[hurling frootmig]

Palin and Obama have similar levels of experience. Obama's been in the Senate about 150 days. The rest of the time he's been running his Presidential campaign.

MinnMD

Obama served in the Illinois senate for a much longer time than Palin was Mayor of her small town. I would also point out that Obama's state senate district was about 750,000 people which means that he represented more people than Palin has as Govenor of Alaksa. I believe Illinois has about 13 million people right now that he represents along with Dick Durbin in the Senate.

There's no real comparison to their experience level, educational experiences, or even work experience. Obama has a much more impressive background.

 

[hurling frootmig]

The fact is neither Obama or Palin have as much experience as our presidents normally possess when they take office. The difference is Obama has been on the national stage for 4 years and has served those 4 years in the U.S. Senate, where he gained foreign policy experience and learned enough to at least come across as knowledgable on foreign policy affairs. Palin simply comes across as a beauty pageant queen answering a tough question from Mario Lopez. If McCain does win, I hope he stays healthy.

Obama has more years of experience than Reagan had before he came into office. We've had a number of Presidents who have had less experience in elected office than Obama.

 

[hurling frootmig]

This is the kind of sound bite that doesn't help the discussion. It is a discussion, isn't it? Or is it just a recitation of talking points?

C'mon, buddy, Reagan was president of the screen actors guild for something like a decade and then was governor of the largest state in the country for two terms.

The fact that we've had other presidents who've had less experience in elected office than Obama isn't persuasive a little bit. Tell me: were they good presidents or bad ones? It could be argued that W had no more experience than Barack; surely you're not using that as an argument?

I'm an undecided. If I vote for Barack, it will be in spite of his lack of experience. Let's all man up and admit that and move on.

tjs

I'm not putting down Reagan. Arguing that the screen actors guild side of things is amusing though. Watch out for Melissa Gilbert in 2012! :icon_smile_big:

George W. Bush was essentially a one and a half term Governor (in that he nearly served six years).

Here's the list of past Presidents and their previous elected office experience:

George W. Bush 6 years Governor Texas
Bill Clinton 13-14 years Atty General Ark/Gov Ark.
George H.W. Bush 12 years - U.S. Rep (4) VP (8)
Ronald Reagan - 8 years Gov CA
Jimmy Carter - 8 years - Gov GA (4) - GA Sen (4)
Richard Nixon - 16 years - US House (4) - US Sen (4) - VP (8)
LBJ - 28 years - US House (14) - US Sen (12) - VP (2)
JFK - 14 years - US House (6) - US Sen (8)
IKE - none
Truman - 10 years - US Sen (10) - VP (3 1/2 months)
FDR - 6 years - Gov NY (4) - NY House (2)
Hoover - none - ironically was secretary of commerce
Coolidge - 7 years - VP (2) - Gov MA (2) - Lt. Gov MA (3)
Harding - 12 years - OH Sen (4) - Lt. Gov OH (2) - US Sen (6)

As you can see we have had Presidents all over the board since the 1920's. Harding with 12 years of experience is generally considered one of our worst Presidents. FDR and Truman receive the highest marks from historians of the Presidents listed here. A number of Presidents including George H.W. Bush, Eisenhower, FDR, and Hoover spent time serving the government either in the military or in various capacities within the government in non-elected capacities.

George W. Bush at 6 years experience prior to entering office has turned out to be a rather poor President. IKE was top ten. Truman was top five. FDR probably comes in 3rd with historians. Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover were all lousy with Harding being the worst.

I would argue that Carter and George H.W. Bush had Presidencies that were equally lousy.

Reagan and Clinton come in about the same in my estimation. Each had to follow dismal one term Presidents. Reagan put us in debt pretty far. Clinton had personal issues. I would place each of them lower than IKE.

I did not include Ford. But he had a wonderful career in the house. I always rather liked the man as he seemed to be a pretty decent guy.

LBJ had the most experience at 28 years which surpasses even McCain. He ascended to the presidency though. Generally thought to have started out well and finished poorly.

If you continue this exercise looking at all of the persons who have been President you will find that there appears to be little correlation between experience and the quality of their service.

 

[hurling frootmig]

Voting "present" in the state legislature doesn't count much for experience.

MinnMD

We've gone over this once perhaps you missed it. Voting "present" is rather common in the Illinois legislature. It's a practice that is used by members of both parties for a variety of reasons. It's a shame some people parrot the same old line instead of taking the time to look into something. All it shows is your ignorance of how the legislative process works (and at times doesn't work) in Illinois.

 

[hurling frootmig]

You've spun that tale already. Nobody bought it then, either. Illinois senators often duck votes to avoid making inconvenient commitments that might make them look bad in the future or anger some of their support. We get it. Not good, even if it is common practice in Illinois.

A number of people agree that the way that it is being presented is not factually correct. You may choose to believe otherwise but you are incorrect.

 

[hurling frootmig]

Illinois (Chicago specifically) politics and politicians are well known for being corrupt (what politician isn't?). As Relayer said, just because something is commonplace in the corrupt Illinois political system doesn't make it praiseworthy or good for the rest of the country.

I have noticed that a number of states seem to have the corruption bug at the state level. The last Illinois Governor (George Ryan - Republican) is in jail. We've had a number of Governors serve that managed to avoid the pokey :icon_smile:.

I also think it is a stretch to paint the whole state of Illinois as politically corrupt. Nor has Iowa escaped from having a reputation of a certain level of corruption. Like I've said, members of both parties vote "present" in the Illinois Senate and there are a number of totally legitimate reasons to do so. You may disagree but it's the system we have here so if you want to change it please move to the wonderful state of Illinois and make your voice heard.

 

[hurling frootmig]

Sounds like he gave an honest answer but as we all know things can change quickly in life.

He hit the ground running and frankly has done a much better job than the two previous Senators who held that seat (Peter Fitzgerald and Carol Mosley Braun). If anything he suffers from being a bit too humble about himself or he's just being quite polite. He's one of the most intelligent politicians I've come across and can speak about a large amount of topics at the drop of a hat.