Why do people think Obama is so Inexperienced?

[cali]

He has more political experience than Edwards, and I don't see Edwards being called too inexperienced. Obama has 6 years in the Illinois Senate and almost 3 years in the U.S. Senate. He has more public serivce experience as well. I don't get it. All Edwards has is 6 years in the Senate.

[beaconess]

1. Let's guess . . .

[Kahuna]

31. Say what?

:dunce:

[loveangelc]

35. the poster probably means...

Obama is black therefore he of course is going to be questioned more than anyone else. liberal or conservative it doesnt matter...its still a reality? i think thats what he/she means....:)

[Progress And Change]

2. because he is the least experienced major candidate in at least a generation

Obama has only two full years of relevant experience and then he became a part-time legislator this year...

[cali]

3. So you don't consider his 6 years in the Illinois Senate

relevant? Why not? And he has almost 3 years in the U.S. Senate- whether you like it or not.

[1corona4u]

4. Because he is.

[cali]

6. So how is JE more experienced or qualified?

Obama has 6 years in the Illinois Senate and almost 3 years in the U.S. Senate. Why do you discount his 9 years in elected office?

[Progress And Change]

15. that qualifies him to be governor of IL but not president

At the national level he has little experience. In both cases he was a backbencher who, despite the hype, did little of substance. If he were a governor he would be viewed very differently since a governor has to make hard choices and lead (see one term governor Jimmy Carter in 1976).

[Skittles]

5. I think it is because

before he was touted as the second coming most people had never f***ing HEARD of him

[babylonsister]

8. Damn! That reminds me of Bill Clinton! Jimmy Carter, too. nt

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Bill Clinton Was A Five Term Governor

Jimmy Carter might be a more apt comparison; one term as lieutenant governor and one term as governor...

[babylonsister]

14. All I was saying is that, for me, Clinton came out of no where. Granted,

I wasn't paying much attention at the time, but he hit me like a ton of bricks once I noticed him, when he was running for prez.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. I Don't Want To Take This Conversation Into The Weeds

But Bill Clinton was a political "upcomer" from the moment he became governor of Arkansas... Handsome, articulate, moderate, and from the South...I remember reading "The Almanac Of American Politics" back in the 1980's and reading the prediction that Clinton would make a splash on the national scene...

I'm not in the mood to poop on any candiate ...I just felt I had to correct the record...

[babylonsister]

19. And I was just sharing my ignorance of Clinton during that time period. nt

[Skittles]

26. I was well aware of both of them

absolutely

[UndertheOcean]

7. because they don't like him

As simple as that.

Some like him but think America will not elect a black president in a million years.

They favour electability over substance , which is a sordid thing to do.

[gateley]

9. I'm comparing him to Biden. To be fair, no one has the amount of experience

Biden does.

My concern with Obama isn't the lack of years he's put in, but rather what he's been involved with/accomplished during those years.

I feel confident of Biden during this CRUCIAL time in our history -- in our world's history -- because of his hands-on experience and understanding of world affairs, and because he's already established dialogue and relationships with the world leaders. He has the experience we need NOW at this point.

Edwards doesn't have this critical experience, either.

Not a condemnation of either -- nor of Hillary -- but just a result of Biden's years in the Senate and of his position in the SFRC. That, and he has proven successes in dealing with the very situations and the leaders themselves that we need to concern ourselves with now.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Because conventional wisdom in 2004 was that he'd run some day but not 2008

But many viable candidates dropped out for HRC leaving an opening for Obama. Everybody was quite surprised when he took it.

[sallyseven]

12. His behavor tips us off.

He is childlish in his attitude. His voting record. Want more?

[cali]

16. not if that's the best you can do- it's pathettic..

"he is childish in his attitude" is simply a hollow assertion. You don't explain or give example. That's just... childish. And what do you find so objectionable about his voting record? You neglected, naturally to give us anything but another hollow assertion.

[Progress And Change]

17. what major legislation has he passed in the senate?

Where is he during major senate debates? He would be taken more seriously if he would, not just show up, but lead on bills like Kyl-Lieberman.

[Maven]

13. For two reasons:

1) Experience in federal, not state, government is perceived as more relevant to national office (with the exception being governorships)

2) His service in both offices has not been particularly notable, and in fact appears calculated to attract as little attention as possible

[Lucinda]

20. For me, a big part of the problem is

the way he has been conducting his campaign.

Lots of very bad moves and missteps: McClurkin, attacking Hillary's K/L vote under the circumstances he did - claiming he had no political aspirations but she did, when evidence exists to the contrary -claiming he is another kind of politician, when he clearly isn't...etc.

I do not see how he could handle the pressure of the GE when he makes so many mistakes now.

He isn't good thinking on his feet. He's a good speech maker, but he isnt clear when answering direct questions. He hedges his bets, rather than going on the record. He's got a sloppy team around him, and I find him to be either too easy to mislead, or not honest, depending on who is responsible for his talking points.

Mc Clurkin was enough for me...but there have been sooo many things that just keep reinforcing my view.

[Adelante]

21. I personally have never found legislative experience

particularly compelling, not more than many other types of experience. There are a ton of people with legislative experience I wouldn't want as president. I think it weighs in, yes, but the presidency is a one of a kind job and there really is no comparable training course. Every single one of them learns on the job, because every single presidential term is unique. I think it's more a matter of capabilities. Leadership. Strategic thinking. Executive ability. Deep thinking. Stuff like that. Any government experience adds something, of course, but to me, ten years of it is plenty. Add in community service and expertise in constitutional law and you've got something.

[Bitwit1234]

22. Because of the way he acts and the decisions he makes

[Renew Deal]

33. Like voting to invade Iraq?

That "experience" is really paying off.

[MannyGoldstein]

23. Because He Was In Favor Of Attacking Iraq?!

What... you say it was the "experienced and ready from day one" Clinton, Edwards, Biden and Dodd who voted to attack Iraq, and Obama was against it?

Oh.

Never mind.

[Kucinich4America]

24. The painful reality is this....

The whore media anointed "front runners" (Hillary, Obama, and Edwards) have a total of 16 years of experience between the three of them.

[Nedsdag]

25. One word:

Jealousy.

[zulchzulu]

27. Obama is more experienced than Clinton or Edwards

If you're talking legislative experience, Obama has 11 years (8 as Illinois state senator, 3 as Illinois senator) to Clinton's 8 years as Senator and Edwards with 6 years as Senator.

Being First Lady counts as experience for some, not me. Last I checked, no bills or votes are cast by First Ladies. Add that if Clinton wants to use that as experience that is more than the role a First Lady has, then it means that her husband wasn't doing his job well enough. There aren't co-Presidents.

[Zueda]

29. Quit being so factually honest!

You gonna ruin Michelle Obama's chance at the 2016 nomination. I hear she's planning on running on the "Experienced" platform.

[Occam Bandage]

36. Clinton did indeed act as a chief policy advisor to Bill Clinton, albeit

in an unofficial sense. There are no "co-Presidents," but there certainly are dozens and dozens of people in the White House to whom the President delegates authority. She was involved in the day-to-day workings of the White House, and she gained undeniably valuable experience in her time there.

As for me, I don't really give a damn who is more experienced. I only want there to be a minimum threshold of experience, and after that, I look for ideology, competence, character, and feasibility of proposals. For me, all candidates meet the minimum threshold (though Obama just barely).

[panader0]

28. Some people just don't need a lot of experience to be good.

In fact, the best people don't. Mozart played to royalty at what, age 6? Some folks are just good at what they do right away, some folks can try for a lifetime and still not be good. Experience is a buzzword and is vastly overrated. Most politicians in DC have experience in BS.

[babylonsister]

30. So true! I think it comes down to a certain amount of trust I hope to feel for

a politician, and in this day and age, that commodity is in short supply. There are some I trust to do the right thing because they have integrity and brains.

[Renew Deal]

32. Obama also has more elected/governing experience than Hillary.

I think a lot of people forget this.

[maximusveritas]

34. Because it's the only thing they have on him

Experience is an easy thing to use as an excuse when you have nothing else. When you point out his experience, they'll just use his age as an excuse instead.

[MrMickeysMom]

37. It's what you do with experience, in my book...

... You ever hear about teachers in the public school system? I've been in the midst of some who had YEARS of experience, but were ineffective in making progress each year. They kept doing the same things over and over every year.

So, from what my ears and eyes interpret in my brain, there is just not as much forsight based on his experience when he opens his mouth and offers solutions to tomorrow's challenges. He's not tell me anything over what I hear from Edwards, he's a little better than Clinton on some things, and he's way behind in what I hear from Kucinich. I wish he was better than the 2 other front-running candidates, but he isn't IMO.

[oasis]

38. 6 years in a state senate and 3 years ducking votes in the U.S. Senate. Yup, that'll get it done.

:eyes:

[burrowowl]

39. Experienced, who cares

but he is a DLCer and Corp. shill like HRC and look here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3810536

[Tactical Progressive]

40. Because Obama is very so inexperienced

And I'll gladly call Edwards too inexperienced as well. Just not nearly so lacking as Obama. But you don't see that. Typical Obama fanatic, not admitting anything is wrong with their chosen one. Yeah, even Oprah called him "The One" tonight. Unreal.

John Edwards had a full six years in the Senate, in trying times. Then he ran in a Democratic nomination primary and then in a Presidential race as VP, and now another Dem nomination primary race for the Presidency.

Obama has had two vote-skipping, little-accomplishment years in the Senate, before starting this run. That's one-third the Senate experience and one-third the Presidential race experience of Edwards, whose resume is already too thin.

Then there is Edwards's very accomplished twenty-year professional career.

Not so much Obama, with a short, undistinguished state legislature career. It's certainly better than student council experience, but doesn't count much towards a Presidential bid. For another, Obama doesn't appear to have distinguished himself AT ALL back in Illinois. This is a guy who talks about an America "hungry for (his) leadership" - my favorite hollow line from Obama's propaganda playbook. What exactly leadership has he EVER shown? Is his natural leadership so great that he rose to the top of the Illinois State Senate? You would think the way he talks. No, he was a nobody in the state Senate from what I've read till the day he left. Couldn't even lead in a small pond.

Lastly, and this doesn't go directly to your experience question, but is tangentially relevant. Edwards is different than just a regular candidate. His is specifically an issue candidacy. On what many including myself think is the biggest, broadest issue in America for the past four decades: the fundamental polarization of our entire economic system. The structural unfairness of America's capitalistic setup. What John calls "two Americas". It's an extraordinarily important, and amazingly an historically unrepresented, theme. Which gives his candidacy a singular depth.

Obama is just another generic pol trying to get his team to triangulate issue papers and policy responses to appeal broadly and anger minimally the broadest cross section of voters. Just another triangulating campaigner with a few personal policy touches. Most of the experienced pols in the race are that way too, only they have years and decades of experience as their base. Obama has almost no experience, so all he has are his triangulated policy responses. Which means you or I, or a twelve year-old, could run for President with about as much political wherewithal.

In short, Obama has no right even presenting himself as a viable candidate for the Presidency of the United States. This was supposed to be a second-tier primary candidacy to introduce Obama to a national audience. Instead, he has tried to make it a real candidacy by attacking the party that supports him and its lead candidate. I'm guessing that he's going to lose everything for his low-class behavior, unless alot of people cut him alot of slack based on his, yes, inexperience. But I doubt it.