Experience. Does it make a difference in office?

darkcrow

*Just to clarify I do support Obama but being British it doesn't make a difference*

Clinton's is using her "experience" over Obama in political office to show she is more qualified to be President. But really what sort of experience can prepare you for such a job?
We have seen countless times in the USA, and Europe that no matter how experienced you are you can really fuck stuff up when you are in office.
So really how important is experience? Indeed if it is, then what is the right experience you need?

During LBJ's presidency you could see how is experience as the head of the Senate, wrangling votes from accross both parties helped. But now in the time of ever deepening partisanship what experience really helps?

ledvedderman

I really don't think it does. We've seen cases where the most experienced candidate over the last 45 years (Nixon) was a trainwreck and left office early in shame. We've also seen some un-experienced candidates (Clinton and JFK) do extraordinary things, but at time showing weakness for not having a lot of experience.

At best, experience is a toss up

ajedigecko

ledvedderman wrote:

I really don't think it does. We've seen cases where the most experienced candidate over the last 45 years (Nixon) was a trainwreck and left office early in shame. We've also seen some un-experienced candidates (Clinton and JFK) do extraordinary things, but at time showing weakness for not having a lot of experience.

At best, experience is a toss up

i agree.

upina2001

i guess it depends on what you are looking for.........experience sometimes means people are set in their ways, know what they would do, and are confident in their decisions based mostly on previous experience. However, sometimes that eliminates thinking "outside the box." Having less experience means there are no preconcieved emotions and allows someone to make decisions that arent influenced.

I tend to believe its better to have someone that isnt experienced and will make different decisions than the people who have it all "planned out."

DriftingByTheStorm

Yes.
Experience matters.

Look at Clinton.
He went with a floozy inexperienced intern.

Had he picked a more mature woman with experience, she would have been smart enough to get her dress drycleaned on the down-low.

On the other hand, Bill himself was VERY experienced, and i think that helped him. I mean, you don't come up with the idea to use a cigar on a woman with out having some serious experience.

upina2001

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

On the other hand, Bill himself was VERY experienced, and i think that helped him. I mean, you don't come up with the idea to use a cigar on a woman with out having some serious experience.

Again, I call that "thinking outside the box."

evenkat

I think experience does matter on many issues a President has to deal with on a day-to-day basis. However we are desperate for a change in direction since Bush has screwed up just about everything. Bush had no experience and look where it got us. However Bill Clinton didn't have any experience either but he was a much better President. Bush has us in very deep and an experience President may get us out and back on track better than an inexperience President but we can't have the new President make big blunders like Bush so change seems like the choice Americans are making at this time.

my2hands

upina2001 wrote:

Again, I call that "thinking outside the box."

or inside the box


depends how you look at it

DriftingByTheStorm

my2hands wrote:

or inside the box


depends how you look at it

ROFLMAO.

"Pulling some box" is a phrase i learned in the last year or so, and it cracks me up.

anotherclone

In my opinion, I think experience is important for just about anything of great importance. I think it is more important to be intelligent about whatever it is you are doing.

However, I think that when talking about President, we need to realize that the President has advisors and such that inform them and thereby help them to make decisions. I think any President is really only as good as their own (the Presidents) intelligence, personal judgement, and their ability to chose advisors that are equally intelligent who they trust.

Collin

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Yes.
Experience matters.

Look at Clinton.
He went with a floozy inexperienced intern.

Had he picked a more mature woman with experience, she would have been smart enough to get her dress drycleaned on the down-low.

On the other hand, Bill himself was VERY experienced, and i think that helped him. I mean, you don't come up with the idea to use a cigar on a woman with out having some serious experience.

That's brilliant.

cornnifer

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

Yes.
Experience matters.

Look at Clinton.
He went with a floozy inexperienced intern.

Had he picked a more mature woman with experience, she would have been smart enough to get her dress drycleaned on the down-low.

On the other hand, Bill himself was VERY experienced, and i think that helped him. I mean, you don't come up with the idea to use a cigar on a woman with out having some serious experience.

Good show! Very funny stuff.

To address the topic more seriously, "the hillary is more experienced" argument is a weak argument anyway. She isn't really. The 35 years business is crap, and as an elected official, Obama actually has more time in than she does. That being said, its pointless anyway as she will not be able to make that argument in a general election because McCain makes her look like a little leaguer in the experience department. IMO judgement, dependability, sincerity, virtue, and the ability to accomplish things trumps experience.

puremagic

I don't believe any of the three candidates can say they are running on
experience, they're more on equal footing in this area.

1. Setting on a foreign relations committee doesn't make a person savvy in foreign policy. Nor does being an ex-first lady qualify as foreign policy experience, I believe those foreign travel times and State dinners constitute entertainment. Further, being a soldier in a war does not automatically qualify a person to be commander-in-chief.

2. A person's experience or lack thereof can be complimented or achieved through the appointment of highly skilled, knowledgeable and experience people to serve in the person's Cabinet.

--Right now we need people who can vision that we need to find a way out of Iraq, avoid a war with Iran and keep Kosovo to a simmer.

--We need people with an economic vision to realize that a diplomatic channel needs to be opened with Cuba to end this embargo, because if China is first to establish manufacturing plants and factories in Cuba. America's economy will simply be competing against itself.

3. We need a person who will re-establish the integrity of the Office of the President of the United States of America.

4. We need a person to get a handle on Pentagon contract spending and the entire Budget.

Everyday will be a learning experience for any candidate that wins, Cleaning up someone else mess is never easy. Hopefully, it will be done in the best interest of America as a nation, not as this red/blue bullshit. We can no longer afford to stay the course. Solid appointments can achieve most of these things.

butters

ledvedderman wrote:

I really don't think it does. We've seen cases where the most experienced candidate over the last 45 years (Nixon) was a trainwreck and left office early in shame. We've also seen some un-experienced candidates (Clinton and JFK) do extraordinary things, but at time showing weakness for not having a lot of experience.

At best, experience is a toss up

eh... what exactly did JFK do that was so great? He inspired people sure, but I don't know of any great accomplishments. He gets a lot of love mostly because he was shot. He was a vocal supporter of civil rights, but it was LBJ (an experienced statesmen) who actually got civil rights bills passed. LBJ did this by virtue of his long experience as a politician (ie arm twisting and using the influence he had built up).

Nixon may have been a racist paranoid crook, but by many accounts he was an effective international president, amongst other things opening relations with China.

It doesn't matter what the job is, experience matters.

darkcrow

butters wrote:

eh... what exactly did JFK do that was so great? He inspired people sure, but I don't know of any great accomplishments. He gets a lot of love mostly because he was shot. He was a vocal supporter of civil rights, but it was LBJ (an experienced statesmen) who actually got civil rights bills passed. LBJ did this by virtue of his long experience as a politician (ie arm twisting and using the influence he had built up).

Nixon may have been a racist paranoid crook, but by many accounts he was an effective international president, amongst other things opening relations with China.

It doesn't matter what the job is, experience matters.

i was giong to say that abuot JFK but I didn't want to get into a fight about. I love the story abuot LBJ picking up a senator and screaming at him. Classic LBJ

butters

This whole premise of this debate reminds me of how Bush used McCain and Kerry's military records against them. Except its being done on a grass roots level. I think there is some very high level manipulation going on here.

boxwine_in_hell

Experience in politics just means getting better and better at being a dirt ball.

KosmicJelli

In the 1992 election, Ross Perot turned to Bill Clinton and stated, "No, no, no, but I could say, you know, that I ran a small grocery store on the corner, therefore I extrapolate that into the fact that I can run Wal-Mart. That's not true....."


Meaning and jist... Clinton was only governor at the time and there was question to if he was capable to running the country.

gabers

Experience is important, in the sense that if the president isn't experienced then he should pick experienced advisors, like Kennedy did. Like Bush did, although I didn't care for his advisors. Or him.

sponger

From a Jimi Hendrix perspective, Obama is very experienced. He admitted to using marijuana extensively in high school, and using coke when he "had the money."

So, if anything, he probably has an enhanced sense of creativity as well as a broadened understanding of reality.

slightofjeff

I think it's one of many factors you have to weigh when coming to a decision.

I mean, I wouldn't want someone who doesn't know how to work a fryer be a manager a McDonald's. I'm not sure I'd want someone who is inexperienced run the country.

But ... there are also some experienced politicians out there who are incompetent. I wouldn't want them in office, either.

Specifically when it comes to this year's race, Obama's inexperienced does give me pause. But it wouldn't be the deciding factor that would make me vote against him. The fact that I disagree with him on almost every single issue, on the other hand ...

Hollyweird

Is very relevant right now with two wars and a sputtering economy. Im all for social experiments but not right now. Im no Republican but I have a real problem with a guy who says he would pull out of Iraq regardless of the circumstances on the ground and then travel the world having tea with every dictator in the world to make nice. We cant afford another Jimmy Carter right now.

Jimmydean55

boxwine_in_hell wrote:

Experience in politics just means getting better and better at being a dirt ball.

Bingo!

butters

boxwine_in_hell wrote:

Experience in politics just means getting better and better at being a dirt ball.

Ya, but you have to know how dirtballs work to get around. You go in with ideals and not much else, and chances are you won't get much done. I again bring up JFK vs LBJ. JFK talked about civil rights, LBJ got civil rights for black people.

Im still here

I like Bill Clinton, what a First Lady.........

*(it had to be done)*

ledvedderman

butters wrote:

Ya, but you have to know how dirtballs work to get around. You go in with ideals and not much else, and chances are you won't get much done. I again bring up JFK vs LBJ. JFK talked about civil rights, LBJ got civil rights for black people.

Yeah, damn that JFK for getting assassinated so he couldn't close the deal.

darkcrow

ledvedderman wrote:

Yeah, damn that JFK for getting assassinated so he couldn't close the deal.

i really doubt he would have got it passed had he survived. LBJ worked his arse off making sure he had the votes. JFK just really wasn't good at that stuff.

slightofjeff

Im still here wrote:

I like Bill Clinton, what a First Lady.........

*(it had to be done)*

If Hillary is elected, I'm betting Bill becomes the first First Lady to get his cock sucked in the Oval Office since Eleanor Roosevelt.

*badabing*

ledvedderman

slightofjeff wrote:

If Hillary is elected, I'm betting Bill becomes the first First Lady to get his cock sucked in the Oval Office since Eleanor Roosevelt.

*badabing*

zzzzzzzzzzzzing

cornnifer

butters wrote:

Ya, but you have to know how dirtballs work to get around. You go in with ideals and not much else, and chances are you won't get much done. I again bring up JFK vs LBJ. JFK talked about civil rights, LBJ got civil rights for black people.

hillary? Is that you? Are you trolling our peaceful little message board again, hillary? Shouldn't you be getting your tax returns and whitehouse papers together instead of posting here?


Seriously, the truth of the matter is that LBJ didn't get shit for Black people. That isn't a dig, really, just an observation. There was so much pressure on him at the time that he really had no political choice. He is to be, somewhat commended, i'll concede that, but to say that "LBJ got civil rights for black people", is a tad ridiculous. Black people got civil rights for Black people. Not only Black people, but sincere, well intentioned whites as well, willing to march, sit-in, stand-in, and in other ways civily disobey, a coaltition of Black and clear sighted white PEOPLE led by Dr. King and a handful of others, willing to be beaten, jailed arrested, harrassed, dog-bitten, fire hosed and, in some instanced killed, for the cause, got civil rights for Black people. LBJ didn't "get" civil rights for anyone.

Pegasus

butters wrote:

eh... what exactly did JFK do that was so great? He inspired people sure, but I don't know of any great accomplishments. He gets a lot of love mostly because he was shot. He was a vocal supporter of civil rights, but it was LBJ (an experienced statesmen) who actually got civil rights bills passed. LBJ did this by virtue of his long experience as a politician (ie arm twisting and using the influence he had built up).

Nixon may have been a racist paranoid crook, but by many accounts he was an effective international president, amongst other things opening relations with China.

It doesn't matter what the job is, experience matters.

actually saw a very interesting documentary last week about the Vienna conference.. and it was food for thought about experience..because it was JFK's inexperience that made a mess...

but then again, someone 'experienced' is far less likely to want to change the system that got him/her there, however rotten it is..