What about Obama’s Inexperience?

Question

To be clear, I am NOT an Obama supporter, but I am curious why Obama's supporters ignore his inexperience and are determined to see him elected no matter what? What large business would hire an amateur to be CEO? Who would be willing to have an inexperienced doctor do surgery on them? Is our country not important enough to have a person with experience in the highest position in our country? What do you think?

Answer 1

Bill Clinton showed us that neither experience nor integrity have anything to do with being president. In fact, nothing at all that should be considered qualifications have anything to do with becoming president. It is now just a question of how many fools are out there.

Answer 2

Well ... Washington was quite inexperienced and he did a fine job didn't he?

Answer 3

Obama 08

Answer 4

I see many Americans are just tired of the current administration and wanted a change. Unfortunately, there are no compelling experienced and likeable candidates standing up to the challenge.

If you consider selecting a CEO, you would definitely need one with experience. With any decision, the impact of any chnage can be felt rather quickly from the performance of that organization.

In electing a president, I view this as a lower risk. Most changes needs to go through legislation or huge committees of experienced and capable people in the administration before being passed down as law or regulation. As such, as long as he is guided in passing the direction and his staff works out the fine details, the country would not be impacted as drastically. Being 'green' when Bush started, poorly aware of the names of the political leaders, did get him into some embarassing situations but the execution of policies do get its fair share of the experts guidance during his administration. So a lot depends on who will be in Obama's team of advisers. The unfortunate thing in most countries is that no one has any say on who the president selects for the members in his cabinet.

Answer 5

Let me tell you a little something about experience when it comes to being President of the United States.  James Buchanan, the fifteenth president, entered office in 1857 with over thirty years of experience in both domestic and foreign affairs,  He served two years as a Pennsylvania state Representative, ten years as a US Representative, and eleven years in the US Senate.  He was the abassador to Russia for two years and the ambassador to Britain for three years.  He also served for four years as Secretary of State under Polk.  Yet even with all this experience, Buchanan is usually rated by historians as one of the worst, if not the worst, president in American history.

Now, contrast that with Buchanan's successor, Abraham Lincoln, a man known for his oratory, but also someone considered to be an outsider.  Lincoln had served for a few years as a state representative and a few more as a US Representative.  He was not responsible for any significant legislation, and the one thing he is known by history for during this time, his "spot resolutions, were little noticed at the time.  In fact, Lincoln was a virtual unknown until the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1856, when Lincoln ran (unsuccessfully) against Dougas for the Senate.  Yet despite his lack of experience, Lincoln is generally considered to be one of the greatest, if not the greatest, of all American presidents.

Now, this does not mean that because Obama is less experienced than McCain that Obama would make a better president.  It simply means that just because McCain has more experience in government doesn't mean he would make a better president, either.  And as someone else pointed out here, Washington had no experience in government at all, and he didn't do to shabbily.

Answer 6

Inexperienced? I'd rather have someone who's hasn't been proven a total failure over someone that has. McCain's experience as a pilot: KAMIKAZE. If you don't have a high enough IQ to know what that means, experience doesn't matter.

Answer 7

this should show other countries that we want to be a door mat just like in the 70s we are heading in the wrong direction if we elect obama. jimmy carter liked to kiss the feet of other countries and look at what happened

Answer 8

I completely agree with you. The problem is the Democrats pick losers. With the exception of Bill Clinton the Democrats since Johnson have not been too successful. Take a look a George McGovern he could not win his home state and lost 49 states to Nixon. Mondale did not do much better. Dukakis was blown out of the water at the last minute with Willie Horton and Carter was a joke. Kerry was a mistake and now Obama. Personally I do not see much difference between Obama, McGovern, and Dukakis. Hopefully after Obama looses the Democrats will do a rethink about putting forward candidates that are too 'left-wing' and cannot connect with the majority of Americans who do not share their ideals.

Answer 9

The entire political scene needs to be revamped. Maybe you are not aware of it, but many Americans abroad don't like to have their noses rubbed into the fact that their country's arrogant foreign policies offend the rest of the nations on this planet. Obama has been the first candidate that has openly recognized there is something wrong with it. Obama is not a product of the old moldy establishment that runs this country. Maybe we do need a breath of fresh air, and experience is not all, after all, Presidents have the benefit of plenty of advisors, and as the world changes, so should we.

Answer 10

You raise an excellent point.  I am absolutely shocked that there are so many Americans enamored by Obama's  presence.  His service as senator shows little activity, and his associations are found to be criminals or antagonists.  

I wonder if the far left, want a puppet president to control their interests. Middle Americans will be paying for all those Obama programs.  I want to yell out, "Wake up, people!"

Answer 11

what about mc cains senility.