Obama: the least experience of any major-party presidential candidate ever?

elprincipe

elprincipe

CAGiversary!
Feedback
60 (100%)
I can't claim to know very well 19th century candidates who lost, but I can't recall any major-party general election candidate with less political experience than Barack Obama. Do you all think this is good/bad? Am I wrong?
 
Not sure on the first question. Off the top of my head for predidents Kennedy came to mind....but he served 6 years in the house and 7 in the senate. Don't have enough knowledge of candidates who lost or 19th century presidents though.

But I think it's a good thing. It would be nice to have some fresher blood in there, rather than someone who's spent a lifetime in politics already. The caveat being that he needs an experienced cabinet.
 
Bush I was a very experienced pol. How did that work out for the country?

Carter had a lot more experience than Obama. How did that work out for the country?
 
Not sure if he is the most inexperienced ever, but I believe he's only been present less than 145 days in the US Congress since taking office in 2005. He also spent 8 years in the Illinois state legislature.
 
Well he had 7 years in state senate (well I guess it's 8 years by their terms or whatever, I dunno), 3 years in the US senate - though at least one of those was mostly campaigning :p, but I guess you could say that for any president.

From Wikipedia:

W. Bush was governor of texas for 5 years (or 6, technically, however that works)
Clinton was attorney general for 2 years (if that counts), governor of arkansas for 2 years, then not, then governor again for 9 years (or 10)
Bush I was in the US house for 4 years, ambassador for 2 years, liason for 1 year, CIA director for 1 year, vice president for 8 years
Reagan was governor of california for 8 years
Carter was in state senate for 4 years, governor of georgia for 4 years

So there, those are the recent presidents. Depending on how you define experience (most former presidents also worked on campaigns and shit when they weren't actually in office) and how much you want to discount his current work in the US Senate, he has more political experience than Carter, Reagan, and Bush II.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I guess I was also considering actual accomplishments, doing something while in office. In the State Senate I understand he accomplished little, and I know in the U.S. Senate he has accomplished absolutely nothing (a majority of his time as a member he has been campaigning intensely).
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I guess I was also considering actual accomplishments, doing something while in office. In the State Senate I understand he accomplished little, and I know in the U.S. Senate he has accomplished absolutely nothing (a majority of his time as a member he has been campaigning intensely).[/quote]

Well what exactly is he supposed to have accomplished?

What are examples from former presidents?
 
[quote name='SpazX']Well what exactly is he supposed to have accomplished?

What are examples from former presidents?[/QUOTE]

I would expect most candidates for president to have been leaders on at least some important issues of the day. Maybe led the way on passing important legislation or opposing bad legislation?
 
[quote name='looploop']Time had an article comparing presidential experience a while back. If I remember correctly, Lincoln was one of the least experienced.
This could be the article, but unfortunately it doesn't seem to have the chart: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717926,00.html[/QUOTE]

This?

Not exactly the most definitive thing ever. Sure, Eisenhower had never held elected office, but being various kinds of Supreme Allied Commander was probably rather meaningful experience. However, the benefits just aren't tangible when speaking of such disparate offices, thus the difficulty.

EDIT: And just to go off on that point, is there *any* office truly comparable to that of the President? The scope of its authority is unparalleled. One can have experience in politics, yes, but the connection between that and being sufficiently "experienced" to be President is incredibly tenuous.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Presidential Office: Good Judgment > Experience.

Definitions of political experience will differ from person to person, but I'll take someone who knows when to push the button over someone who's pushed it a lot any day of the week.

The Presidential Office to me is more an opportunity to bring new ideas to the table over doing the same things we've been doing for years, and no, the terrorists will not win if we put a so-called "pansy" in office.

Trust me, if 9/11 is the best terrorism can do, America is not dying off anytime in the near future. That sounds terrible, but honestly, how many Americans are murdered by other Americans on a daily basis? That number makes Al Qaeda look like they attacked American soil with NERF guns.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I can't claim to know very well 19th century candidates who lost, but I can't recall any major-party general election candidate with less political experience than Barack Obama. Do you all think this is good/bad? Am I wrong?[/QUOTE]

It is great that we can add willfully ignorant to the list of the things elprinicpe is along with liar.

It is so nice to see that the so-called internet independents are out in force sure they claim not to support anyone but will tell many lies in favor of McCain and even more idiocy to work against Obama.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Magus8472']This?

Not exactly the most definitive thing ever. Sure, Eisenhower had never held elected office, but being various kinds of Supreme Allied Commander was probably rather meaningful experience. However, the benefits just aren't tangible when speaking of such disparate offices, thus the difficulty.

EDIT: And just to go off on that point, is there *any* office truly comparable to that of the President? The scope of its authority is unparalleled. One can have experience in politics, yes, but the connection between that and being sufficiently "experienced" to be President is incredibly tenuous.[/QUOTE]

That's a very interesting chart, thanks. I don't know about how valid the results of it are, however, since it takes no account of things like military or State Department service (George Washington certain had an advantage there, for example), and it also counts a year in the state legislature as the same in the calculation as a senator or vice president.
 
All power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

its a good thing that he has inexperience. he's the least corrupt as it comes
 
Too much experience="Washington Insider out of touch with the average American"
Too little experience="Least qualified president ever!!!11!"

Spin that muthafvcker as fast as you can elP. You wasskilly wabbit, you.

PS - Lincoln had only 2 years in the House.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Too much experience="Washington Insider out of touch with the average American"
Too little experience="Least qualified president ever!!!11!"

Spin that muthafvcker as fast as you can elP. You wasskilly wabbit, you.

PS - Lincoln had only 2 years in the House.[/QUOTE]

Come on, Cheese, do I have to tell you to read the OP again? Don't look at everything as an attack; this wasn't. I just wondered aloud whether Obama has the least experience of any general election presidential candidate in the history of our country. You can argue whether that is a good or bad thing; I wanted to see what people would say in that argument. If you really want my opinion, I think there are upsides and downsides to it...not sure which way they go, whether it's an advantage or disadvantage.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I would expect most candidates for president to have been leaders on at least some important issues of the day. Maybe led the way on passing important legislation or opposing bad legislation?[/QUOTE]

He gave a speech at the anti war rally before the Senate passed it. I would say thats opposing bad legisation
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='elprincipe']I know in the U.S. Senate he has accomplished absolutely nothing (a majority of his time as a member he has been campaigning intensely).[/quote]

So he fits in perfectly! :lol:

And he has almost the same exact experience at Lincoln, but he just a no body president.
 
[quote name='Cheese']Spin that muthafvcker as fast as you can elP. You wasskilly wabbit, you.[/QUOTE]
I thought it was a good question.

My first thought was to view Presidents against the person they defeated in the general election. Clinton v. Dole was the first image I conjured. Dole had about as much experience as anyone possibly could and he was absolutely crushed by Clinton in the election. Granted Clinton was the incumbent, but if experience was ever going to trump, that probably would have been it. Kerry probably would rank up there with Dole as well.

It seems to me that about every 25 years or so the American voting public demands an "outsider" voice. Reagan ran as an outsider and it worked great for him. This was the perfect election for a Washington novice to take a long shot at it. Obama's lack of federal experience has paid off in spades for him this go round and I give him props for turning his little experience into a relative election strength. Hell, I still can't believe the Clinton machine didn't grind his ass into hamburger concerning the experience thing. If the 2AM phone call thing didn't scare the electorate, nothing will.

I think McCain has little choice but to take his place in history next to Dole and Kerry as would-be warrior kings that just didn't have the charisma necessary to win in American politics despite a long, storied, and valuable personal experience record.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
elP, your headline is like the banner at the bottom of a report on Fox News, "Is Obama a RAPIST?" of course the report will say he's not, but it raises and promotes an opinion that is ridiculous (not to mention easily looked up).
 
For the average American public and what they care about in a candidate, I think it's about 90% charisma, 5% experience and 5% policy.

Maybe I'm being too generous. Or maybe I'm just showing how far my disillusionment is about people.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']For the average American public and what they care about in a candidate, I think it's about 90% charisma, 5% experience and 5% policy.

Maybe I'm being too generous. Or maybe I'm just showing how far my disillusionment is about people.[/quote]

Your disillusionment isn't that far off. Too many people in this country become self-proclaimed political gurus around election time but couldn't even tell you the head of their party 3 months after the elections are over.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I wanted to see what people would say in that argument.[/QUOTE]

Here's what I say: he doesn't. Not by a long shot.

So there.
 
[quote name='Cheese']elP, your headline is like the banner at the bottom of a report on Fox News, "Is Obama a RAPIST?" of course the report will say he's not, but it raises and promotes an opinion that is ridiculous (not to mention easily looked up).[/QUOTE]

You think so? It wasn't meant that way. Lots of people on this board seem to feel less political experience is an asset, not a weakness. Look at the posts above pointing out that less experience served people like Lincoln and Reagan well.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Here's what I say: he doesn't. Not by a long shot.

So there.[/QUOTE]

Who do you feel had less experience?
 
[quote name='usickenme']I love it when people pretend to be impartial[/QUOTE]

Who's impartial? I am not an Obama supporter or a McCain supporter, but that doesn't mean I'm impartial. I'm very partial, just not to either of those idiots.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I can't claim to know very well 19th century candidates who lost, but I can't recall any major-party general election candidate with less political experience than Barack Obama. Do you all think this is good/bad? Am I wrong?[/quote]

Obama has more experience than Bush, that's a fact. And what do you mean by "less political experience?" He was a member of the Illinois Senate for 7 years and he is also the junior senator of Illinois (2005), doesn't that count?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Who's impartial? I am not an Obama supporter or a McCain supporter, but that doesn't mean I'm impartial. I'm very partial, just not to either of those idiots.[/QUOTE]

You are so full of shit.
 
[quote name='SuperhumanChichi']Obama has more experience than Bush, that's a fact. And what do you mean by "less political experience?" He was a member of the Illinois Senate for 7 years and he is also the junior senator of Illinois (2005), doesn't that count?[/QUOTE]

Of course it counts, but I don't know what "fact" you mean (Obama = state senate 7 years, US Senate 3 years; Bush = governor 6 years - although you use "has," which would also mean Bush would count 7 years as president, although I suspect you meant when Bush was running for election versus Obama now). We can argue, of course, about how relevant such experience is. Personally, I think experience as a governor would be a lot more relevant than experience as a state senator. Then again, we've had plenty of governors turn out to not be good presidents, so who knows.
 
Experience doesn't count. If by experience you mean that people like Mccain with their decades of experience have learned to lie repeatedly in their ads, resort to referring to their opposition as Diva's and not giving them the respect they deserve, having to look at queue cards for a reminder on how much a gallon of milk costs, has had over $750,000 in credit card debit, owns millions of dollars worth of property, than I think I'd prefer to have no experience.
 
You'd hope that we'd at least have someone to choose that had experience in running large corporations, since America is the biggest one.

McCain has no business experience to speak of. And how often do you see lawyers run or grow large successful corporations?
 
The majority of american presidents have been incompetent and/or corrupt. And even the good ones had huge character flaws, and major marks on their political and personal lives, not to mentioning garnering intense hatred from their opponents.
There has not been, nor there ever will be a "perfect" candidate for president. On the state and local levels you might get people who are damn good- but then again, it's no guarantee that someone who is an excellent governor or senator is going to make an excellent president.
Frankly, there are a great many "experienced" politicians who I would gladly see out of office in favor of people who have never held positions before. Most of the New York state senate comes to mind, as well as a great many house representatives.
 
[quote name='vherub']The majority of american presidents have been incompetent and/or corrupt. And even the good ones had huge character flaws, and major marks on their political and personal lives, not to mentioning garnering intense hatred from their opponents.
There has not been, nor there ever will be a "perfect" candidate for president. On the state and local levels you might get people who are damn good- but then again, it's no guarantee that someone who is an excellent governor or senator is going to make an excellent president.
Frankly, there are a great many "experienced" politicians who I would gladly see out of office in favor of people who have never held positions before. Most of the New York state senate comes to mind, as well as a great many house representatives.[/QUOTE]

I too am instinctively against career politicians. I think they and our two major political parties are the source of the cancer afflicting our government. People who spend their entire lives trying to get reelected will say or do anything to keep their jobs. If someone goes in for public service after a successful career outside elected office, they are more likely to hold to their principles, at least in my view.
 
Too bad Arnold didn't run. He'd win this argument. Even Jesse Ventura would be a stronger nominee with his military experience that is perfect for this bullshit war on terror.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I too am instinctively against career politicians. I think they and our two major political parties are the source of the cancer afflicting our government. People who spend their entire lives trying to get reelected will say or do anything to keep their jobs.[/quote]

:applause:

Career politicians are alot of what's wrong with America today.

Another gripe I have is that most of them begin their careers as lawyers. Nobody really likes lawyers. And as far as I've seen, they don't even like themselves all that much.

Funny story:
A friend of mine from Egypt asked me who I was voting for President, and we got on the topic of politics for awhile. I then asked him if he could vote, who would he vote for. He said something that I found interesting. "You got Obama, who was a lawyer. He's married to a woman who is a lawyer. Then you got McCain, who was a soldier. He's married to a woman who owns a beer distributorship. Just going off that, I would vote for McCain. I don't trust lawyers at all, but I like blondes who sell beer.":lol:
 
[quote name='crunchb3rry']Too bad Arnold didn't run. He'd win this argument. Even Jesse Ventura would be a stronger nominee with his military experience that is perfect for this bullshit war on terror.[/QUOTE]

Nah, Jesse Ventura is a level1 nutjob when it comes to 9/11.
 
[quote name='Krymner']:applause:

Career politicians are alot of what's wrong with America today.

Another gripe I have is that most of them begin their careers as lawyers. Nobody really likes lawyers. And as far as I've seen, they don't even like themselves all that much.

Funny story:
A friend of mine from Egypt asked me who I was voting for President, and we got on the topic of politics for awhile. I then asked him if he could vote, who would he vote for. He said something that I found interesting. "You got Obama, who was a lawyer. He's married to a woman who is a lawyer. Then you got McCain, who was a soldier. He's married to a woman who owns a beer distributorship. Just going off that, I would vote for McCain. I don't trust lawyers at all, but I like blondes who sell beer.":lol:[/QUOTE]

Haha. What's sad is that there are a lot of voters out there who cast their ballot with even less of a reason than this.

I agree that we've got too many lawyers in politics. We need a better variety, with people who have different experiences to bring to the table.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top