.) </p>
<p>But I agree, the election will be about what the electorate wants - more of the same (old wine in not-too-new bottles) or a approach to the challenges facing the nation which is actually new and different. Me, I’m not so thrilled about repeating the same mistakes that have brought us here.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Good god. He’s never even been to Europe. He has zero national security experience. His strong suit is sweet-talking Chicago political sleezeballs into advancing his interests, such has buying half the lot his house sits on and giving him free use of it. In the rest of the country that would be known as corruption.</p>
<p>Interested dad:</p>
<p>Why only rich people goto Europe. Working classpeople work in USA. GW did not have an experience in National security. Obama is running on a theme to change the Washington business. This theme has been used by every single running President including Regan, Clinton and Bill Clinton, GW and lotmany.</p>
<p>Obama 08</p>
<p>Obama is a saint as compare to every other politcian anddoes not say what public wants to hear. Let him be the president we will see gas prices back to $2. </p>
<p>Go Obama 08</p>
<p>Sentaor Mcain and Senator Clintons contribution to this country are exemplary. But it is time for a change in leadreship and time for young blood to go and make this country great again. Then we do not have to hide in front of Europeans.</p>
<p>Obama 08</p>
<p>Oh give me a break, Kluge. You equating a governorship to being a state senator was just plain ridiculous. I can’t believe you tried to justify that further. Let it go, man! Let it disappear into the deep depths of the thread. When you dig yourself into a whole, stop digging! :)</p>
<p>SUNNYMAMERE: “What is the ongoing fascination with supposedly “mature” men and spideygirl?..Is it her name? Is it kinky? She spouts utter drivel, baits all of you, and you continue to respond…Check her back posts. Lots about drugs. Could she be an authority? I would think that would occur to any attorney, if he wasn’t so busy getting excited by the vision of “spideygirl”. …IMAGINE A SPIDEYGIRL! MMMMMMMMMMM!!!”</p>
<p>OK, I am giving this a special award for the weirdest post I have ever read on CC (to me or to anyone else). </p>
<p>It’s just too strange for a response.</p>
<p>Poetsheart: “ROTFLMAO!..Ha, ha, ha! Heeeeee, he he! (Poetsheart wipes tears of laughter away). …That was a good one…ha, ha, giggle, gasp! Siiiiiiiigh…”</p>
<p>Next time, I suggest you take seriously the black box warning on the side of the Tickle Me Elmo box.</p>
<p>Until then, perhaps you should take a rest from this “intellectual discussion”? :)</p>
<p>BTW, I posted information about the Wright video either on this or a fairly identical thread (and had my link removed, which then caused me to come back on and describe it instead) BEFORE you gave the assignment about your video. </p>
<p>You still have not addressed all of the concerns in that parody. I would think that as an Obama supporter, you would want to know what the other side is saying about your candidate. Perhaps because it is a parody, it will cause you to laugh so much that things will get out of control? Maybe too much giggling and gasping?</p>
<p>To be frank, I have no need to see a video of a sermon Wright made, which I assume will present him in a more favorable light (if that is what your video is about). I can already imagine that he has given many decent sermons. The hate speech he has uttered is also very real, and is enough for many people, myself included, to discount the man. Perhaps you can prove to me that the video I have watched of him using terms like “White America” is fabricated?</p>