additionally - you can't ignore the campaigns. Obama's mobilization and success in both raising funds and the level of approach to his campaign, the completeness and the organization - speaks volumes. Imagine how effectively the state dept and the administration could be run. You really get the feeling he'd bring in the best people and they'd really be motivated to do a great job. To me, you can't discount that leadership factor. I mean, it's not like the president gets their hands dirty and writes and economic policy or actually goes in and writes the budget - it's the people around them that do it in away to capture a vision. The president has to set the vision and ensure the people around them execute it well and close to perfection, with sound thinking and judgement. So far, Obama has outclassed both mccain and hillary in this area.
We're not talking about superdelegates - we're talking about the ones that are pledged. Do you know the hellish uproar that would occur if someone won by flipping those people with bribes (promises of appointments, etc)? It would be the beginning of the end of the Democratic Party. It would be like Gore trying to convince a few of the delegates from Texas to not for for Bush in the electoral college vote and flipping that vote to him. No, I don't believe everyone tries that kind of garbage. And to Hillary's credit, she's said she won't either.
I think Obama's lack of experience will be a legitimate issue in the general campaign against McCain, who has a long record at that level with major legislation and well-known bi-partisan successes. My point on that is that, in comparison to Hillary, there's simply not that much difference on the experience issue.
Yeah I agree. McCain's experience >>>> Obama's experience. McCain's experience >>> Hillary's experience. They simply can't compete with McCain on experience. However, with the way the country is leaning right now, I think both Obama and Hillary have a pretty good shot of winning in the general election. I think the key will be Obama's charisma. As a Republican (really more of an economic Libertarian), I am torn on what to do. Voting for McCain is basically a waste since he already has things pretty much locked up. I would vote for Obama because his social programs are slightly less big-government than Hillary's. I would vote for Hillary because I think she has a worse shot of winning against McCain. I don't even like McCain (I was a Romney fan among the mainstream candidates, Ron Paul would be my actual favorite). Basically, I have to decide whether or not the McCain has a realistic shot of winning against Hillary. If the answer is no then I want Obama. Anyone share similar sentiments?
To quote Reagan though the facts are stubborn things. Obama, 8 years state senate, 2 years US. Clinton 8 years US senate, 8 years in the whitehouse, as essentially a senior advisor. Just taking the Senate experience alone Clinton has 4 times as much national experience.
as much as people think the excitment of obama is ridiculous, counting hillary's eight years of marriage to a president as experience is ridiculous.
Do you deny that Hillary didn't act as a senior advisor to the President and that her term as first lady was unlike any? Its interesting how Obama supporters will criticize Hillary's major role in the whitehouse and then dismiss her as only being married to the President.
wife to the president is not a role in the white house. nacy reagan was an outspoke first lady. first ladies have initiatives. its more of a legacy than policy. outside of her health care, no I don't think hillary was an advisor to clinton. and i'm trying not to be mean, but lets not ignore the nature of their relationship in general.
If that's the way you feel then don't criticize Hillary on her role in the Whitehouse, which Obama supporters frequently do. You can't have it both ways. Anyway that still doesn't address that Hillary has more senatorial experience and has won two senate elections or that Hillary has more DC experience including having served as an aide to the Watergate Committee.
what am i trying to have both ways, her experience in the white house as first lady doesn't count. there is no credible argument you can make, you claim she was an advisor but that is just your claim. i'm not trying to count any experience obama has as a husband.
I'm not saying hillary has a lack of experience for the job or acumen like bush did, but let me ask you this, who do you think would have had a harder time being senator if they weren't married to their spouse. I know hillary is a very accomplished woman, who takes politics seriously, but talk about having it both ways, I don't know if hillary would be a senator if she weren't bill's wife
dont forget about her 6 years experience on the board of directors of wal-mart and than the fact that her husbands trade policies ended up directly benefiting them while doing great harm to the american worker.
It goes both ways though would Hillary have such negatives if her last name hadn't been "Clinton." I won't deny that Hillary benefitted greatly from being married to Bill but at the same time its hard to think about a freshman US Senator who came in with such opposition including promises from the leadership to marginalize her.
A campaign though isn't necessarily the judge of how someone will govern. GW Bush in 2000 had an almost masterful campaign even extending to the post election fight over the recounts that still didn't translate into running an Admin.. While there are similarities between campaign and governance there are distinct differences. IN regard to Obama one thing that I've frequently brought up is that while Obama delivers great stump speeches that inspire and attract a lot of support how are those stump speeches going to translate when he has to win over Congress or foreign governments? I just don't see telling the PRC "Yes we can!" is going to convince them to revalue their currency or pull back from the Spratly islands.
would hillary have even been elected to the senate if her last name wasnt clinton? has there ever been some who won a senate seat in a state that they just moved into?
no, the american worker was losing his/her job long before nafta. companies don't need nafta to move jobs away. nafta has nothing to do with india, yet when you call gateway for a problem with your pc, its likely that's where the person you are talking to is.
Its a side debate since both Hillary Clinton and Obama have basically the same position on trade, which for the record I don't fully agree with either, but in the long run I don't believe NAFTA harmed the American worker. It certainly harmed sectors of the American worker but I would say that years of inefficient business practices had already harmed them already. Protecting uncompetitive business practices IMO is not the way to help the US workforce.
The problem with the "experience" card is the experience is with the federal government. All branches have terrible favorability ratings. As an analogy it would be somewhat like arguing you have executive and accounting experience with the great company of Enron. (slight stretch, but you get the point). Obama is certaiunly less experienced than Hillary or McCain (and I think either one between these two can say they are more experienced than one another, McCain after all has never had a role with the executive part of government. In the senate you can kind of pick and choose issues and have time to deliberate, McCain has all but admitted he doesn't know much about domestic issues "but knows people who do"). It would take a great scare of the American people (real or trumped up foreign threat crises) I think for McCain to win because of "experience" over Obama, just as Hillary hasn't got much traction on this versus him. I will say one more thing. Experience usually also includes a heavy dose of the status quo and trading favors over the years. McCain is kind of an exception, and why as conservative as the majority of his beliefs, and votes, really are, you see all this major resentment and protest among suppposed "conservatives". I don't see how someone with a strait face can compare the role of Hillary as 1st lady to Nancy or Barbara or Laura. She was publically in charge of specific policy issues. Could anyone with a strait face discount she was one of the 10 most influential persons within Bill's admin (among Gore, George S, Cristopher/Albnght, Reno, Carville, Gergen, Rubin, Panetta?). That is even a low ball. I would say basically she was somewhere with the #2 to #5 person. So yes that is experience. And all those people she knows as part of that administration/1st lady role is relevant. NAFTA and agreements like it are more or less (with slight modifications) inevitable to a country who wants to continue economic expansion. Also the effect on Wal-Mart on American workers isn't simple--just look at the amount of low income shoppers there who clearly believe they are benefiting by spending their wages there. So these are much more complicated issues than protectionistic rhetoric would let on, though perhaps modest improvements are possible through policy (e.g., mandate greater health benefits covered by Wal-Mart for their employees; free trade agreements that are more "free" than others).
