(02-10-2009 06:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think that if the democrat in 2008 had had the experience, it would have touted by his supporters as part of his qualifications. But he didn't, so it is deemed unimportant.

Oh, and you've made this contention a few times, stretching back to the original thread. My question - is it really true? Did Dole get hammered for his complete lack of what you've termed "executive experience" back in '96 when he was up against a _sitting_ president? If he did, I don't remember it.

(02-10-2009 08:49 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-10-2009 06:18 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think that if the democrat in 2008 had had the experience, it would have touted by his supporters as part of his qualifications. But he didn't, so it is deemed unimportant.

Oh, and you've made this contention a few times, stretching back to the original thread. My question - is it really true? Did Dole get hammered for his complete lack of what you've termed "executive experience" back in '96 when he was up against a _sitting_ president? If he did, I don't remember it.

Rather than watch this continue, can we all agree that Obama's resume WAS very, very thin. Other 'young' presidents (JFK, Clinton, even Carter) had much longer resumes. Do all presidents make mistakes? sure. I personally hope Obama does well, but he is no doubt making mistakes right now on a number of levels.

I don't really mind at least one type of mistake he's making (as I perceive it), and that is that I think he's assuming the good intention of Congress (on both sides) and believing they will not try and take advantage of the crisis to 'use' the stimulus bill.

Clearly not the case, and most clearly not the case in the way the House Democrats drafted their version. Pelosi has point blank admitted as much.

I'd like to see him take a few in his own party out back behind the woodshed.

And I fully understand your point, but it's completely ludicrous in my opinion to compare Bob Dole's experience in 1996 to President Obama's.

There are reasons to like Obama as president, but OO is 100% correct, experience (at any level) is not one of them.

(02-10-2009 08:41 PM)JOwl Wrote:  It seems you're predisposed to blame Obama's lack of experience for any misstep. To me, these seem particularly ill-chosen given the rich history of similar mistakes by presidents with "executive experience".

I think it is fair to say that i am predisposed to blame his lack of experience for missteps relating to executive functions. I said a long time ago that his lack of executive experience was a negative, precisely because I thought it was likely to lead to mistakes of this type. When you get the results you expect...

I think it is equally fair to say that you are predisposed to dismiss his lack of experience as a cause for any mistakes he makes.

I shall continue in the future to look at the qualifications, including importantly, experience, of anyone I hire, whether it is a doctor, lawyer, president, plumber, or barber. I don't generally want neophytes doing important work for me. I don't ask for trainees. I think I will get better results from experienced people. That won't be my only criterium in hiring somebody, but it is high on the list.

I still think that his problems may well be a result of his lack of experience. Whatever mistakes Bush or Clinton or Prince John or Attila the Hun or Julius Caesar or anyone else made do not change that opinion. The opinion was formed in the full knowledge that experience does not guarantee correct decisions. Nor, for that matter, do the successes of some inexperienced people in their endeavors, as Alexander the Great, invalidate the principle that in general, experience is better than none.

I am ready to let this drop. I made a statement of opinion, it was attacked, I defended and explained it to the best of my ability. I cannot explain or defend it any better, and nothing has been presented that makes me reconsider. It is not my mission to make you or anybody else agree with me, so there is no reason to keep repeating myself.

Rick: Well said. Glad to see you back. I was getting ready to nominate you for the Milk Carton Award.

JOwl, I haven't read the entire thread, so I may be taking something out of context, but I want to make a point of something in response to you...

As I recall at the time Bush nominated Harriet Meyers, the excuse put forward was that Congress had become bogged down in the political leanings of judges and specific opinions rather than their experience... call it the Bork or Thomas "response"... and that this was an attempt to focus the argument... They didn't like Meyers because she was inexperienced, and if they'd said they didn't like Roberts because of his opinions, he could have pointed out the flaw in the system. In other words... I'm not sure that intentionally nominating an inexperienced person is the same "mistake" as nominating someone you didn't KNOW was inexperienced. It was PR mistake, but it may have actually accomplished its purpose.

THIS mistake is not what causes me to agree that executive experience matters. It is the mistake Obama is making in his speeches... before Democrats, talking as we'd expect Pelosi to talk before Democrats... Saying on one hand, we need to be bipartisan, while chastising only Republicans for voting against the bill. A few members of his own party didn't vote for it, or had to be encouraged to do so... and it wasn't because they didn't "get" that the American people want partisanship to end... FORGETTING that he was elected by the unaffiliated middle (meaning Dems generally voted dem, Reps generally rep, and that those who don't align themselves with EITHER party really make the decision)... and that he now represents us ALL. As a Governor, you have to learn to work with members of the other party... ESPECIALLY if they control the legislature... as a Senator, you do not.

(02-11-2009 02:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am ready to let this drop. I made a statement of opinion, it was attacked, I defended and explained it to the best of my ability. I cannot explain or defend it any better, and nothing has been presented that makes me reconsider. It is not my mission to make you or anybody else agree with me, so there is no reason to keep repeating myself.

Just to be clear, the timeline was that when you entered this thread you both made a statement of opinion AND pointedly referred to those who had disagreed with that opinion. Quote:
"Ranger, we did argue about whether it made sense to put someone with virtually no managerial experience into the job of Chief Executive when we had the long and lengthy discusion on the importance or unimportance of executive experience. Check the archives and see what was being said and by whom vis-a-vis exectutive experience. Basically, people who wanted Obama and/or disliked Palin thought it was of no importance. Personally, i think we are seeing the first results of his OTJ training."

I took that as your indication that you were interested in discussing the issue with those with whom you'd earlier disagreed. If you've now reached the point where you would like to "let this drop", feel free. Otherwise, I read interested in hearing your take on how Clinton/Dole fits with the contention that democrats would have touted experience if they had had it. That's two separate threads now where I've suggested it as a counterexample, but have yet to see a response.

(02-11-2009 04:58 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2009 02:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am ready to let this drop. I made a statement of opinion, it was attacked, I defended and explained it to the best of my ability. I cannot explain or defend it any better, and nothing has been presented that makes me reconsider. It is not my mission to make you or anybody else agree with me, so there is no reason to keep repeating myself.

Just to be clear, the timeline was that when you entered this thread you both made a statement of opinion AND pointedly referred to those who had disagreed with that opinion. Quote:
"Ranger, we did argue about whether it made sense to put someone with virtually no managerial experience into the job of Chief Executive when we had the long and lengthy discusion on the importance or unimportance of executive experience. Check the archives and see what was being said and by whom vis-a-vis exectutive experience. Basically, people who wanted Obama and/or disliked Palin thought it was of no importance. Personally, i think we are seeing the first results of his OTJ training."

I took that as your indication that you were interested in discussing the issue with those with whom you'd earlier disagreed. If you've now reached the point where you would like to "let this drop", feel free. Otherwise, I read interested in hearing your take on how Clinton/Dole fits with the contention that democrats would have touted experience if they had had it. That's two separate threads now where I've suggested it as a counterexample, but have yet to see a response.

Just when you think you are out...

I don't remember any of the issues in Clinton/Dole, but if experience was one (I'm not going back to parse over 12 year old news accounts), it would have been the Dems playing it up and the Repubs playing it down, simply because their guy had it and the other guy didn't. Back when i was young and foolish, barely 30, I thought Jimmy Carter was a good choice because of his corporate experience and secondly his gubernatorial experience, and because he was a "man of the people". Goes to show that experience is not a guarantee. The thrust of my statement(s) is that for most people, the good qualities of their chosen candidate are played up, and the bad played down. In this latest campaign, lack of experience was played down by the Obama supporters. For that, refer to the thread I mentioned. I bet in 2012, his four years experience in the job is played up by the Dems, depending on his approval rating. Properly, of course, all the qualifications including experience should be weighed before making a choice, but most people don't do this.

None of which has a whit of bearing on the fact that given unequal experience, the more experienced person is usually better qualified to do the job correctly. If you have an issue with that statement, tell me what it is.

Not does it have anything to do with the fact that Obama is really, really screwing up his appointments, and my opinion on the reasons for the rhat is that he is making these mistakes because he is inexperienced at making these kinds of decisions. He has never had his appointments subject to so much public scrutiny. A more experienced person would probably have known his appointees would be under a microscope and made sure he had the right people vetting and the right parameters in that vetting. Rookie mistake. He is inexperienced at a lot of things, and a year from now we shall see how he has done with a lot of things. He may do well with some, not so well with others. Or not.

OK, it seems to be your opinion that his inexperience has zero to do with his mistakes. If so, then why is he making them? What is the cause? Geithner, Killeher, Dashele, Richardson, et al? All you have offered is that it is not due to inexperience because other, experienced people have made mistakes also. So what is it? I have given my opinion, what is yours? Why so many mistakes, if not inexperience? If you take inexperience off the list of possible reasons, what then is left? Incompetence? Hubris? I think by attributing them to inexperience, I am giving him the easiest of passes. So why is this happening, IYO?

Now I still am ready to drop this, because as you can see, I am just reiterating principles I have said before. Clearly I cannot say anything that will satisfy you. You cannot convince me that experience is unimportant, even relatively. If you have any argument that his gaffes are NOT experience related, I am ready to listen. Ir's a stand off. And I am sure we are boring the other people on this board. If you want to continue on PMs, fine with me.

Experience was not an issue in the 1996 election because both Clinton and Dole had it. Clinton had one term as President and was previously Governor of Arkansas. Dole had been in the Senate a long time.

(02-11-2009 06:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2009 04:58 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2009 02:24 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I am ready to let this drop. I made a statement of opinion, it was attacked, I defended and explained it to the best of my ability. I cannot explain or defend it any better, and nothing has been presented that makes me reconsider. It is not my mission to make you or anybody else agree with me, so there is no reason to keep repeating myself.

Just to be clear, the timeline was that when you entered this thread you both made a statement of opinion AND pointedly referred to those who had disagreed with that opinion. Quote:
"Ranger, we did argue about whether it made sense to put someone with virtually no managerial experience into the job of Chief Executive when we had the long and lengthy discusion on the importance or unimportance of executive experience. Check the archives and see what was being said and by whom vis-a-vis exectutive experience. Basically, people who wanted Obama and/or disliked Palin thought it was of no importance. Personally, i think we are seeing the first results of his OTJ training."

I took that as your indication that you were interested in discussing the issue with those with whom you'd earlier disagreed. If you've now reached the point where you would like to "let this drop", feel free. Otherwise, I read interested in hearing your take on how Clinton/Dole fits with the contention that democrats would have touted experience if they had had it. That's two separate threads now where I've suggested it as a counterexample, but have yet to see a response.

Just when you think you are out...

I don't remember any of the issues in Clinton/Dole, but if experience was one (I'm not going back to parse over 12 year old news accounts), it would have been the Dems playing it up and the Repubs playing it down, simply because their guy had it and the other guy didn't. Back when i was young and foolish, barely 30, I thought Jimmy Carter was a good choice because of his corporate experience and secondly his gubernatorial experience, and because he was a "man of the people". Goes to show that experience is not a guarantee. The thrust of my statement(s) is that for most people, the good qualities of their chosen candidate are played up, and the bad played down. In this latest campaign, lack of experience was played down by the Obama supporters. For that, refer to the thread I mentioned. I bet in 2012, his four years experience in the job is played up by the Dems, depending on his approval rating. Properly, of course, all the qualifications including experience should be weighed before making a choice, but most people don't do this.

None of which has a whit of bearing on the fact that given unequal experience, the more experienced person is usually better qualified to do the job correctly. If you have an issue with that statement, tell me what it is.

Not does it have anything to do with the fact that Obama is really, really screwing up his appointments, and my opinion on the reasons for the rhat is that he is making these mistakes because he is inexperienced at making these kinds of decisions. He has never had his appointments subject to so much public scrutiny. A more experienced person would probably have known his appointees would be under a microscope and made sure he had the right people vetting and the right parameters in that vetting. Rookie mistake. He is inexperienced at a lot of things, and a year from now we shall see how he has done with a lot of things. He may do well with some, not so well with others. Or not.

OK, it seems to be your opinion that his inexperience has zero to do with his mistakes. If so, then why is he making them? What is the cause? Geithner, Killeher, Dashele, Richardson, et al? All you have offered is that it is not due to inexperience because other, experienced people have made mistakes also. So what is it? I have given my opinion, what is yours? Why so many mistakes, if not inexperience? If you take inexperience off the list of possible reasons, what then is left? Incompetence? Hubris? I think by attributing them to inexperience, I am giving him the easiest of passes. So why is this happening, IYO?

Now I still am ready to drop this, because as you can see, I am just reiterating principles I have said before. Clearly I cannot say anything that will satisfy you. You cannot convince me that experience is unimportant, even relatively. If you have any argument that his gaffes are NOT experience related, I am ready to listen. Ir's a stand off. And I am sure we are boring the other people on this board. If you want to continue on PMs, fine with me.

(02-11-2009 06:50 PM)75Owl Wrote:  Experience was not an issue in the 1996 election because both Clinton and Dole had it. Clinton had one term as President and was previously Governor of Arkansas. Dole had been in the Senate a long time.

Yes, 75, but time as a senator is _not_ "executive experience". OO has been very clear in his statements that executive experience is what's important, and further that Obama has none (with the possible exception of his time as a community organizer). Dole was in the Obama situation of having no executive experience.

That makes Clinton/Dole the perfect historical experiment with which to test OO's assertion that "if the democrat in 2008 had had the experience, it would have touted by his supporters as part of his qualifications. But he didn't, so it is deemed unimportant."
And 75, your recollection jives with mine -- the Democrats didn't make an issue of Dole's lack of executive experience. Thus OO's assertion, while certainly reasonable at first glance, appears not to hold up to scrutiny.

(02-11-2009 06:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  ...
None of which has a whit of bearing on the fact that given unequal experience, the more experienced person is usually better qualified to do the job correctly. If you have an issue with that statement, tell me what it is.

My issue would be that this seems to put experience above all else; as I've said, it's on my list, just toward the bottom. I wouldn't be surprised if many Rice graduates have shared the experience of outperforming and being promoted past people with a head start of 10 or 20 years worth of experience. I also have an issue with the idea that every incumbent President has a large inherent advantage (in terms of competency and potential for success) over every challenger, purely by dint of 4 years in office. Were Bush's final 4 years any better than his first 4? Clinton's?

(02-11-2009 06:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A more experienced person would probably have known his appointees would be under a microscope and made sure he had the right people vetting and the right parameters in that vetting. Rookie mistake.

And a veteran mistake, as I've pointed out. If I were to guess at the root cause, I'll throw out hubris -- a strong (too strong) and abiding belief in one's own correctness of action and justness of purpose seems almost necessary if one wants to run for and ultimately become president. Considering that Obama, like his predecessors, has repeatedly made this same mistake with his appointments, it seems a reasonable explanation.

(02-11-2009 08:13 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2009 06:50 PM)75Owl Wrote:  Experience was not an issue in the 1996 election because both Clinton and Dole had it. Clinton had one term as President and was previously Governor of Arkansas. Dole had been in the Senate a long time.

Yes, 75, but time as a senator is _not_ "executive experience". OO has been very clear in his statements that executive experience is what's important, and further that Obama has none (with the possible exception of his time as a community organizer). Dole was in the Obama situation of having no executive experience.

That makes Clinton/Dole the perfect historical experiment with which to test OO's assertion that "if the democrat in 2008 had had the experience, it would have touted by his supporters as part of his qualifications. But he didn't, so it is deemed unimportant."
And 75, your recollection jives with mine -- the Democrats didn't make an issue of Dole's lack of executive experience. Thus OO's assertion, while certainly reasonable at first glance, appears not to hold up to scrutiny.

(02-11-2009 06:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  ...
None of which has a whit of bearing on the fact that given unequal experience, the more experienced person is usually better qualified to do the job correctly. If you have an issue with that statement, tell me what it is.

My issue would be that this seems to put experience above all else; as I've said, it's on my list, just toward the bottom. I wouldn't be surprised if many Rice graduates have shared the experience of outperforming and being promoted past people with a head start of 10 or 20 years worth of experience. I also have an issue with the idea that every incumbent President has a large inherent advantage (in terms of competency and potential for success) over every challenger, purely by dint of 4 years in office. Were Bush's final 4 years any better than his first 4? Clinton's?

(02-11-2009 06:32 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  A more experienced person would probably have known his appointees would be under a microscope and made sure he had the right people vetting and the right parameters in that vetting. Rookie mistake.

And a veteran mistake, as I've pointed out. If I were to guess at the root cause, I'll throw out hubris -- a strong (too strong) and abiding belief in one's own correctness of action and justness of purpose seems almost necessary if one wants to run for and ultimately become president. Considering that Obama, like his predecessors, has repeatedly made this same mistake with his appointments, it seems a reasonable explanation.

1. And yet, as 75 points out, this was a re-election campaign. Clinton could run on his record, which is the same as his experience. In '92, he was running against an incumbent, so bringing up expeence would be irrelevant, and Bush 41 also was running on his record, which was the same as his experience. So 1988 might be the first election (going backward) before 2008 in which experience was a factor. even then we were looking a VP vs. a Governor, so a push. Let's go back to 1980, an incumbent vs. a governor. Nope. 1976? Incumbent vs governor. OK, 1972. Incumbent, 1968? Nixon-McGovern? Former VP? 1964? incumbent. 1960 VP vs. Senator. I think we have to go to 1952, DDE vs. AES, to find an election in which neither had experience, although Eisenhower and Mccain somewhat resemble each other in thier military experience is a substitute for other executive experience.

I will agree that Obama's time as a community organizer counts as executive experience, to the same extent as Palin's time as PTA president.

In any case, any contestant will emphasize their strengths and/or their opponent's weaknesses, and attempt to minimize the opposites, regardless of party. Are you arguing that Democrats are different in this?

2. Good grief, no. haven't you been listening? I don't put experience above all else - I put experience above inexperience. You don't?

3. OK, hubris is a reasonable alternative. Your choice does surprise me. Is hubris above experience on your list? Maybe you are right, and it is not his inexperience, maybe it is his abiding belief in his own correctness of action that leads him to nominate tax cheats and embarrass himself. maybe if he had done this before, he could have avoided these things and still been sure of himself. Or maybe he would have done it anyway, because, as you said, he is convinced of himself. We will not ever know, will we, so i guess my opinion is as good as yours, and vice-versa of course.

I guess by now we have put everybody to sleep. I think your points are:
1. Democrats are nicer than everbody else because they won't cite an opponent's inexperience just to beat him in an election.
2. Experience is relatively unimportant in choosing a national leader. (Isn't this the conclusion that i cited Ranger in the earlier thread?)
3. Obama is acting from hubris. His mistakes do not come from inexperience.

If I have any of these wrong, feel free to correct me. (Like you need an invitation.)

OK. Like I said, it isn't my mission to change you. I said my piece, you said yours. We differ. End of story.

Actually, Adlai Stevenson was a one-term governor of Illinois prior to running for president in 1952, in addition to some senior leadership roles in the US government during World War II.

Eisenhower ran the European command during World War II. His experience as a leader, organizer, and delegator was well superior to anything McCain had. I'd say he was well prepared for running a wide-ranging organization like the US government.

JFK, on the other hand, was a politician through and through. After WW II, he was a US Representative from 1947 (age 30) to 1953. Senator from 1953 to 1961. He really had no other significant experience to fall back on.

McGovern largely has a politican background, too. He was a university teacher before taking the government route. (And that was the 1972 election.) Hubert Humphrey (the 1968 candidate) was Minneapolis mayor before becoming US Senator.

Nixon was actually largely a political creature, too, being a lawyer before WW II, then serving in the Navy, and almost immediately getting elected to Congress. I liked this line about his first campaign (from Wikipedia): "He helped finance the campaign with his World War II poker winnings." I'm not sure how much being VP really gave him that executive experience, just like I question how being a senator gives you that executive experience.

Here's an interesting study. Scroll down to "Is an Experienced President a Good President?".

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pr...Mar10.html

Also, some favorite personal tidbits regarding experience:

Nixon tried several time during WWII to be assigned to a combat area but was not successful, so he had a lot of time for poker. His skill was in being able to continually fold until he had a winning hand.

McGovern was a 21 year-old B-24 pilot and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross after landing his badly damaged plan on a too short runway.

As President of Columbia, Eisenhower was besieged with advice when the school undertook a sidewalk construction program. He told everyone to wait awhile. After a few weeks he walked around the campus, saw where paths had been worn into the ground, and decided that's where the sidewalks should go.

While I find the datapoints interesting, there are a number of variables not mentioned, and i don't want to do the research to see if it matters... Primary in MY mind are that prior to the age of air-travel, if not TV or even the internet... The work of Washington was done in Washington. If you weren't in Washington, you didn't know who the players were... how things worked... whom to talk to to get things done... so experience in Washington might have been more important. Additionally, I don't believe we were as partisan or spent as much time posturing and negotiating in the past as we do now... so experience may not have mattered at all.

as to your specific examples JSA.... Here's how I'd interpret them...
Nixon's military service was neither a positive nor negative. His skill in poker WASN'T in trying to bluff, but simply to play when he was right, and do nothing if you didn't feel confident you were right. Seems like a pretty good plan in general.
McGovern as a pilot was in charge of himself and his plane. He followed orders... his bravery is perhaps unquestionable, but this doesn't address leadership skills.
Eisenhower was clearly a leader in the military, and his experience at Columbia also showed leadership... interestingly by observing and reacting, rather than being out front.

MOST people believe that an important skill these days for a Congressman (state or Federal) is to be an adept deal-maker for your constituents in your area. I will vote for YOUR money if you will vote for mine. As a Governor or President, that skill can be useful... but your constituency is everyone, and your area is everywhere... What do you have to negotiate with? It is no longer about trading votes, but about trading principles (at least in my opinion). Knowing to allow (as an example) a moderate Republican to look like he's being tough on battling pork or helping business owners so he can support your spending package. This is a skill many executives have learned how to do. Thus far, while talking about ending partisanship, I've heard Obama criticize Republicans for representing their constituents... I'm not saying that is ALL they are doing, but Obama is acting as leader of the Democrats, not leader of the country.

Like it or not... agree with it or not... there are many people in this country who don't think spending $800byn to save 4mm jobs is a wise investment. Certainly some of that money goes to support those currently unemployed, but we've had significantly higher unemployment than this before... and 4mm jobs is about 2% points iirc. We've gained $4mm jobs without spending $1.5trillion before. He should be out convincing people that THIS is the right plan... not that this IS the plan, and you're either with us or against us... paraphrasing, of course... but when a President says "they (those voting against the bill) don't get it", that's what he's saying. Perhaps they get it just fine... but they don't agree that this is the best use of that much money...

tell me why all these projects, which only create 4mm jobs.... are better than putting even more money into unemployment and retraining benefits to that people can pick THEIR OWN jobs, rather than mainly construction jobs.

(02-12-2009 10:20 AM)JSA Wrote:  Here's an interesting study. Scroll down to "Is an Experienced President a Good President?".

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pr...Mar10.html

Also, some favorite personal tidbits regarding experience:

Nixon tried several time during WWII to be assigned to a combat area but was not successful, so he had a lot of time for poker. His skill was in being able to continually fold until he had a winning hand.

McGovern was a 21 year-old B-24 pilot and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross after landing his badly damaged plan on a too short runway.

As President of Columbia, Eisenhower was besieged with advice when the school undertook a sidewalk construction program. He told everyone to wait awhile. After a few weeks he walked around the campus, saw where paths had been worn into the ground, and decided that's where the sidewalks should go.

Generally speaking, patience is virtue in poker, especially when followed up with heavy aggresion when a good hand is attained. Those who don't fold often enough or early enough are giving up a lot of money that is hard to get back.

The Eisenhower story reminds me of a discussion I had with a real estate developer. Whenever he bought farm land for development, he would put the streets in wherever the farmers had made ruts - the farmers knew where the high land was and they didn't like getting stuck in the mud. Better than a drainage survey.

(02-11-2009 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  1. And yet, as 75 points out, this was a re-election campaign. Clinton could run on his record, which is the same as his experience. In '92, he was running against an incumbent, so bringing up expeence would be irrelevant, and Bush 41 also was running on his record, which was the same as his experience...

So are you saying that Clinton did in fact run on executive experience in '96? Because that's not how I (or apparently 75Owl) remembers '96. I don't remember his campaign making an issue of it. But I could be wrong.

(02-11-2009 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In any case, any contestant will emphasize their strengths and/or their opponent's weaknesses, and attempt to minimize the opposites, regardless of party. Are you arguing that Democrats are different in this?

[sarcasm]Yeah, that's right -- it's why the Democrats simply would NOT shut up about Obama's major height advantage over McCain.[/sarcasm]
Your assertion is missing a big "if". I would agree if you amended it to: "Any contestant will emphasize their strengths... if they deem them important".

You seem to feel that the executive experience angle is ALWAYS important, and therefore someone is always going to play that card. My argument is that not everyone agrees that it's always important; the Democrats apparently didn't deem it important in '96 and thus didn't make an issue of it.

You've argued that people who hold a lower opinion of the importance of executive experience have done so purely to downplay Obama's weaknesses, and not because they truly believe that exec experience is relatively unimportant; you've put it as, "It's a process of my guy, I'll figure out why later." My argument here is that some people actually believe that exec experience is not the most important measure of a candidate, and I'm using the Democrats in '96 as an example.

(02-11-2009 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  2. Good grief, no. haven't you been listening? I don't put experience above all else - I put experience above inexperience. You don't?

Am I really that far off? I was responding to your comment that "given unequal experience, the more experienced person is usually better qualified to do the job correctly". I can think of at least 70 current and former governors with more executive experience than either McCain or Obama. Based on your comment, I would assume that you'd find the majority of them more qualified than Obama or McCain to be president.
I'll certainly agree that they're more experienced in executive matters, but my opinion is that they are not more qualified.

(02-11-2009 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  3. OK, hubris is a reasonable alternative. Your choice does surprise me. Is hubris above experience on your list? Maybe you are right, and it is not his inexperience, maybe it is his abiding belief in his own correctness of action that leads him to nominate tax cheats and embarrass himself. maybe if he had done this before, he could have avoided these things and still been sure of himself. Or maybe he would have done it anyway, because, as you said, he is convinced of himself. We will not ever know, will we, so i guess my opinion is as good as yours, and vice-versa of course.

Yeah, it seemed reasonable because it's the one flaw that I think Clinton, Bush, and Obama are most likely to share. Given that they've all made this mistake regardless of their levels of experience, I was going for something that they all could have had in common when they made these mistakes.

(02-11-2009 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess by now we have put everybody to sleep. I think your points are:
1. Democrats are nicer than everbody else because they won't cite an opponent's inexperience just to beat him in an election.

Nope, my point it that there are groups of people that truly don't value executive experience like you do. My claim that I find it relatively unimportant is my actual position on the matter, and not one chosen of political convenience.

(02-11-2009 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  2. Experience is relatively unimportant in choosing a national leader. (Isn't this the conclusion that i cited Ranger in the earlier thread?)

Yes, I've said this is my opinion from the beginning.

(02-11-2009 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  3. Obama is acting from hubris. His mistakes do not come from inexperience.

Hubris seems a reasonable explanation. Looking at his mistakes in historical context, it seems a more reasonable explanation than inexperience.

(02-12-2009 05:15 PM)JOwl Wrote:  

(02-11-2009 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  1. And yet, as 75 points out, this was a re-election campaign. Clinton could run on his record, which is the same as his experience. In '92, he was running against an incumbent, so bringing up expeence would be irrelevant, and Bush 41 also was running on his record, which was the same as his experience...

So are you saying that Clinton did in fact run on executive experience in '96? Because that's not how I (or apparently 75Owl) remembers '96. I don't remember his campaign making an issue of it. But I could be wrong.

(02-11-2009 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  In any case, any contestant will emphasize their strengths and/or their opponent's weaknesses, and attempt to minimize the opposites, regardless of party. Are you arguing that Democrats are different in this?

[sarcasm]Yeah, that's right -- it's why the Democrats simply would NOT shut up about Obama's major height advantage over McCain.[/sarcasm]
Your assertion is missing a big "if". I would agree if you amended it to: "Any contestant will emphasize their strengths... if they deem them important".

You seem to feel that the executive experience angle is ALWAYS important, and therefore someone is always going to play that card. My argument is that not everyone agrees that it's always important; the Democrats apparently didn't deem it important in '96 and thus didn't make an issue of it.

You've argued that people who hold a lower opinion of the importance of executive experience have done so purely to downplay Obama's weaknesses, and not because they truly believe that exec experience is relatively unimportant; you've put it as, "It's a process of my guy, I'll figure out why later." My argument here is that some people actually believe that exec experience is not the most important measure of a candidate, and I'm using the Democrats in '96 as an example.

(02-11-2009 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  2. Good grief, no. haven't you been listening? I don't put experience above all else - I put experience above inexperience. You don't?

Am I really that far off? I was responding to your comment that "given unequal experience, the more experienced person is usually better qualified to do the job correctly". I can think of at least 70 current and former governors with more executive experience than either McCain or Obama. Based on your comment, I would assume that you'd find the majority of them more qualified than Obama or McCain to be president.
I'll certainly agree that they're more experienced in executive matters, but my opinion is that they are not more qualified.

(02-11-2009 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  3. OK, hubris is a reasonable alternative. Your choice does surprise me. Is hubris above experience on your list? Maybe you are right, and it is not his inexperience, maybe it is his abiding belief in his own correctness of action that leads him to nominate tax cheats and embarrass himself. maybe if he had done this before, he could have avoided these things and still been sure of himself. Or maybe he would have done it anyway, because, as you said, he is convinced of himself. We will not ever know, will we, so i guess my opinion is as good as yours, and vice-versa of course.

Yeah, it seemed reasonable because it's the one flaw that I think Clinton, Bush, and Obama are most likely to share. Given that they've all made this mistake regardless of their levels of experience, I was going for something that they all could have had in common when they made these mistakes.

(02-11-2009 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I guess by now we have put everybody to sleep. I think your points are:
1. Democrats are nicer than everbody else because they won't cite an opponent's inexperience just to beat him in an election.

Nope, my point it that there are groups of people that truly don't value executive experience like you do. My claim that I find it relatively unimportant is my actual position on the matter, and not one chosen of political convenience.

(02-11-2009 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  2. Experience is relatively unimportant in choosing a national leader. (Isn't this the conclusion that i cited Ranger in the earlier thread?)

Yes, I've said this is my opinion from the beginning.

(02-11-2009 11:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  3. Obama is acting from hubris. His mistakes do not come from inexperience.

Hubris seems a reasonable explanation. Looking at his mistakes in historical context, it seems a more reasonable explanation than inexperience.

I am going out of town, so you will have the last word. (My hotel does not have internet access, so the laptop is staying home. I also lack the computer savvy to do the quotes separately, like you do. Please tell me how to do that.)

first...

I am saying that every incumbent is running on his record, whether he flouts it or downplays it. I am saying that everyone who has experience puts it their resume. Those who dont have it, put in something else.

It will become an issue if One or both candidates think it will be to their advantage to cite it - for example, in 2008, Mccain brought it up, Obama would rather have ignored the whole thing. In '96, apparently neither candidate thought it was to his advantage, so (I guess) neither wanted it to be a focus of the campaign. In '92, Clinton had experience as Governor, and Bush had experience as VP. Once again, I think neither saw a advantage to be gained by trying to make it a focal point of the campaign. And so forth. Just because it is not a focus of every campaign does not mean it is unimportant or should not be considered by the voters.

next group of arguments...

I suggest you amend your amendment - to "any contestant will emphasize their strengths ... if they deem that it will give them an advantage. Obama would have emphasized his height advantage, and his three-point shot, IF he had thought that would help him win. Apparently he agrees with me that they would be of little use.

Your next statement with the "always" (twice) is just silly. Differences in experience are important, and they will be emphasized if one side thinks it will help their campaign. Not emphasizing them does not indicate they are unimportant - it indicates no big advantage.

The third paragraph is mostly true. You are the exception, not the rule. I think a lot of people on both sides of every election do say "X is my choice" and then figure out ways to justify that choice. congratulations, BTW, on doing things the right way. Wish more did.

Next...

yes, you really are that far off. Experience is only one of the many qualifications needed for this job, and most others. To ignore it is as foollish as using it as the only yardstick, as you have incorrectly accused me of. If it were the only yardstick, then those 70 or so would be better. But there are other reasons why maybe they aren't. In any case, once the nominees are known, it is an important differentiating characteristic. Not the only one. To accuse me of using only one criterium is demeaning and inaccurate. I do consider it important, not all-important. I consider it as more important than you do.

next...

and yet the presence of hubris still does not prove that the presence/abscense of experience is meaningless...

Next....

I guess I would just counter that there are groups that don't find itrelatively unimportant, like you do. I guess you have the edge here, since there is a large group of voters who don't consider any qualifications, much less deem some more important than others. Among those who are thoughful enough to compare qualifications, I guess it would be a new agrument as to which group is bigger. I know which I think SHOULD be bigger.

next...

And yet this is what lit your fuse, that I referred Ranger to a conclusion that you agree with?

lastly...

Looking at his mistakes in the context of HIS background and HIS history, inexperience seems a likely explanation, too. I have no quarrel with including hubris AND inexperience both.

Gotta run now. I will be back sometime between Sunday evening and Tuesday evening, unless i can squeeze in another few minutes tonight.
Sorry for the lack of editing, and any typos.

I think Clinton ran in 1996 assuming people liked what he did for 4 years and wanted more. He was right as far as I can tell. That would be running on executive experience even though not stated as such.

I also don't think it would make a lick of sense to have spent a minute of time trying to portray Bob Dole as inexperienced or poorly qualified to be president.

Therefore the issue of executive experience was mostly implied, subconcious or understated.

That election was about this: did you like the executive capability (experience) displayed over the last 4 years or not?

Obama has many talents and attributes that lend themselves to leadership and being a good president. Experience in government, executive or otherwise, would not be one of them. Even as far as senators go, he remained relatively inexperienced. (Relatively in the sense that I believe that a majority of the senators (if not most or almost all) had much more government experience than he when he decided to run for president.

That doesn't mean he won't be a better president than most of them would've been. Jury's out, and he certainly has a lot of characteristics of a good leader.

What I DO believe is that he's far more likely to make mistakes of experience (due to lack of), particularly with regard to dealing with Congress (including gaining Congressional approvals) than a more experienced person.

Do you think Obama handles Congress as well as say . . . . LBJ (who had no executive experience either by this argument's definition)?

I don't think so. As I've said before, I don't think he had Pelosi under control prior to this week (we'll see going forward). I can't imagine LBJ in his position.

He has made up for those issues in other ways.

In MY mind, Obama's biggest area of inexperience is working with those who have different agendas from yours. He has never really HAD to work with Republicans... which Governors, and even many Congressional leaders with LOTS of experience in leadership positions have... Pelosi is an example of a Congresswoman with lots of experience who STILL hasn't learned to reach across the aisle. Lieberman is one who has

(02-13-2009 08:02 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  In MY mind, Obama's biggest area of inexperience is working with those who have different agendas from yours. He has never really HAD to work with Republicans... which Governors, and even many Congressional leaders with LOTS of experience in leadership positions have... Pelosi is an example of a Congresswoman with lots of experience who STILL hasn't learned to reach across the aisle. Lieberman is one who has

This experience debate will never be resolved, but it's worth pointing out that Obama and Lieberman serve(d) in the chamber in which you must work with the minority, and Pelosi is in the other one. I'm no Pelosi fan, but who was the last Speaker to be known for reaching across the aisle?

(02-13-2009 10:01 AM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(02-13-2009 08:02 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  In MY mind, Obama's biggest area of inexperience is working with those who have different agendas from yours. He has never really HAD to work with Republicans... which Governors, and even many Congressional leaders with LOTS of experience in leadership positions have... Pelosi is an example of a Congresswoman with lots of experience who STILL hasn't learned to reach across the aisle. Lieberman is one who has

This experience debate will never be resolved, but it's worth pointing out that Obama and Lieberman serve(d) in the chamber in which you must work with the minority, and Pelosi is in the other one. I'm no Pelosi fan, but who was the last Speaker to be known for reaching across the aisle?

If you are a leader in that chamber, you do. Obama was never a leader in that chamber. In fact, it's not clear that he actually did much of anything as a member of that chamber. To be fair, it does appear from the record that he did exercise some leadership in the Illinois legislature.

(02-13-2009 10:15 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(02-13-2009 10:01 AM)S.A. Owl Wrote:  

(02-13-2009 08:02 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  In MY mind, Obama's biggest area of inexperience is working with those who have different agendas from yours. He has never really HAD to work with Republicans... which Governors, and even many Congressional leaders with LOTS of experience in leadership positions have... Pelosi is an example of a Congresswoman with lots of experience who STILL hasn't learned to reach across the aisle. Lieberman is one who has

This experience debate will never be resolved, but it's worth pointing out that Obama and Lieberman serve(d) in the chamber in which you must work with the minority, and Pelosi is in the other one. I'm no Pelosi fan, but who was the last Speaker to be known for reaching across the aisle?

If you are a leader in that chamber, you do. Obama was never a leader in that chamber. In fact, it's not clear that he actually did much of anything as a member of that chamber. To be fair, it does appear from the record that he did exercise some leadership in the Illinois legislature.

Yes, the house is more partisan and the Senate somewhat less so... but I mentioned Lieberman as one (from the same party) who is pretty well known for voting on both sides of the aisle... while Pelosi, despite being a leader of her party and committee chair, has not. I wouldn't trust Newt Gingrich to govern from the middle either.

I wasn't trying to resolve the debate, because the debate involves ones perception of experience. I was simply trying to point out the experience issue as I saw it. Obama MAY have had experience working across the aisle in the State Senate, but my recollection of his most talked about accomplishment was an abortion bill that came out of a committee that he chaired that he didn't support... so I questioned how much "leadership" he had demonstrated. I asked NUMEROUS times for people to show me his leadership in Illinois. I never doubted it existed, i simply wasn't aware of it. In the Senate, he has not been in a position of much leadership, and didn't vote often across the aisle. This is just fine if you simply didn't support the policies of the other side, but it doesn't DEMONSTRATE the ability to work across the aisle. For comparison only, since this was the topic during the last election, despite the portrayal of McCain as having sided with Bush 80% of the time, he voted against some very important "Republican" legislation and FOR some very important "Democratic" legislation over his career. He demonstrated to me an ability to work across the aisle. Obama may well have been a victim of opportunity, not intent... and that is fine... but it isn't proof. I believe when people question his executive experience, and tout that of some others... this is why