[barfo]

While we are on the subject of experience, I think this is a very strange argument for Clinton to be making. She's got 4 more years in the Senate (her only elective office) than Obama, while McCain has 14 more years than she. Is that really a good thing for her to be pointing out?

Besides, longevity does not imply qualification. If it did, the race should be between Robert Byrd (D-WV), 48 years in the senate, and Ted Stevens (R-Bridge_to_Nowhere), 45 years.

Age can make a man wiser. But it doesn't necessarily make him wiser than another, younger man. Or woman.

I think Clinton is engaging in a very shortsighted strategy here. This 'experience' attack will be turned against her in the general election if she wins the nomination (and against Obama if she doesn't).

barfo

[crandc]

Originally Posted by Hector

You dislike all conspiracy theories, yet you're a sucker for rumors like that? Where on Earth did you read that? Link?

Like Barfo said, I was basing that on Clinton saying that she and McCain are qualified to be commander in chief, she and McCain have necessary experienced, and that in both cases Obama is not. The inference is pretty plain.

I mean, if I was part of an interview team at work, and I have been, and I said X and Y are qualified and have necessary experience but Z is not, the obvious conclusion would be hire X or Y but not Z, even if Z appears to be a popular choice.

[Dan]

Originally Posted by crandc

Like Barfo said, I was basing that on Clinton saying that she and McCain are qualified to be commander in chief, she and McCain have necessary experienced, and that in both cases Obama is not. The inference is pretty plain.

I mean, if I was part of an interview team at work, and I have been, and I said X and Y are qualified and have necessary experience but Z is not, the obvious conclusion would be hire X or Y but not Z, even if Z appears to be a popular choice.

That was one of the funniest things I heard (Clinton saying she was more qualified). The first thing I thought was that she was implying that McCain should be president since he has even more experience.

It's laughable that Clintons "experience" is more valid. She hasn't done anything to brag about, realistically.

[It's_GO_Time]

Originally Posted by Hap

It's laughable that Clintons "experience" is more valid. She hasn't done anything to brag about, realistically.

And yet she has done more than Obama . . . that is a scary thought when talking about the presidency.

[barfo]

Originally Posted by Kiss_My_Darius

And yet she has done more than Obama . . . that is a scary thought when talking about the presidency.

Only if you think being a senator for many years is necessary experience to be president. We've elected many presidents w/o any experience in the senate. With mixed results.

More generally, I saw a study the other day that compared historical rankings of presidents to number of years of government/military experience. There was no correlation. Some of the best presidents had very little experience (FDR, Lincoln) as did some of the worst (Bush, Carter). Some of the best presidents had lots of experience, as did some of the worst.

Experience in government or the military isn't what makes a president good (or bad).

barfo

[Hector]

True, experience is a fallible method by which to hire someone. But it's the best way we have. Can you describe a better hiring criterion?

[barfo]

Originally Posted by Hector

True, experience is a fallible method by which to hire someone. But it's the best way we have. Can you describe a better hiring criterion?

When I hire people I look for intelligence. Smart people generally make better employees. Experience is a positive, but it isn't the most important thing.

barfo

[It's_GO_Time]

Originally Posted by barfo

Only if you think being a senator for many years is necessary experience to be president. We've elected many presidents w/o any experience in the senate. With mixed results.

More generally, I saw a study the other day that compared historical rankings of presidents to number of years of government/military experience. There was no correlation. Some of the best presidents had very little experience (FDR, Lincoln) as did some of the worst (Bush, Carter). Some of the best presidents had lots of experience, as did some of the worst.

Experience in government or the military isn't what makes a president good (or bad).

barfo

Well if government experience doesn't really mean much . . . and personally I don't think the best public speaker is an indication of a good president . . . I guess it's time to break out the dart board and see who I hit . . . with my luck it will be McCain.

[mook]

Originally Posted by Kiss_My_Darius

Well if government experience doesn't really mean much . . . and personally I don't think the best public speaker is an indication of a good president . . . I guess it's time to break out the dart board and see who I hit . . . with my luck it will be McCain.

actually, come to think of it, being a good public speaker does seem to have a correlation with being a good president.

our best recent public speakers: Reagan, Clinton, JFK

our worst recent public speakers: Bush, Bush Jr, Nixon

correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, but it seems pretty obvious that to be a good leader to a massive number of people, you have to be able to talk to them.

I don't think it was any accident that Dubya was wildly popular right after 9/11. it's hard to remember that far back, but he gave some really good speeches in the few weeks following it that did a lot to unite the country.

[mook]

I think this is another reason I just don't see any hope for Hillary. she's a mediocre public speaker to start with, but it's made much worse because 40% of America wouldn't listen to her under any circumstance.

[It's_GO_Time]

Originally Posted by mook

actually, come to think of it, being a good public speaker does seem to have a correlation with being a good president.

our best recent public speakers: Reagan, Clinton, JFK

our worst recent public speakers: Bush, Bush Jr, Nixon

correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation, but it seems pretty obvious that to be a good leader to a massive number of people, you have to be able to talk to them.

I don't think it was any accident that Dubya was wildly popular right after 9/11. it's hard to remember that far back, but he gave some really good speeches in the few weeks following it that did a lot to unite the country.

I just got done listening to Bush address a NY club about the economy . . . and after that demonstration of public speaking by a president, I don't care if there is a correlation between being a good public speaker and a good president . . . I'm ready for a good public speaking president.

Obama's got my vote . . . until I read that thread about Obama being in trouble.

[barfo]

It does indeed make some sense that effective presidents are good speakers. Leadership is a big part of the job, and you can't lead people if you can't communicate.

barfo

[It's_GO_Time]

Thought I would bump this because the race is starting to heat up in Oregon.

Posters more in the know than me have convinced me there really is no race between Clinton and Obama . . . but the local press suggest otherwise. Maybe it is local media homerism, but I would like to think Oregon is going to have an impact on the nomination . . . it makes it more fun.

Hillary is calling for two public debates in Oregon . . . I'll settle for one.