for the Presidency? Shouldn't that conversation be reserved for Rudy Giuliani? Or even Fred Thompson?
2007-07-11 11:31:35 · 14 answers · asked by shelly 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
stung4ever: That's true, I'm just trying to point out that they've both given roughly the same amount of time to government service ~ Obama was a legislator and serves on several committees. I'm not criticizing him (Thompson) for his lack of experience, I just think their public service in general is comparable, not their time being Senators.
2007-07-11 11:41:21 · update #1
I still don't see how Rudy has more experience than Obama. Some bring up that Rudy was a U.S. Attorney as well, but Obama was also an attorney working in politics (he also majored in it at Columbia) and was elected into the Senate in 1996. Rudy was, like I said, a U.S. Attorney and mayor of New York. I'm not trying to say that Obama has more experience than others, rather, I just don't understand why I keep hearing how inexperienced he is, when his public service seems comparrable to others running (other than say, McCain or Richardson).
2007-07-11 11:52:53 · update #2
Thanks Oil Co... Yes, I meant state senate.
2007-07-11 12:29:59 · update #3
By November of 2008, Obama will have 12 years in elected office. 8 years as an Illinois Senator, and 4 as a US Senator. Guiliani has zero time in Washington DC and has only 8 years as mayor. Fred Thompson has 8 years in the Senate. Edwards has 6 years and Hillary will have 8. (First Lady is not an elected office). The truth is that Obama will be in the middle of the field in terms of elected office and experience. Neither the least nor the most experienced. Which brings up another point. The job is President. Not Senator or Governor or Representative or Mayor. The fact is all candidates have zero experience for this job.
2007-07-11 11:46:31 · answer #1 · answered by David M 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
Rudy Giuliani shouldn't even be running because being a mayor has nothing to do with national lawmaking. He doesn't know stuff like foreighn policy nand stuff. I think before you are presidnet you need national experience.
Obama actually was elected in 2005 and has less experience than Thompson (8 years senate). But Obama did serve in the state senate so that might be some more qualification.
2007-07-11 19:10:24 · answer #2 · answered by NFrancis 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Its not nescessarily inexperience, although partly, but that today with all the controversial issues, people want to know where someone stands. Obama doesnt have much of a track record to follow as far as voting records and stances.
Giuliani has been in politics alot longer so there is more to statements and positions and political action a person can review
Thompson hasnt even said he was running or not so thats not an issue until he does. And he does have Senatorial experieence.
2007-07-11 18:35:35 · answer #3 · answered by sociald 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
After the low bar set by the current president, I don't see how any reasonable person could seriously use that as an argument. George W. Bush's "experience" consists of riding his father's coat-tails, running a failed oil company, a baseball team, and being the (largely ceremonial) Governor of Texas. What stands out most about Bush is his complacent belief in his own rightness and his complete lack of intellectual curiousity--he's the first Attention Deficit Disorder president.
Any candidate who displays an ability to think, a knowledge of the world around him or her, and a willingness to acknowledge his or her human imperfections has the making of a good candidate. I think that Barack Obama is a good candidate, but I suspect that Americans are not ready for a president of his racial background ("not ready" as in "too racially prejudiced").
2007-07-11 19:36:54 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
The reason they saying that is because he hasn't been in the Senate long enough , he is junior senator. Have you ever really seen any Senator be voted to be President. We will in 2008 Hillary Clinton but she has lived in the White House and been a part of the Presidential history. She is bringing that great President Bill Clinton with her, you can't beat a team like that , look at her rating outstanding.
2007-07-11 18:43:50 · answer #5 · answered by Nicki 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He had a good comeback for that . More-or-less: Look at Cheney,Rumsfeld & Co. All that experience doesn't matter if you consistently make bad decisions. It's good judgement that matters .
He does have experience . It's just real-life, instead of political . Instead of being a foreign policy "expert", he's actually lived & traveled all over the world .
2007-07-11 18:37:33 · answer #6 · answered by mikeinportc 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Thompson was a Senator for longer than Obama has been.
2007-07-11 18:35:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
We need a young fresh face that everyone else in the world will respect. George W. is also inexperienced and incompetent and he's been running the show for almost 8 years....now that's stupid.
2007-07-11 20:56:59 · answer #8 · answered by ? 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
He is too inexperienced and unknown. Rudy on the other hand is very experienced. Former prosecutor, Mayor of NY during 9/11...we have seen him in action. Obama? Talks a good game.
2007-07-11 18:36:02 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 4⤋
Fred Thompson is bad. He's just an actor. Obama hasn't been elected long enough for the general public to consider him "experienced." Giuliani is so very prepared for the presidency, just look back to Sept 11 and the way he held NY together.
2007-07-11 18:35:48 · answer #10 · answered by Lovely 2 · 2⤊ 5⤋