Does experience matter in a president?

Perspecitve matters. Few people have enough experience to handle every executive office. That is the purpose of the cabinet. To deliver advice and to run certain offices independently. Most important is the ability to have oversight over executive functions to make judgements on they way they should be run. Lincoln had a cabinet of experienced rivals. He took advice with a grain of salt and took many voices. At times making a pioneering judgement at others the wrong juddgement but taking responsibility for them all the same. One of few true statements by bush is that presidents also have to make unpopular judgements. Political players shy away from unpopular decisions despite percieved benefits. So to me judgement is more important than experience. One of the best prime ministers in the UK was a twenty something. He ended up outlawing slavery, and fending of Napoleon. And in the U.S. lincoln and T.R. come to mind both with very non traditional resumes provided the best shot in the arm for washington.

I think experience matters if you're comparing it to candidates that are bought and paid for and givin media attention like it was a high school popularity contest. I find it shameful that sheeple still cheer and vote for the same corporacrat liars, but that's assuming voting isn't rigged anyway.

On the job training is fine with me if the candidate is clear that they represent the people, not the corporations, and possesses the common sense, intelligence and integrity that has been so lacking as of late.

Almost every president we have ever had has had a great many advisors including his own cabinet. Few if any presidents relied on any domestic or worldwide situation on thier own accord, thus experience issue brought up by Clinton and Company is a moot point. At the present crossroads in our american history more than ever we need a president that is not bought and sold to the corporate interset like Clinton with Big Pharma and Walmart her former employer. Mcain owes his life and future desicions to the MIC ( Military Industrial Complex, Oil companies etc. Its another 4 years of George W, Bush if Mcain wins or Back to the Clinton years. Nobody wants to go backwards,! Nobody! We don't care what they say, its lies to get votes. Obama has not sold out, thats why the Media, the sellout Dems(Clintons) and sellouts Reps (Bush/McCain) are attacking Obama. He is the JFK candidate of this gerneration, of this time. Lets do as we did in 1960 and make him President, then lets all watch is back very carefully and let the power that be know, that we are aware that they are not beyound attempting to do the same as they did with JFK in Dallas.

Albert, Obama can be safe if he chooses Edwards for VP. They would be afraid to do anything to him because they don't want Edwards.

No because none of them have been President before so Technically nobody has ever had experience

The experience factor matters most as defining everything a person did leading up to being a president. The one who has been the most involved in state legislation, the Senate or the House of Reps. Of course, the only person with experience as President would have to be on their 2nd term. That's common sense for you.

It's morals that matter but can one really have morals as president in this military industrial complex system and survive? Personally, I think you have to sell a bit of your soul to be there, so experience or not without a moral compass what does experience do? And I doubt we will see much difference on that score in the years to come. And of course, since the American people and Congress on the whole are too uninformed, distracted, apathetic, lazy, and content to really demand that Bush and conspirators be impeached, we will have no moral highground in holding any future "president" to any moral standard. I think we will live to regret not impeaching them.

Every time some shill compares Obama to JFK it makes me want to puke! JFK did NOT support the military industrial complex as uncle tom obama does. Obama has only ever voted "present" as to not raise too much of a stink on capital hill. It doesn't surprise me that so many students fall for the corporacrat rhetoric considering the intelligence level our youth. Turn OFF the major networks that deliver the brainwash, find an honest source of information, and get a clue!

Whoa! Are you angry or just a bigot?

Uninformed bigot.

integrity matters...

Most of all Jade.

yeah, experience... dig this...

from http://www.newsobserver.com/print/thursday/opinion/stor... last few paragraphs.... i just LOVE this.....



"Nothing, however, will assuage Clinton supporters' sense of injustice if the upstart Obama supplants her. Their, and her, sense of entitlement is encapsulated in her constant invocations of her "35 years" of "experience."

Well. She is 60. She left Yale Law School at age 25. Evidently she considers everything she has done since school, from her years at Little Rock's Rose law firm to her good fortune with cattle futures, as presidentially relevant experience.


The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state, then was minister to Britain.

Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to the rank as America's worst president.

Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow. "


ROTFLOL.... yeah, go for experience... duh!

plusaf, Sometimes I like you.

M_M.... (((((((((( to you )))))))))) and :)))))
we've been through a lot together here, eh, and it's still fun!

hugs to you!

I believe some level of experience is needed. That is why you have an age requirement to President (35 years old, I believe).

On the other hand, the job of President is not like all other jobs. The Clinton campaign has tried to cast the issue as a matter of "hiring a president", as one would be hiring a secretary. But that's not the same thing though. There is a job description, yes. And there are a number of requirements and expectations, yes (as outlined mostly in the constitution). But aside from that, there is no real need - and in my opinion, no reason - to "avoid the burden, and the hassle, of on the job training". Except for Presidents running for second terms, every President gets on the job training. They are SUPPOSED TO. It is part of the process, and part of this democratic republic's system of government. Presidents are not Kings - or Queens, raised from infancy to become the leader of their countries, by so-called divine right. The whole idea is exactly that every party fields a number of candidates that fit the general profile, make their case, and the people decide at will. You know, what is often called experience (meeting with leaders, participating in some committee somewhere, writing legislation somewhere), is like those things you put on your résumé because you know they may make you look a little better than the others (like foreign languages, or past community service, etc). You know, those things that Job descriptions label as "would be a plus".

Now, unless Hillary really wants to cast this election as Bill's third term, she has never been President, and neither has any of her opponents. They will all need on the job training. And within that context, so-called previous "White House" experience doesn't matter as much - or at least shouldn't. And even if it did matter, the notion that Hillary has that much more experience than Obama is ludicrous... (unless you consider, once again, that Bill will be in her team, thus being kind of a third term for him, which she claims it is not, etc, etc). That argument is what ultimately made me switch to Obama (although I like both candidates).

Clinton, Obama, and McCain all fit the general profile required of a President of the United States, by law, and by convention. That's all the experience they need, really. But, that's just my opinion

blackbinight, you made, imho, a WONDERFUL point... at least that's what i got out of your post......

the Primaries and Caucuses and all that crap are analogous to GOING FOR A JOB INTERVIEW........

right? at least a little.... from applying for the job [announcing candidacy] to going through the interview process [all the electioneering crap] to being hired [elected].

the absolutely hysterical thing that just occurred to me after reading your post is:

Everyone Lies During Job Interviews.

think of ALL of this in that context and you'll be rolling on the floor.

I love it!


and, seriously, YES, the only president with job experience EVER is the one who gets re-elected, and we've made sure, by Constitutional Amendment that it can only happen once per person [re-election, that is...].

almost a cruel joke on ourselves, isn't it?

[and i think Obama lies less than Hillary.... :)] and all of them lie less than McCain... -ugh! can't vote again for a theocracy.... 'bye, Shrub! [the smaller Bush.]

Hillary's experience is just 35 years of cuddling in with company executives, world leaders, taking bribes to shut up about any sort of NHS system. basically getting jaded by all the rich, white, males she has been around the last 35 years.

experience come second to what they want for the "People" of the country. Nothing can prepare you for being president. Except being president. Being a first lady isn't close. She didn't know Clinton was getting his dick sucked, she probably didn't know a lot of stuff in that time.

As i said, welfare of the people, and a caring for those other than rich stockholders, company owners, and media moguls etc.