The media and Obama's opponents (most notably sneaky Clinton) gives the public a constant message that he is "inexperienced." Do ignorant people think it means he is stupid or naive?
2007-12-23 07:34:38 · 22 answers · asked by John 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
I personally see that as he is not yet corrupted by the system as many other candidates are. I don't know what ignorant people think.
2007-12-23 07:38:44 · answer #1 · answered by just wants to know 7 · 6⤊ 5⤋
Your question suggests that the media is out to get Obama. This is not true. The media doesn't do much of anything anymore. They simply put up cameras and than have "commentators" on to say who they think is winning (and as no surprise, the commentators always say their own party is winning).
No matter what the candidates say (any candidate), they don't bother to tell us if what they say is true or not; all they do is say if it helps or hurts the campaign.
And they only cover the candidates that are "celebrity." Obama and Clinton are very interesting people, they get coverage. Guiliani, Romney and McCain are interesting, they also get coverage. Take note on how Huckabee didn't really get coverage until after he started overtaking one of the celebrity candidates. Then all of a sudden he's all you hear about.
Obama's inexperience is only being covered because Clinton is bringing it up. If it had been Bill Richardson or Chris Dodd, trust me that you wouldn't be hearing about it at all.
2007-12-23 15:47:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 0⤋
I don't what "ignorant" people thinks it means. But I know what inexperienced means, and he fits the definition. He's a very intelligent man that I suspect will be very valuable to our nation once he gets some real experience under his belt. He has shown his naivete when he talks about foreign policy, so it's hard not to see him as a bit politically naive. By the way, I didn't need the media to tell me he's too inexperienced to lead our nation. I simply listened to the man himself and looked into his background. Sneaky Clinton? She's absolutely right that he's inexperienced. He actually promotes and admits that idea himself when he says that change is better than experience. I don't see anything sneaky about speaking the truth about him. It doesn't mean I don't like the guy, he's great. But he just isn't ready.
EDIT:
jneg:
Well, I don't see his years in the state senate as experience that counts toward being ready for the White House. State senators have NOTHING to do with national issues or policies, he got zip as far as that sort of experience as a state senator, sorry.
2007-12-23 16:49:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
It just means that he was a college professor then a state legislator who has recently entered the Congress. Suffice it to say his experience is limited to the above resume. I don't think people see him as stupid or naive. I think they see him as an idealistic, fresh faced kid who has only been around the block a half time. I don't see that he has ever been in a strong leadership role or experienced Presidential politics firsthand. Yes, Bill Clinton was young but he was also a Rhodes Scholar specializing in Constitutional Law. If Obama had credentials like that plus being a Governor for a couple of terms he would get more looks from people. He certainly has a strong, intelligent and dedicated wife by his side, that's for sure.
2007-12-23 16:41:03 · answer #4 · answered by whrldpz 7 · 3⤊ 1⤋
I don't think so. I sincerely feel that most people understand the definition of the word "inexperienced".
Inexperience is something almost anyone can grasp as a concept...just as anyone who has driven around their neighborhood a few times would acknowledge that they aren't experienced enough to drive for NASCAR (regardless of how much they may want to).
The other problem with an inexperienced candidate is that it is hard for the public to gauge what sort of a president he'd make because they don't have much to go on with his political record.
Mind you, this doesn't mean that Clinton is a better choice herself. The problem experienced candidates have is that the public is free to scrutinize their records. An experienced politician does not always translate into a good one.
2007-12-23 15:59:58 · answer #5 · answered by shivarodriguez 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I think media is calling it like they see it. Obama is inexperienced. So is Hillary. Biden has the most experience.
Well sadly it looks like the choice for a Democrat is between Hillary and Obama. I would rather have an inexperienced honest president who cares about the American people than an experienced flip, flop liar for president. Personally I prefer Edwards and Biden. I may just vote Edwards. Right now I am undecided. I wish the Democrats would push better candidates.
2007-12-23 16:31:11 · answer #6 · answered by Just my opinion 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This whole experience thing is grossly overrated. Who upon taking the office for their 1st term was experienced? It only matters if it is not the persons candidate. No doubt the ones making this arguement were at one time for an inexperienced Reagan, or Clinton or Bush. Look at what experience has gotten us during these last 7 years.
2007-12-23 22:42:57 · answer #7 · answered by oldstyleman_2000 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Inexperienced is exactly what Nobama is. Anybody with an average or above IQ can figure out that Barak is not stupid, maybe naive, and definitely not experienced in running a business, a state, or a country. We rarely elect senators to the presidency, most recent presidents have been governors, because the people want someone with experience running a government.
I believe that Kennedy was the last standing senator who won the presidency. LBJ got the presidency when Kennedy was killed, so he didn't win the presidency as a standing senator.
2007-12-23 15:50:45 · answer #8 · answered by Shane 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
Of course he is not stupid or naive. He is somewhat inexperienced, but nothing that 4-8 years as Clinton's vice-president couldn't cure. After that I think he will make an excellent president, and I plan to vote for him at that time.
2007-12-23 16:14:54 · answer #9 · answered by RE 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, they see him s just another part of the corrupt Ill political Machine. Do you really think he'd be able to run without some pretty powerful money backing him? Really? with NO experience at all? I am an independent, nut more than that, I grew up in Chicago and I can tell you, the only place where politics are more corrupt is Louisiana. Trust me on this kiddo, I make it a policy NEVER to vote for anyone from either the IL or the LA. political circus.
2007-12-23 19:12:01 · answer #10 · answered by LPnerd 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, he wants to much to soon, he isn't experienced enough too be a President . He'd be almost as bad as George Bush, he stumbles all over his feet and making bad choices. Just like Oprah he thinks she is going to get him the election , no way not everyone likes Oprah. The tabloids have already started that Oprah is in love with Obama and Stedman is jealous and Obama's wife is giving Oprah the evil eye.
Just to be honest with you just like Colin Powell said America is not ready for a African American President and one that is so inexperienced is going to have it twice as bad as Colin would have had it.
I'll say again the south will never at this time vote for a black President and I live in the deep south and I am a Democrat. I'm not going to lie to you I would never change parties and vote Republican but if Obama wins the election I will not vote in this election. I feel that he isn't qualified enough to hold down a President job and I also feel just like I said the south will not vote for a black President, we just aren't ready and if we will ever be ready I don't know that either. At least I'm being honest and not a hypocrite and lying that I'm for Obama.
2007-12-23 15:57:34 · answer #11 · answered by Nicki 6 · 0⤊ 3⤋