Is 8 years as a state senator not adequate "experience"?

[Silent Hunter]

OK, anything that has dramatically changed things?

Why ask this question? How has Hillary, Edwards, Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee, any of them 'dramatically changed things'? You're holding Obama up to a higher standard for no reason at all.

With the exception of McCain, none of them. I'm holding Obama to exactly the same standards I'm holding everyone else.

While we're on McCain, how did he get captured in Vietnam?

[Stranger in a strange land]

OK, anything that has dramatically changed things?

Why ask this question? How has Hillary, Edwards, Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee, any of them 'dramatically changed things'? You're holding Obama up to a higher standard for no reason at all.

With the exception of McCain, none of them. I'm holding Obama to exactly the same standards I'm holding everyone else.

While we're on McCain, how did he get captured in Vietnam?

He was a navy pilot and was shot down by North Vietnamese air defenses during an air raid.

[Likely Voter]

well  now that Dodd, Biden, and Richardson are all gone...it appears that experience isn't really playing much of a factor in the dem primaries.

That being said I am not convinced that Obama has the experience required to be president.  I imagine he will be a running mate the screams experience to balance that out

[Silent Hunter]

OK, anything that has dramatically changed things?

Why ask this question? How has Hillary, Edwards, Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee, any of them 'dramatically changed things'? You're holding Obama up to a higher standard for no reason at all.

With the exception of McCain, none of them. I'm holding Obama to exactly the same standards I'm holding everyone else.

While we're on McCain, how did he get captured in Vietnam?

He was a navy pilot and was shot down by North Vietnamese air defenses during an air raid.

Thanks. Wondered if it was via a stupid action of his own.

[Reaganfan]

OK, anything that has dramatically changed things?

Why ask this question? How has Hillary, Edwards, Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee, any of them 'dramatically changed things'? You're holding Obama up to a higher standard for no reason at all.

With the exception of McCain, none of them. I'm holding Obama to exactly the same standards I'm holding everyone else.

While we're on McCain, how did he get captured in Vietnam?

He was a navy pilot and was shot down by North Vietnamese air defenses during an air raid.

Thanks. Wondered if it was via a stupid action of his own.

You lefties are always giving the bad guy the benefit of the doubt. First thought was to put the American in the "who done it" seat first. Tsk, Tsk.

[Silent Hunter]

OK, anything that has dramatically changed things?

Why ask this question? How has Hillary, Edwards, Guiliani, Romney, Huckabee, any of them 'dramatically changed things'? You're holding Obama up to a higher standard for no reason at all.

With the exception of McCain, none of them. I'm holding Obama to exactly the same standards I'm holding everyone else.

While we're on McCain, how did he get captured in Vietnam?

He was a navy pilot and was shot down by North Vietnamese air defenses during an air raid.

Thanks. Wondered if it was via a stupid action of his own.

You lefties are always giving the bad guy the benefit of the doubt. First thought was to put the American in the "who done it" seat first. Tsk, Tsk.

Centre-leftie, thank you. I thought McCain might have walked into an ambush or something.

[Keystone Phil]

No, it is not. I cringe when I imagine my State Senator (who has been in office for eight years as of this time next January) running for President in a few years. While that's mainly for other reasons, experience is a major factor, too.

[Kushahontas]

Given the mistake we made the current president and his lack of any experience, I feel like some experience is necessary...and I'm not sure how Illinois' legislative sessions are done, but I think 8 years just isn't enough...sure maybe he has some domestic policy experience, but I just don't know if his 3 or so years in the senate makes up for it.

But perhaps he has other qualities which will, and should likely, make him infinitely better than the dope in chief

President Bush spent six years as Governor of Texas- and was re-elected with 69% of the vote.

If I recall correctly, and I also remember the point being made during the 2000 campaign, that as governors go, the Governor of Texas does very little and has far fewer responsibilities compared to other governors.

correct. the only power the governor of texas really has is choosing his secretary of state and even then the nominee has to get the approval of the legislature.

[MarkWarner08]

Yes, but Hillary Clinton has more years in the Senate than he does and 8 years as First Lady.

There's a difference between a state legislature and Congress. Wider issues, much bigger budgets.

Note also that Obama was not seriously electorally tested in his Illinois Senate run (I don't know about his state legislature results). His opponents all had scandals.

Hillary's never faced a tough opponent either. If you want to argue that Rick "I'm a misogynist jerk" Lazio was a severe threat to Hillary's 2000 electoral chances...

[Silent Hunter]

You know what we should do? Take each of the candidates, mock up a Situation Room and put them through a simulated major crisis. That'd sort out the good from the bad very quickly.

So, what applies to Obama applies to Clinton.

[MarkWarner08]

What has Obama actually done in the Senate anyway?

While we're on the subject, why was the guy being called Barack J Obama in 2004?

Obama passed an ethics bill with John McCain, an anti-earmark bill with Jim DeMint, and a  government transparency measure with Tom Coburn.

Hillary Clinton has done NOTHING in eight years in the U.S Senate. Hillary should refund the voters of New York for her eight years of seatwarming.

[MarkWarner08]

You know what we should do? Take each of the candidates, mock up a Situation Room and put them through a simulated major crisis. That'd sort out the good from the bad very quickly.

So, what applies to Obama applies to Clinton.

Hillary Clinton failed with health care and did nothing in the Senate. She'd probably fall asleep in a situation room.

[Silent Hunter]

What has Obama actually done in the Senate anyway?

While we're on the subject, why was the guy being called Barack J Obama in 2004?

Obama passed an ethics bill with John McCain, an anti-earmark bill with Jim DeMint, and a  government transparency measure with Tom Coburn.

Hillary Clinton has done NOTHING in eight years in the U.S Senate. Hillary should refund the voters of New York for her eight years of seatwarming.

Right, thank you. So, he's done something useful. How, though, does that mean he'll be a great President?

[MarkWarner08]

The Hillary Clinton Record:

President of the Wellesley College Republicans
Married a charismatic politician
Failed to reform Arkansas' health care system
Served on the Wal-Mart board of advisers
Blackmailed her husband's paramours
Failed to reform America's health care system
Drank tea with the wives of dictators
Failed to divorce philanderer husband
Kissed Yasir Arafat's wife
Served eight years in the Senate and didn't pass one major piece of legislation
Race-baited Barack Obama
Allowed surrogate to attack Obama for self-admitted drug abuse


Hillary Clinton: A lazy social climber with racist proclivities.

[MarkWarner08]

What has Obama actually done in the Senate anyway?

While we're on the subject, why was the guy being called Barack J Obama in 2004?

Obama passed an ethics bill with John McCain, an anti-earmark bill with Jim DeMint, and a  government transparency measure with Tom Coburn.

Hillary Clinton has done NOTHING in eight years in the U.S Senate. Hillary should refund the voters of New York for her eight years of seatwarming.

Right, thank you. So, he's done something useful. How, though, does that mean he'll be a great President?

At least he sponsored several successful laws. On the other hand, lazy Hillary Clinton hasn't sponsored any major pieces of legislation. Obama's a strong communicator, which is a necessary trait to be a great President, and he's passed legislation and is a very intelligent person.

[Silent Hunter]

The Hillary Clinton Record:

President of the Wellesley College Republicans
Married a charismatic politician
Failed to reform Arkansas' health care system
Served on the Wal-Mart board of advisers
Blackmailed her husband's paramours
Failed to reform America's health care system
Drank tea with the wifes of dictators
Failed to divorce philanderer husband
Kissed Yasir Arafat's wife
Served eight years in the Senate and didn't pass one major piece of legislation
Race-baited Barack Obama
Allowed surrogate to attack Obama for self-admitted drug abuse


Hillary Clinton: A lazy social climber with racist proclivities.

Schumer, could you please respond to my posts in one post, not two. It makes life easier for everyone.

Strong communicator- big deal. It may be necessary, but it's not an automatic guarantee of greatness. So was Jimmy Carter- and the current President.

He may well be very intelligent, but so is most of the US government. You don't get stupid people there- even the President.

BTW, I don't actually support Hillary now. Should have made that clear earlier.

[MarkWarner08]

The Hillary Clinton Record:

President of the Wellesley College Republicans
Married a charismatic politician
Failed to reform Arkansas' health care system
Served on the Wal-Mart board of advisers
Blackmailed her husband's paramours
Failed to reform America's health care system
Drank tea with the wifes of dictators
Failed to divorce philanderer husband
Kissed Yasir Arafat's wife
Served eight years in the Senate and didn't pass one major piece of legislation
Race-baited Barack Obama
Allowed surrogate to attack Obama for self-admitted drug abuse


Hillary Clinton: A lazy social climber with racist proclivities.

Schumer, could you please respond to my posts in one post, not two. It makes life easier for everyone.

Strong communicator- big deal. It may be necessary, but it's not an automatic guarantee of greatness. So was Jimmy Carter- and the current President.

He may well be very intelligent, but so is most of the US government. You don't get stupid people there- even the President.

BTW, I don't actually support Hillary now. Should have made that clear earlier.

I think electing Obama is a large risk. Obama could either govern like Jimmy Carter, an avowed outsider who was arrogant in his dealings with Congress, or JFK, who will mistake-prone and inexperienced, surround himself with brilliant advisers. I think Obama will appoint Kennedy School types who will add a level of competency unseen in the last eight years.

His vast oratorical abilities will help him convince voters of the soundness of his policy proposals. A President Obama would be able to string together a coalition to pass an expanded government health care program, increased benefits and training for workers displaced by globalization  etc.

Hillary is much too polarizing and bitterly partisan to sway Republicans to her side. It's unlikely she'll ever bring 60 Senators together to pass her key legislative items.

[exopolitician]

He does alright in different areas of experience. IMHO he has good foriegn policy credentials....especially since other nations around the world are rooting for him now.

[Democratic Hawk]

Sorry I deleted my earlier post

I understand where you're coming from, but you're assuming Hillary would win this first election

With Hillary, I make no assumptions. In fact, I've made recent comments as regards a possible Hillary vs McCain match-up and from a Democratic perspective it fills me with dread. But to be honest, if America does elect a Republican then McCain I won't be too disappointed, providing Congress stays under Democratic control. I think a President McCain could work well with a Democratic Congress

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, there's only two possibilities for the Democratic nomination and that's Hillary and Obama. I can't see Edwards pulling it off. Hillary does have some pretty poor negatives and her challenge should she be nominated is to turn them around. Yes, given that conservatives do seem to have such a visceral hatred of her, it's likely they will vote in droves for the Republican nominee, irrespective of who it is. But it doesn't automatically follow that they'd vote Republican down ballot, especially if they are content with their Democratic, or unhappy with their Republican, incumbents or challengers. That said, it is very true to say that many of the Republican casualties were swept away in 2006, to some extent, because Bush, whose unpopularity was clearly a drag on both Republican incumbents and challengers

I can, of course, understand that given that Hillary is such a polarising figure that some Democrats feel that she can't be elected president and, thus, poses a risk to Democrats down-ballot. But as I've said, her negatives are something Hillary must redress should she be the presidential nominee

Dave