Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Azure

That is kinda my point.

The upcoming presidency will probably be one of the most challenging ones in history, and I'd rather have someone experienced as POTUS, than someone with VERY little experience.

McCain has said he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
Clinton has said she wants to obliterate Iran.
Good thing this experience of theirs is giving them a cool head under pressure and proper insight into the problems facing the United States domestically and globally.

[MarchHare]

The upcoming presidency will probably be one of the most challenging ones in history, and I'd rather have someone experienced as POTUS, than someone with VERY little experience.

So...you prefer Hillary's eight years of federal senate experience to Obama's combined 12 years of federal and state senate experience? I'm really failing to comprehend your claim that Clinton has massive amounts of experience and Obama has very little.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

McCain has said he IS WILLING to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
...
Good thing this experience of theirs is giving them a cool head under pressure and proper insight into the problems facing the United States domestically and globally.

Fixed.

Obama's inexperience in international matters is comical. Meeting with leaders of rogue states would be a great tool for propaganda, vowing to withdraw from Iraq would lead to enemy factions just laying low until the civil war that would follow the US's departure. Talking about revoking NAFTA, and the fact that his cabinet would not be friends/people he could trust.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

So...you prefer Hillary's eight years of federal senate experience to Obama's combined 12 years of federal and state senate experience? I'm really failing to comprehend your claim that Clinton has massive amounts of experience and Obama has very little.

Its the always important 3 am phone call answering while dodging sniper fire experience that gets the votes.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

McCain has said he wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years.
Clinton has said she wants to obliterate Iran.
Good thing this experience of theirs is giving them a cool head under pressure and proper insight into the problems facing the United States domestically and globally.

I see nothing wrong with what McCain said. Considering of course that countries like Japan and Germany have had a US presence since WW2. Even Obama said he would keep troops there to protect the US bases.

Clinton said she would respond to Iran accordingly if they used nuclear weapons on Israel. Again, any President would do that.

But I guess its much better to piss the Pakistanis off by telling them you'd send troops into their country without approval.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

So...you prefer Hillary's eight years of federal senate experience to Obama's combined 12 years of federal and state senate experience? I'm really failing to comprehend your claim that Clinton has massive amounts of experience and Obama has very little.

Eating every meal with a highly respected former president helps.

Having decades worth of allies and loyalties helps.

Having a recognizable face when dealing with foreign diplomats helps.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Fixed.

Fair enough. I misspoke. I'm tired.

The point still stands though: he's apparently willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years despite what its doing to them globally and domestically. Never mind the questionable grounds the war was started on.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Eating every meal with a highly respected former president helps.

Having decades worth of allies and loyalties helps.

Having a recognizable face when dealing with foreign diplomats helps.

So what your saying is a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill.

One of the things that would go against Hillary is exactly what your talking about here, that people would feel like Hillary is a mouthpiece for Bill who would be the actual president and leverage point in the white house.

A having a recognizable face when dealing with foreign diplomats doesn't help, considering that your not dealing with friends even when its a friendly nation, your dealing with someone working to find a advantage for their country. Its much more important to realize that when your the president of the united states, your not friends with any of these people, so prior relationships mean nothing.

Allies and loyalties mean nothing. And it shifts everyday. Bill had a great relationship with the Russians because they were at the time, weak. Now we're looking at a resurgant Russia with its own agenda that doesn't really jive with the U.S.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Fair enough. I misspoke. I'm tired.

The point still stands though: he's apparently willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years despite what its doing to them globally and domestically. Never mind the questionable grounds the war was started on.

I think you are contradicting yourself.

I assume that you, like I, vehemently opposed the Iraq war. I found it unacceptable on every level, and I was disgusted that it had such high approval ratings just before the invasion began.

But the next president has to play the cards (s)he's dealt.

America is in a war, and while victory will be elusive and frustrating there is no alternative. Any withdrawal will lead to a flare-up, full blown civil war, and almost surely a worse regime than Saddam's.


The war was a mistake, I've hated it all along. But stopping now would be like stopping halfway through a major surgery because you mis-diagnosed.
It's not going to undo any of the damage you've done, the patient is owed your dedication to resolving it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Fair enough. I misspoke. I'm tired.

The point still stands though: he's apparently willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years despite what its doing to them globally and domestically. Never mind the questionable grounds the war was started on.

Every President that steps in whether its Obama, or Clinton or McCain is going to have to be willing to stay in Iraq no matter what they say, at least McCain is being honest about it.

There's noway that the U.S. is going to be able to pull their troops out of that country even with a two term president.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

Fair enough. I misspoke. I'm tired.

The point still stands though: he's apparently willing to stay in Iraq for 100 years despite what its doing to them globally and domestically. Never mind the questionable grounds the war was started on.

And a better plan would be to pull out of Iraq and leave millions of people to die like they did in Vietnam?

Which is of course what Obama is/was suggesting. Hell, I really don't know anymore what Obama is suggesting regarding Iraq. I really wish someone would ask him about it, because he's been giving different answers since he began his campaign to become President.

Is 2013 the latest date for withdrawal? Or is it 2009? I'm not sure.

Maybe he even wised up.....cause a few months ago one of his advisers said that Obama would make that decision once he became President and saw the situation for what it really was. So on one hand he was pandering to the anti-war crowd to gain political brownie points, and on the other hand his advisers are making it seem like he's such an idiot. Of course, we never really know....since it is politics afterall, and Obama is JUST like every other politician, and will do or say ANYTHING to get into office.

I actually have to laugh at the comparison people were making between Obama and JFK. JFK had WAY more experience, and despite that he just about started a nuclear war with Russia.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So what your saying is a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill.

One of the things that would go against Hillary is exactly what your talking about here, that people would feel like Hillary is a mouthpiece for Bill who would be the actual president and leverage point in the white house.
.
.
.
Allies and loyalties mean nothing. And it shifts everyday. Bill had a great relationship with the Russians because they were at the time, weak. Now we're looking at a resurgant Russia with its own agenda that doesn't really jive with the U.S.

Yes, that is what I'm saying.
Frankly, I think electing the same married couple twice goes against the spirit of the constitutional amendment about being president twice, but that that is a moot point. Bill's experience is undeniable, and he will be around.
.
.
.
I meant internal allies. Hillary and Bill know who they can trust, who is loyal and dutiful, who is shrewd and self-serving. Obama doesn't have "his people" that he can install the day he is elected.
That has pros and cons, probably more pros to be honest, but his inexperience is a big con.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Eating every meal with a highly respected former president helps.

Having decades worth of allies and loyalties helps.

Having a recognizable face when dealing with foreign diplomats helps.

How much experience in federal and international politics did Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton have before assuming office? That's right, none at all. Yet both of those former presidents are remembered very fondly by supporters of the Republicans and Democrats, respectively.

OTOH, George W. Bush had all those qualities you mention -- I don't see how being the son of a former-president is much different than being the spouse of one -- yet his presidency has been nothing short of an unmitigated disaster.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

And a better plan would be to pull out of Iraq and leave millions of people to die like they did in Vietnam?

Which is of course what Obama is/was suggesting. Hell, I really don't know anymore what Obama is suggesting regarding Iraq. I really wish someone would ask him about it, because he's been giving different answers since he began his campaign to become President.

Is 2013 the latest date for withdrawal? Or is it 2009? I'm not sure.

Maybe he even wised up.....cause a few months ago one of his advisers said that Obama would make that decision once he became President and saw the situation for what it really was. So on one hand he was pandering to the anti-war crowd to gain political brownie points, and on the other hand his advisers are making it seem like he's such an idiot. Of course, we never really know....since it is politics afterall, and Obama is JUST like every other politician, and will do or say ANYTHING to get into office.

I actually have to laugh at the comparison people were making between Obama and JFK. JFK had WAY more experience, and despite that he just about started a nuclear war with Russia.

I don't laugh at that comparison anymore, because I've watched Obama's compaign and whoever is running it for him is reading right from the JFK playbook. Personally, Obama is spewing out whatever will get him the most popular votes right now, and he's writing massive checks that he's not going to be able to deliver on. Thats why I've said that he's going to get cut to shreds by McCain in any kind of debate.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How much experience in federal and international politics did Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton have before assuming office? That's right, none at all. Yet both of those former presidents are remembered very fondly by supporters of the Republicans and Democrats, respectively.

OTOH, George W. Bush had all those qualities you mention -- I don't see how being the son of a former-president is much different than being the spouse of one -- yet his presidency has been nothing short of an unmitigated disaster.

Taking these arguments and cherry picking them into the sole prerequisite to becoming president is silly.

I'm talking about elements of Obama's experience - do you think experience is not relevant, or that my points do not address his experience?

I would infer that you think experience is a detriment, but I'd like to hear what you actually think.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Yes, that is what I'm saying.
Frankly, I think electing the same married couple twice goes against the spirit of the constitutional amendment about being president twice, but that that is a moot point. Bill's experience is undeniable, and he will be around.
.
.
.
I meant internal allies. Hillary and Bill know who they can trust, who is loyal and dutiful, who is shrewd and self-serving. Obama doesn't have "his people" that he can install the day he is elected.
That has pros and cons, probably more pros to be honest, but his inexperience is a big con.

Except that Hillary is stepping into a entirely different world then the one that Bill lead. Clinton was very much a peace time president who had the luxury of drawing down on security, military strength, and he was receiving the dividents of a world that had pretty much settled down for him. I have my doubts that Clinton would have been any more effective after the events of 9/11 which changed the way that America views the world and runs its government.

Now I'm not saying that Bush is the end all and be all, but I don't think that Hillary would be getting the best advice from Billy Boy.

Those alliances, those personal friends that she could count on to advice her, could possibly be the worst people to lean on.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How much experience in federal and international politics did Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton have before assuming office? That's right, none at all. Yet both of those former presidents are remembered very fondly by supporters of the Republicans and Democrats, respectively.

OTOH, George W. Bush had all those qualities you mention -- I don't see how being the son of a former-president is much different than being the spouse of one -- yet his presidency has been nothing short of an unmitigated disaster.

Now you're comparing Obama to Reagan and Clinton? Hilarious.

Reagan was governor of California for almost 10 years, plus he ran two campaigns to become the Republican Presidential candidate and lost before winning the 3rd one in 1980.

Clinton was both Attorney General and governor of Arkansas before he became President.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't laugh at that comparison anymore, because I've watched Obama's compaign and whoever is running it for him is reading right from the JFK playbook. Personally, Obama is spewing out whatever will get him the most popular votes right now, and he's writing massive checks that he's not going to be able to deliver on. Thats why I've said that he's going to get cut to shreds by McCain in any kind of debate.

Hope and change Captain, Hope and change.

I really hope Obama isn't anywhere near what JFK was. Or the US is royally screwed.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except that Hillary is stepping into a entirely different world then the one that Bill lead. Clinton was very much a peace time president who had the luxury of drawing down on security, military strength, and he was receiving the dividents of a world that had pretty much settled down for him. I have my doubts that Clinton would have been any more effective after the events of 9/11 which changed the way that America views the world and runs its government.

I would disagree with that. Bill more or less ignored the world's turbulation, it wasn't "settled down."

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Now I'm not saying that Bush is the end all and be all, but I don't think that Hillary would be getting the best advice from Billy Boy.

Those alliances, those personal friends that she could count on to advice her, could possibly be the worst people to lean on.

The argument is about experience, it is undeniable that Hillary has more to draw from.

It scares me that the day Hillary gets elected* she'll install her own army of minions to execute her will. I'd prefer Obama gets elected and he'll bumble his way through a few months before he gets things going.

*hypothetical only

[Azure]

From the liberal-sided Huffington Post.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-o...-_b_88296.html

Despite JFK's years of public policy experience and political acumen, that Obama can't match, he was still woefully ill-equipped to deal with the two biggest crises that confronted his administration; the Cuban Missile crisis and the civil rights crisis. The mythmakers have spun a picture of a cool, calm, and collected JFK facing down Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev in 1962. He allegedly forced him to get Russian missiles out of Cuba and that saved the world from nuclear destruction.

Then there's the issue of civil rights. The Obama camp twisted and mangled an innocent comment Clinton made in which she praised President Lyndon Baines Johnson for driving the 1964 civil rights bill through Congress. Supposedly Clinton defamed Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by minimizing his role in getting a civil rights law. Clinton, of course, got it right. It took every bit of Johnson's relentless political arm twisting, cajoling, and deal-making skills to get wavering Republicans and hostile Southern Senators who controlled key committees to back the bill or soften their vehement opposition to it.


The bill though was not Johnson's. It was introduced by Kennedy. Despite his efforts, Kennedy could not budge Congress to take action. JFK simply did not have the political muscle to budge the bill's opponents. Johnson did have the experience and the muscle to ultimately force passage.
The rap against Obama that he lacks the requisite experience to get the job done effectively in the White House is not a cheap and meaningless campaign shot at him.



The American presidency should not be an OJT position. Voters shouldn't be asked to make a leap of faith that an untested candidate can smoothly and effortlessly handle crisis situations that inevitably arise. Inexperienced presidents are poor crisis managers. They get us into costly and unpopular wars and brush fire conflicts. They alienate foreign friends and allies. They bungle the economy. And their administrations more times than not are riddled with corruption and cronyism. The disastrous proof is the administration of the man that Obama seeks to replace.

Even without fingering Bush's foreign and domestic policy bumbles and ineptitude, the presidents that have been most successful in recent decades have been FDR, Bill Clinton and Dwight Eisenhower. They had two things in common. They had extensive executive and administrative experience either as governors, or in the case of Eisenhower, in the armed forces before they became president.


The lack of administrative and crisis management experience shouldn't disqualify a prospective presidential candidate, or mean that he or she will crumble under fire. At the same time, their inexperience raises a giant question mark about the candidate. That can't be cavalierly dismissed.

Truly the man Obama wants to compare himself too.