obama's got enough experience

figured this should be addressed in its own thread. since it's important.
onea those "obama's a a nazi, the antichrist, a muslim in kahoots with bin laden" things that need addressed. well, the argument about experience has some merit more than that, but definitely not as much as most people think.

1. Theodore Roosevelt (42)
2. John F. Kennedy (43)
3. Bill Clinton (46)
4. Ulysses S. Grant (46)
5. Grover Cleveland (47)
6. Franklin Pierce (48)
7. James A. Garfield (49)
8. James K. Polk (49)
9. Millard Fillmore (50)
10. John Tyler (51)

first to dispell a myth, obama's not the yongest ever etc. here's the ten youngest presidents. obama's not even in the top five. and close to even the tenth in years. as far as age goes, he's old enough, not just techincally legally, but for practical purposes too. put smarts in there for fast learner etc, he's surely just as good as number 11 etc.

for example, for experience,,, he's been in politics just as long as clinton was, and no one complained about him. not that they couldn't have,,, but just making the point that this who issue is probably just media rhetoric that they want you to argue for them. he's older than clinton was. he's done more things than clinton has. obama legislator, clinton governor,,, both have pros and cons and neither is really much better than the other in terms of which is a bette rpsotion.
then you have people like arnold swartzennegger. a lot of people consider him doing well,, and he had no experience. not completley anaologous, like not president etc, but it makes the point.

to insist on experience given what obama's done,, is probably just insisting on someone older,,, older for the sake of older cause that's the only way you could get more experience. can't expect much more from obama given his age. (i mean you could but it wouldn't be very realistic,,, and not that we shouldn't expect more, but just saying that it's totally reasonable what experience he has, an A or A-... maybe not an A+, in terms of raw experience anyways for his age)

obama's weak point is the military and international law. he does have a lot of politicans and former presidents beat right off the bat though, cause he specialized in international law at harvard law. there's surely someone better out there, concedely. but, when his competition is pretty much just mccain,,, and you consider the things i said in that mccain war thread*,,, obama's got him beat just in terms of making good decisions or at least not making bad ones like mccain.

also... most presidents in the past, consider well beyond reagan,,, had no international or military experience. or not much. i can see insisting on someone better for president in today's global climate that wouldn't be neeed as much back int hte day for past presidents,,, but, you'd have to concede that they were all unqualified for president too, today, if they were running. bush I bush II clinton reagan carter ford nixon kennedy etc etc.

so for domestic stuff,, if all those other presidents were good,, then obama's surely good. for military etc,,, most people i've shown probably don't have a problem with it even if they say they do, cause they wouldn't for most presidents but only do cause the media tells them to. at any rate, obama's got the compeition that matters beat, ie mccain.

now, if you dont think he's got the competition beat,,, and/or you'd concede that the past presidents were unqualified for today's presidency,,, (maybe if you thought domestically you could have someone better, and A+ instead of an A or A- like obama, in experience for the age, or you just want more age by experience) then, and only then, would you have a position that i'd think is respectable and not just media zombie spouting off about a lack of inexperience.

---------------------------
incidental points
*some stuff we should be weary of from mccain:
QUOTE
McCain... called Putin "a totalitarian dictator" and famously said he looked into his eyes and saw three letters "K, G and B,"

++++
all the saber rattling he's been doing with russia, even though it's acomplicated situation yet he's blaming them etc.

QUOTE
"bomb, bomb, bomb iran"

QUOTE
The most frightening example of McCain's fondness for force is on display in his own book, Faith of My Fathers, when he complains about the politicians who refused to allow pilots like him to attack, say, Soviet ships unloading arms in Vietnamese port cities. "We thought our civilian commanders were complete idiots," he writes. Bombing Soviet ships, of course, would probably have started World War III, but McCain's vision, then and now, encompasses war as a way of life.

QUOTE
give a brief smorgasbord of his views: at a recent rally, he sang "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran," to the tune of the Beach Boys' "Barbara Ann". He says North Korea should be threatened with "extinction".

QUOTE
he said war is good to put hair on your chest

QUOTE
mccain wanted to stay in vietnam... even though the vietnamis then and now have said they would have fought till everyone of them were dead. and most people take as given that the only way that war was going to end, is to leave.

Hi, this is my first debate, so I hope to make it a good one.

To start off with, you contend that Senator Obama has enough experience to be leader of the free world.

You also state that Bill Clinton had just as many years of experience as Obama. I will start with these two points

1. Senator Obama has been in the US senate for less than a year. Before that he was in the Illinois state senate. This, in my opinion, does not qualify one to be president. Also, Senator Obama has shown not only from his controversial associations, but also from the way he handeled them, that he does not have the judgement to be President. For example: When the Rev. Wright issue first came about, Obama was quoted as saying "I can no more disown Rev. Wright than I can disown the black community". About a month later, he did just that, saying he was not the man he knew 20 years ago, and that he was leaving Trinity Baptist Church. That move was pure political expediency. Also, notice how Obama always stutters when he has no lines in front of him, whereas Senator McCain states his words calm and confidently.

2. This is really quite simple. It is true that Senator Obama may have as many years as Bill Clinton, but Senator Obama spent close to all of those years in the state senate of Illinois, whereas Clinton was the governor of Arkansas. There is a significant difference between being a state senator for 7-10 years and being a governor for that long.

You also state that it's the "Media Zombies" (which I guess I would be considered one, I'm not sure) spouting that Obama is inexperienced. This is patently false. I have done the research myself and come to my own conclusion.

You imply that he "has the competition beat". Also untrue. Today's (August 16) Rasmussen and Gallup polls have Obama only up by one point. And the RCP average is less than 4 points. Now I understand that polls have been wrong before, but if this election is really as lopsided as you think it's going to be, don't you think at least one of the recent polls would have Obama up by more than 10 points nationally?

Military experience gives one moe credibility in elections, but it's not necessarily required. Sure, McCain may have played the "War Hero" card one too many times, I'll give you that. But for each time McCain has played the "War Hero" card, Obama has played the "Change" card 10 more times.

The "Bomb Iran" song is pretty much a dead horse being beaten at this point. It was a joke. I'm sure if Obama said something similar, you'd find it hillarious. McCain isn't perfect, but McCain isn't the subject of the debate. Obama is, as stated in the title: "obama's got enough experience".

I await your rebuttal.

Captain America

obama's been in the senate for more than a year for one. he's been in it for a number of years in fact. that's combined with his state experience equals essentially clinton's experience.
people debate whether govenor or legislator is better. each has a unique twist to it. one is taking the overall look,, the other is trying to figure out solutions closer to home etc. is this the essense of what your argument boils down to, gov v. legislator?

cause i dont' see how you could say the pastor thing is fatal. he probably never liked the pastor completely,,, obama said he was just part of the community and there werne't many. you dont have ot leave for every bad statement. plust the statement was rare from him. it'd be like faulting someone for following pat robertson and those ilk. they're nuts time to time. but you can still follow them generally.
he can leave for political expediency, but that's just playing politics, you can't really fault him for that. they all do it. mccain does it. mccain in fact has been part of scandals himself like the keating five scandal of funny money stuff. that's dishonesty there. not where you happen to go to church.

i didn't mean,, obama's leading, as per your reference to the polls. i meant, he's leading in military decisions being made, in my opinion.

you post that the bomb iran stuff was beating a dead horse. i can take it as a joke, it's the totality that's concerning... you forget about him literally wanting to bomb the soviets as i mentioned, and most agree would start WWIII. and he ocntinues to mock them and take a complicated situation into an us or them situation with the georgia conflict.

and so ultimatley the only thing you bring is a distinction between goveneor and legislator,,, which most don't think matters much.
te other things you bring,,,, are things that are trivial,,, they don't have to do with experience so much as your personal issues with him. even if i conceded that he should lose bc of the pastor thing for example,, it doesn't detract from his experience. me talking about mccain's bad experiences was mostly just a side point,,, not hinging on it. and at least these issues deal with politics and issues and not somethin dumb like what your pastor said once.

and you didn't even address the fact that most presidents should be said to be unqualified for president now, as per saying obama's not, as per internatlaity and military experience. if they're qualified, then obama is. (if you dn't think they're qualified, you shoulda said so, but did not)

you only bring a trivial point abot his pastor, and bicker about something no one would find meaningful unless they're trying to find a reason to not like him as per experience, about gov v. legislator.

the bottomline is that obama's been in politics long enough, and is old enough, to warrant saying he has experience necessary.

So, correct me if I'm wrong, your argument as that he has been in the state and US senate long enough to be president. Ok.

By your logic, anyone with any sort of state or US Senate experience is pretty much qualified to be leader of the free world, regardless of their record. Senator Obama has had little to no impact on any major legislature, he flip-flops on many issues, (The surge, Marijuana use, Public Financing, etc.) and he has shown from his handling of his radical associations like Jerimiah Wright that he lacks the judgment to lead, he is still qualified to be president, in your view. "But Jeremiah Wright didn't matter!", cries the Left. It does matter, because if Barack Obama would have had good judgment, he would have left Trinity after he heard Wright say "GD America". But he didn't. He left when people really started catching on as to how racist his pastor was. He left when it was convenient for him. Even if McCain was involved in the Keating Five, that doesn't make it right for Obama to do what he did.

Also, my argument does not boil down to Gov. v Legislator. It boils down to what he has done as a legislator in the Illinois state senate, which isn't much. I am simply countering your comparison of Obama's experience to Clinton's. Bill Clinton had to make big decisions as Governor of Arkansas. Barack Obama recently said that the biggest decision he ever made in his life was the decision to vote 'yes' or 'no' on going to Iraq. I don't think he knew how much of a fool he looked like when he said that. He has made no life-or-death decisions in his life that I'm aware of, no record of bringing people together, and no record of anything that would properly prepare him for the Office of President.

Spending time in the state senate does not prepare you to be president. Spending a 143 days in the US senate certainly does not prepare you to be president.

Now explain to me how he can take office and have the judgment, experience, and the bipartisanship necessary to run this country?

Captain America

PS: With the quotes, it's pretty simple to counter. The debate is NOT ABOUT MCCAIN. It is about whether Obama has enough experience, and I fail to see how McCain wanting to bomb Soviet ships has anything to do with Obama's experience.

"By your logic, anyone with any sort of state or US Senate experience is pretty much qualified to be leader of the free world, regardless of their record."

you must have bad logic if that's what you're drawing. of course it matters what they do. if they shoot someone etc, or just suck real bad at politics and policy, then it matters. i never said it didn't. i was just pointing out that he's got time in under his belt. if you'd have given the reasons he sucked in the legislture,,, maybe your conclusion would have more merit to it, but you didn't, other than to simply say he was a legislator only.

"Even if McCain was involved in the Keating Five, that doesn't make it right for Obama to do what he did."

also, i didn't say it makes it right that mccain is in the keating five to justify obama. i was only saying obama is not as bad as mccain. again you're drawing illogical conclusions.

"Also, my argument does not boil down to Gov. v Legislator. It boils down to what he has done as a legislator in the Illinois state senate, which isn't much. I am simply countering your comparison of Obama's experience to Clinton's."

you didn't mentin anything bad obama did. all you did was say that he was a legislator, whereas clinton was a govenor. only now do you mention it.

as per his experiences... whether to go to war in iraq or not is a huge issue. (actually,, he never voted on that issues, you got the facts wrong but it's a huge issue nonetheless. i'm just meeting you at your level)

"The debate is NOT ABOUT MCCAIN."

i started the debate talking about mccain, so i don't see how you can say it's not about him. i'm saying,,, if mccain's decision on intenratl etc sucks (which is a huge issue that obama arguably lacks), then his experience doesn't count for a whole lot,,, and if obama's decisions and calls have been good,, then while obama's not got it all in the military etc,, he's at least got the only person that matters beat. and that indeed does have to do with experience, at least the way i framed it, which is the way that matters for this debate.

Closing arguments:

Military experience doesn't decide who is president, though it certainly helps. You say that he has the only candidate who matters beat (which I assume is McCain), which is not even close to being correct. McCain has far more experience than Obama, both military and Legislative. The latest polls from Gallup and Rasmussen have Obama up by 1 and 3, respectively. That is far from being "beat". I am not saying that legislative experience does not matter, because it does.

However, 143 days of it does not warrrant saying that Obama has seen enough of the Senate and needs to run for president. I don't know about you, but I don't measure experience in years. I measure it in accomplishments, substance, and judgement (which sort of ties in to substance). And Obama has clearly shown that he lacks any major feats as a senator. He has also shown that he lacks substance, as I have previously shown.

Rev. Wright, Tony Rezko, his communist childhood mentor, Bill Ayres, the list goes on. He disowned Wright, Rezko, and Ayres when it was politcally convinient for him. While Senator Obama is in the middle of a campaign, this does not excuse poor judgement.

You also failed to answer my question. Does that maybe show that you have no retort to my question, that Obama really lacks the judgement, experience, and bipartisanship to run the country? I'm sure this is "flawed logic" as well, but the facts remain:

Barack Obama, though he has as many years in public office as Bill Clinton, has not done enough in those years to prove he is ready to take on the role of POTUS.

Captain America