According to the Massachusetts Democratic Party Website, there is yet another Democratic candidate in the race for President in 08.
So what does this mean for the others?
The good news is that Barack Obama is no longer the least experienced Democratic presidential candidate.
We now have Dal LaMagna bringing up the rear.
Obama welcomes you, Dal.
Please share widely!
How could you say Obama has less experience than Edwards? If we go simply on the basis of time in elected office (which is anything if not incomplete) Obama has more “experience” than Edwards or Clinton in holding office at the state or national level. Now, including time spent in public service, Obama’s spent most of the past 25 years since graduating college in public service (except for the time spent at law school), and Clinton has been in public service the entire 35 years since she graduated law school. Edwards has done great work since leaving office, but has less than a decade of public service experience. My point is, it’s hard to see Obama being the least experienced candidate.
I suppose if we say that all elected experience counts equally, Obama’s right in there — what with his time in Springfield working on dumpster placement being equivalent to Clinton’s and Edwards’ Senate terms.
NY Times, yesterday:
<
p>
<
p>
OK, so state senator isn’t governor. Nor is it “dumpster placement”.
that Obama’s community-organizing experience is extremely valuable, and something none of the other candidates have: working in communities, facilitating discussions, forging coalitions, helping them advocate for their own needs.
<
p>
I’ve just read Alinsky’s “Reveille for Radicals”, a primer on community organizing, which is actually not all that “hard left” — eminently practical, actually. That’s the approach that Obama was supposedly using.
<
p>
Anyway, experience does not necessarily equate to elected experience, and that certainly does not equate to wisdom.
If so, do you want any of them to be president in 4 years?
<
p>
That’s the kind of inexperience we’re talking about here.
<
p>
Obama currently has 2.5 years in federal office, dealing with comprehensive national and international issues.
<
p>
Edwards has 6 years in federal office, dealing with comprehensive national and international issues.
<
p>
I don’t want either, frankly.
<
p>
And I’m sure you would agree that community organizing is wildly different that managing the expansive federal government and coming to understand the gigantic responsibilities of the presidency. See below for a more comprehensive breakdown of my thoughts on this.
<
p>
And just to clarify… you’re making the argument that Obama is not the 8th most qualified (experienced) Democrat running for President… he’s the 7th most qualified?
<
p>
Yikes.
If we’re going just on experience as “time in public office”, Obama is the 6th most experienced, followed by Hillary Clinton, then John Edwards.
<
p>
Biden – 34.5 Years
Dodd – 32.5 Years (+ 2 Peace Corps & 7 Army Reserve)
Richardson- 22.5 years (+ about 5 State Dept & Senate Foreign Relations before Congress)
Kucinich – 22.5 Years
Gravel – 18 Years
Obama – 10.5 Years (+3 as community organizer, plus 10 overlapping years teaching Constitutional law)
Clinton – 6.5 Years (+ 20 as First Lady)
Edwards – 6 Years (+ 2 since as poverty activist and academic)
<
p>
So depending how you count it, 6th or 7th. Hillary is 7th or 3rd or 4th. Richardson is 3rd or 4th.
<
p>
Experience matters, but it’s not everything. Richardson is clearly the strongest candidate of the “high experience” group, and is (along with Wes Clark) one of my top choices for VP for that reason (plus my wife is a huge Richardson supporter, so his strengths and weaknesses are discussed a lot at home).
State elective office is obviously not transferable. That puts Obama at the bottom of the pack with 2.5 years. Was he a town meeting member? Would you have counted that?
<
p>
Either way you look at it Obama comes in at the least or second least qualified candidate.
So, I’ve been called an Obama shill — which I’m pretty sure I’m not. How about full disclosure from you? What’s your beef with Obama?
I may have… but I don’t think I have.
<
p>
My full disclosure: I am supporting Bill Richardson and have donated to his campaign. My support for Bill is based on his vast legislative, executive, state, national and international experience, not to mention his clear electability. I do believe he’ll have to do some on the job learning because of how vast the office of President is… but nowhere near the on the job learning of any other Dem except Hillary.
<
p>
Sometimes I like to play in the top tier and it seems to me the only candidate with less experience on a national level than George Bush in 2000 is Barack Obama in 2008 (excluding of course, Dal LaMatina). And let me be clear — state legislative experience is absolutely NOT a qualification for the expansive, vast complex operation of this executive. I think that Obama would have way too much on the job learning and would be taken advantage of by slimy Democratic operatives/beaurocrats just as Bush has been.
<
p>
Frankly, I believe Obama would be relying on the advice of others for many of his appointments (as would Edwards to a slightly lesser degree) whereas Hillary (and Richardson to a lesser gedree) has been around Washington and has clearly the most comprehensive network of tried-and-tested professionals to serve in the executive. I see Hillary with no problem using an iron fist approach to running the executive, which she clearly understands the best of all candidates in either party.
<
p>
I believe that a Hillary Administration draws the most striking contrast to the Bush Administration because what I’m looking for is a competent, in control, experienced president to undo as much damage as is possible.
<
p>
Obama may talk a big game and mean it, but you can’t argue that he knows how to deliver change… he’s never actually done, been a party to or been in a position to propose anything! Obama is running on presidential theory. Hillary’s been there.
<
p>
Wow that was longer than expected.
when she headed the health care task force. And of course it’s worked so well for Bush and Cheney.
<
p>
If you want change, supporting Hillary is a bit quixotic, to say the least. Hillary is likely to deliver political maneuvers and triangulation, a willingness to jettison core Democratic constituencies to curry favor with social conservatives, and modest incremental improvements in the health and welfare of the most vulnerable Americans. Hillary would be much better than another Republican administration, and a woman president would be a nice first, but I’m not sold that she has the power to inspire or even the desire for real change.
<
p>
Whatever concerns you might have with Obama, I don’t think inability to deliver change is a valid beef. He appears to have been an effective and pragmatic coalition builder from his early days as a community organizer and at Harvard Law, through his terms in the Illinois Senate and in the US Senate. He gets how to run from the grassroots, how to motivate people to work together, and he has the ability to inspire. These are potent tools.
<
p>
It’s also worth noting that Illinois has a significant economy – 14th largest in the world and as large as Mexico’s – with competing urban and agricultural constituencies, significant minority and immigrant communities, and a vigorous political culture. A brilliant guy like Obama no doubt learned quite a bit in there that would translate to the national level.
<
p>
<
p>
2. Since when has Bush had an “iron fist” approach to governing. He has, IMHO, been a very hands off president.
<
p>
3. Change & Maneuvers: Frankly, at least Hillary knows how to maneuver… which I believe is a strength. Hillary’s strongest contrast to Bush is her experience in the White House… and anyone who believes she spent her time measuring drapes and planning dinner parties is sadly mistaken.
<
p>
4. Obama can deliver change: False/unproven. Example: Deval Patrick. When you run on hope and you have little government and no executive experience the on the job learning is clearly extensive. What substantial change has Deval delivered after being elected on change and hope? Hasn’t Deval experienced some embarrassing on the job learning? He is very vulnerable on this point. I truly do not believe he has the ability to deliver meaningful change.
<
p>
5. I know community organizers and state legislators. None of the ones I know are ready to be president in 4 years. Again, Deval: grassroots, motivation & inspiration absolutely do not translate into an effective executive.
<
p>
6. Illinois Economy: woah now. Obama was what… one of 200 state legislators? He had no individual responsibility to overseeing Illinois’ government. If he were a Governor he could count this to his credit… as a state senator he simply did not have as much responsibility as you are asserting.
<
p>
2. Whatever.
<
p>
3. Change & Maneuvers: Maneuvering can be a strength, sure. My point is that the Clintons aren’t about bold change. I’ll take Hillary and incremental gains if I can’t get better leadership this cycle. So far, I’m more impressed with Obama.
<
p>
4. False comparison. DP doesn’t provide any evidence that Obama can’t deliver change. Plus I’m pretty happy with what DP’s been delivering – marriage equality, returning the state to the regional greenhouse gas initiative, encouraging companies to expand in the state, revitalizng the grassroots.
<
p>
5. Another false comparison. I know community organizers and state legislators, too, but none that was top of class at Harvard law, elected US Senator, author of two best-sellers, capable of building an organization that has raised over $60 million – more than the Clinton machine – and an inspiring enough speaker to draw crowds in the tens of thousands. Whatever it takes to be an effective president – and I don’t think anyone can claim to have bottled the formula, we’ve seen experienced leaders fail in the office, and inexperienced ones hailed as among our greatest – motivation & inspiration are absolutely critical to the mix.
<
p>
6. I don’t think I’ve asserted anything other than the hard-to-dispute reality that 8 years in the legislature of a large state like Illinois is a much more significant learning opportunity than – what had you called it? – dumpster placement.
<
p>
What can I say? I’m impressed by the guy, and will probably give him my primary vote.
But please, don’t just take my word for it.
<
p>
“Look, I can unequivocally say I will not be running for national office in four years. My entire focus is making sure that I’m the best possible senator on behalf of the people in Illinois.”
<
p>
State Senator Barack Obama, 2004
he began running for national office shortly thereafter, not in 4 years. additionally, “in 4 years” would have placed him in 2008. that is, post-election. it is true that he probably wouldn’t be running for national office the day after the inauguration. sheesh, sabutai! đŸ˜›
<
p>
I take serious issue with this on a few levels Ms. Migraine.
<
p>
1) Obama the only candidate with less national experience than Bush-come on Clinton had NO national experience and was a 3 term governor of a small shitty southern state Id say he was less qualified to deal with foreign leaders and a Congress, Carter had even less time as governor
<
p>
2)If state legislative experience doesnt count why should state level executive experience? Clearly if the executive of a nation is so vast and complex why would Clinton or Carter be qualified, or Reagan even for that matter?
<
p>
3)Edwards had six years in the Senate when he started running for President and no other experience, hes less than Obama even, and his first term was pretty unimportant
<
p>
4)Clinton-being first lady doesn’t count, it has absolutely no bearings on policy decisions, is Nikki Tsongas qualified cause she was Paul’s husband? No, same applies to Hillary. If you get rid of the first lady years she has just as much as Edwards that is less than Obama. And again no major pieces of legislation or intiatives
<
p>
5)Foreign Policy Counts!-Next to Biden and Richardson, Obama is the most qualified on foreign policy, hes on the foreign relations committee, he has negotitated with Dick Lugar with the Russians, he has passed significant pieces of legislation to curb nuclear proliferation from existing nuclear powers (the real terrorist threat not Iran or NK)
<
p>
6)Obama is MORE electable since he has less time-
JFK had a great foreign policy and peacefully disarmed Cuba, he was in the Senate about as much as Obama will be if he wins. JFK served three terms in Congress but Id say Obamas service in Sprinfield is equivalent. And he didnt have a record, neither did Harding. Kerry, Mondale, Dole, any big time veteran Senator cant win because of the long voting histories
<
p>
7)Obamas quick rise is an asset-its a sign of his intelligence and political acumen, from grassroots organizer in the South Side of Chicago (my adopted neighborhood most of the year, a very dim place) to a Presidential contender in less than ten years thats pretty darn impressive, Hillary got elected on her name alone and Edwards had a ton of money. Obama had a terrible name (his advisors advised changing it dont forget Husseins in there and hes running at the start of the war), ran against a favorite son of a popular Governor, and still won.
<
p>
So yeah your wrong. And Gravel had a term in the 70’s so that doesnt count either.
1 – As governor, particularly of border states, you get a fair amount of international experience. Considering that people will go from senator to governor (such as Jon Corzine), quite clearly it’s a job of equal status, and unlike legislators, governors cannot duck in a crowd when responsibility comes knocking.
<
p>
2 – “If state legislative experience doesnt count why should state level executive experience” It is not hard to be in a legislature and do nothing. You show up at committee hearings and votes, but that’s all. If a governor tried to do that, his/her state would quickly drift.
<
p>
3 – Edwards v Obama on experience. True, come election time, Edwards will have only 150% of Obama’s experience.
<
p>
4 – Hillary. I don’t see First Lady as a whole lot of experience, but she did learn a great deal during the health intiative, and if you don’t think she hasn’t done anything major, you need to re-educate yourself on her record.
<
p>
5 – Dodd has five Senate terms, which means he has more experience in foreign relations that Obama. Obama may have more experience than…well, maybe Gravel.
<
p>
6 – Equating JFK’s House terms to Obama’s stint in the Illinois legislature (mostly in the minority) is inaccurate.
<
p>
7 – Obama didn’t have a quick rise — didn’t you just tell us how experienced he is? He lost a Democratic primary in 2000. And you or I could have won the Illinois Senatorship in 2004.
<
p>
I recognize the strategy of pretending that Obama’s greatest weakness (his inexperience) is actually a strength. But unless you do something like this — fudging time in the minority of a state legislature with being governor, it just undermines the argument for Obama.
Sab, I listened to most of Clinton’s autobiography (on CD — no books for me!), and I don’t remember him talking about much furrin policy. I’m happy to be corrected on that.
<
p>
As far as the legislature is concerned, I’m sure it’s quite easy to be a nebbish in the US Congress, too, if you like. I mean, look at the clowns who stumbled into the US Senate. Santorum? Or Governor: Gilmore?
<
p>
In any event, you’ve chucked a bunch of FUD at Obama — dumpster placement, suggesting he might have gotten by “doing nothing” in the legislature, when it’s documented that’s not the case, etc. By absurd overstatement, I think you’re doing a worse job at advocating your case.
<
p>
Obama does indeed lack typical chief executive experience — I’ll definitely grant that. I’d suggest he has other experiences which are relevant, and more to the point, extremely unusual for a Prez candidate. We can discuss what’s worth more, and naturally, we’ll disagree; but let’s at least agree on a set of facts, otherwise we descend into food-fight.
The “dumpster placement” line is how I typically describe state legislative experience as a prep for the federal level. I never said that Obama was “doing nothing”, though the Washington Post article that details his time in the Legislature speaks mainly about questions on videotaping police suspects, and ethics/campaign finance. I was responding to an attempt to compare state legislative experience with experience gained as a senator or governor. If you seem them as comparable, then, I guess we disagree.
<
p>
Charley, I’ve been open with the fact that I see Obama as unready. He has less top-level experience than any “serious” presidential candidate since….geez, possibly Jimmy Carter. As I’ve said time and again, Bush and Romney have made me extremely reluctant to take a shot at someone with a pocketful of hope and a couple years experience. I realize that many folks disagree with that, and some will attack me for it.
<
p>
I’m quite open about my support for Governor Richardson. I’m also the only poster on this site who’s actually made an honest list of his/her candidate’s weaknesses. I’m not about to insults folks by pretending that Richardson’s lack of stump charisma is a strength. Maybe I should…
<
p>
<
p>
A governor has no foreign policy experience, this country has had a terrible foreign policy when it comes to dealing with the Middle east and other countries for nearly 30 years. Carter, Clinton were both govs with no foreign policy experience that dangerously improvised their foreign policy leaving America vulnerable. Gov Reagan and Gov Bush both surrounded themselves with neo con advisors that essentially dictated their foreign policy to them. Both results were awful. In Richardson you have a rare candidate with foreign policy experience before he was gov, but rarely have governors made good Presidents. They are somehow very electable though.
<
p>
<
p>
As charley said its easy to be in Congress and do nothing, as IMO Edwards, Hillary, JFK pre Senate, and even Kerry did during their undistinguished careers.
<
p>
<
p>
Um Edwards has 6 years experience as a public servant as a pretty mediocre Senator, the only reason he ran in 2004 is because he was going to loose re-election. Obama has 2 and a half years in the Senate, on important Committees doing big things, and 8 years in the State Senate on important Committees doing important things. And around 20 years as a grassroots community organizer which gives him a huge advantage on issues of inner city poverty unlike the “son of a millworker” who lives in an all white town in a McMansion.
<
p>
<
p>
Well voting for and still being a hawk on Iraq until 2007 was fairly impressive, in the wrong way. Also she has not made any waves in the Senate, clearly Obama has if hes already being touted as a Presidential candidate only 2 years into his term. Also look at the Lugar-Obama initiative on proliferation, great stuff.
<
p>
<
p>
Ill agree with that, also Dodds five terms are a liability not an asset too long of a voting record, too many escapades with Ted Kennedy, etc.
<
p>
<
p>
During his service in the House JFK was in the minority, he did not do much of anything significant while Obama got bills with his name on it passed while in the minority. Oh right JFK did pass that resolution supporting Senator McCarthy and his excellent work on the HUAC committee.
<
p>
<
p>
To be fair a ficus plant could have beaten Alan Keyes, but I was talking about the primary where during the height of the Iraq war’s popularity his middle name Hussein appeared on the primary ballot, he was one of the few candidates to oppose that war or the Patriot Act, he was running against five other candidates with bigger wallets, more endorsements, including State Treasurer John Hynes who was the son of a popular governor and the presumed frontrunner. Thats pretty damn impressive.
<
p>
In any case I really like Richardson and honestly think he should be the eventual nominees VP candidate, especially Obamas, since he could be the Cheney to Obamas Bush, bad analogy I know, but people were far less afraid of Bush’s inexperience when he put Cheney on the ticket, ditto Richardson for Obama (and Richardson is also not Darth Cheney so thats also a plus).
I think we’ve hit upon two winning campaign slogans:
<
p>
Bill Richardson: He’s Not Darth Cheney, So That’s A Plus
Barack Obama: He Sits on Important Committees Doing Big Things
I guess I can laugh at those in good fun but you still havent won đŸ˜‰
you have confused me with someone else.
Sorry Migraine started the topic and i thought your rebuttal to me was that person defending themselves.