I have heard many people criticize Obama for having no political experience. In my opinion that is a good thing cuz every single politician is corrupt and everyone knows that. They say what they need to say to get elected. Once they get elected they dont do the things that they promised that they would do. My point is that Obama hasnt been corrupted by politics yet and more of a guy for the "people". Anyone else agree with me?
2007-12-11 05:52:57 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Yeah, sure. Obama actually has 8 years as a state senator, and 4 years as a US Senator. This is his 4th campaign for elective office. He was also a constitutional law professor and a community organizer. All of his jobs, and he is 46 years old, have been politically related.
2007-12-11 05:58:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Agree. In addition, he has more experience than some of the others in the field like Edwards or Guiliani. Not one candidate has any experience being president. This is a job where intelligence and vision are the most important qualifications. Every 4 or 8 years we put an inexperienced person in office. This is by design and ensures no man gets too much power. What has Bush's "experience" accomplished? More problems. A complete resume to resume comparison actually puts Obama somewhere towards the middle of the field. It is not his experience people are mostly concerned with. People are not even concerned with his race specifically. What people (those who have race issues) are mostly afraid of, is the empowering of other blacks in this country as a result of his election. This is not a popular thing to say but it is true.
2007-12-11 14:13:17 · answer #2 · answered by David M 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
That would be a lovely sentiment and possibly a plus if we weren't mired in a war in Iraq and dealing with the powder keg of the Middle East in general. Sorry, but considering the enormous problems we face with the Middle East, terrorism, China, etc., I would prefer a candidate with more experience in dealing with national issues. Being a state senator doesn't give anyone any experience in dealing with national issues, NONE, and he's just about to complete only his second year as a U.S. Senator. I prefer someone at this juncture that knows the ins and outs of politics in Washington and can be effective without having to learn the ropes first. In order to change anything a President has to have the knowledge of how to work the system in D.C. To tell you the truth I'm tired of hearing about "change" from Obama without any details of exactly what he's going to change and how he plans to do it. I'm hearing way too many generalities from this candidate without pertinent details and that just doesn't cut it enough to get my vote.
2007-12-11 14:03:33 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The same reason you want anybody to have experience, no matter if it's a brain surgeon, contractor, or your barber. Corrupt is not something unique to politicians, and experienced doesn't mean corrupt. Corporations don't hire just any bozo for CEO, they need experience running something. Obama has the same problem as Hillary, neither has any proven ability to run anything, ever.
2007-12-11 14:40:36 · answer #4 · answered by T D 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If I was to vote for him that would be the reason I do!!! We know they become corrupt when they've been in Washington too long so we need some fresh input to ever have any changes made, we know this, it's happened over and over again, of course Bush didn't know anything and still doesn't but he brought all of his dad's old friends from the Nixon and Reagan years and we all know how corrupt those years were!
2007-12-11 13:58:52 · answer #5 · answered by Ktcyan 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Less corrupt, perhaps.
But let's remember how much political experience Bush jr had before taking office. Lack of experience can be disastrous.
Still his speaking skills truly outshine his inexperience.
2007-12-11 15:02:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
don't, for one minute, think Obama isn't corrupt! This has become a very unstable world in which we live and I would be afraid to vote for anyone w/o some foreign policy experience. Don't get sucked in by his smooth, snake-oil salesman rhetoric!
2007-12-11 14:47:17 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
In my mind, it isn't his lack of corruption that's the problem - of course it isn't. It's that his world view can tend to be somewhat naive, and that can be a dangerous thing in a world leader. I'd like to see him come back in four or eight years and try again.
2007-12-11 13:56:06 · answer #8 · answered by Bush Invented the Google 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
If you needed a heart operation and the surgeon told you he had no experience operating on hearts, would you care?
2007-12-11 14:04:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
I agree 100%...experience in Washington should almost disqualify you from running.
2007-12-11 14:04:41 · answer #10 · answered by I'm right 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋