PDA

View Full Version : What kind of "experience" does a candidate need to be "experienced"?


irishjayhawk
03-01-2008, 12:28 AM
Just curious.

JohnnyV13
03-01-2008, 01:04 AM
He needs expertise in receiving bjs in the office.

mlyonsd
03-01-2008, 07:49 AM
Just curious.

I think "experience" is just an over used buzz word during a presidential election. I don't think there's a job in the world that would give you all the "experience" necessary to help you out on day one of becoming the president.

For me, "character", is a much more determining factor when I'm in the voting booth.

BucEyedPea
03-01-2008, 10:30 AM
For one, experience at stealing property would be vital in this say an age.
'Er I mean legal plunder.

Baby Lee
03-01-2008, 10:35 AM
For one, experience at stealing property would be vital in this say an age.
'Er I mean legal plunder.

Yes, but do you also mean 'day and age?'

FAX
03-01-2008, 10:47 AM
There are all kinds of "experience". There's job experience, life experience, educational experience, and spiritual experience. Some of that might actually come in handy when carrying out one's presidential duties.

And then there's dancing about the fire with a pig skull on your head and an hallucinating, spirit-possessed, African soothsayer in tow experience. That's what I look for in a leader.

FAX

Baby Lee
03-01-2008, 10:52 AM
There are all kinds of "experience". There's job experience, life experience, educational experience, and spiritual experience. Some of that might actually come in handy when carrying out one's presidential duties.

And then there's dancing about the fire with a pig skull on your head and an hallucinating, spirit-possessed, African soothsayer in tow experience. That's what I look for in a leader.

FAX

I think Kevin Costner once danced around a campfire with a buffalo femur in his hand, with the knowing eyes of his wolf buddy taking it all in.

Could be wrong about the femur, though.

BucEyedPea
03-01-2008, 10:53 AM
Yes, but do you also mean 'day and age?'


Waa! Yes. I just saw that typo and was about to edit...then there was YOU when I scrolled down.:(

HolmeZz
03-01-2008, 06:42 PM
Strict 'Washington' experience is overrated. All you need to know in that respect is how DC works. You don't have to be there 10 years to know.

The most important part of being President is having sound judgment and surrounding yourself with the right knowledgeable people. It's why they have advisors for all these different affairs. A President doesn't do everything by themselves.

whoman69
03-01-2008, 07:28 PM
Experience is one thing. Buchanan and Hoover had tons of experience when they became President. Anyone want to talk about Abe Lincoln's experience? The next President will need to show they have the leadership to set the nation back on a solid course. Experience can be offset if one has good advisors that can be trusted.

Jenson71
03-01-2008, 08:00 PM
Herbert Hoover was the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and the head of the American Food Administration before being president. He was never a governor, senator, congressmen, lawyer, judge. Not even at the state level.

Adept Havelock
03-01-2008, 08:28 PM
Herbert Hoover was the U.S. Secretary of Commerce and the head of the American Food Administration before being president. He was never a governor, senator, congressmen, lawyer, judge. Not even at the state level.

Ladies and Gentlemen, Hoobert Heever.

Taco John
03-01-2008, 11:33 PM
My wife works in human resources, and at the end of the day, who do you think the first person she bitches about her day to?

That pretty much makes me qualified to work in Human Resources, wouldn't you think. We're talking years of experience here.

banyon
03-02-2008, 10:53 AM
Does Experience Matter in a President?
Thursday, Feb. 28, 2008 By DAVID VON DREHLE

A story is often told at times like this — times when American voters are choosing among candidates richly seasoned with political experience and those who are less experienced but perhaps more exciting alternatives. Once upon a time, the torch was passed to a new generation of Americans, and a charismatic young President, gifted as a speechmaker but little tested as an executive, was finding his way through his first 100 days. On Day 85, he stumbled, and the result for John F. Kennedy was the disastrous Bay of Pigs.
Podcast

The Experience Argument

History shows that when it comes to the presidency, experience doesn't guarantee success.

The Science of Experience

Would you prefer a doctor who has practiced medicine for 30 years or just 10? Research into expert performance shows that the choice isn't simple
Hillary’s Quandary on the Campaign


For scholars of the presidency, Kennedy's failure to scuttle or fix the ill-conceived invasion of Cuba is a classic case of the insufficiency of charisma alone. No quips, grins or flights of rhetoric would do. Kennedy needed on-the-job training, as he later admitted to a friend: "Presumably, I was going to learn these lessons sometime, and maybe better sooner than later." Unfortunately, when a President gets an education, we all pay the tuition.

Barack Obama basks in comparisons to J.F.K., but this is one he'd rather avoid. In the run-up to what could be the decisive contests for the Democratic nomination, Obama's relatively light political résumé — eight years as an Illinois legislator and three years in the U.S. Senate — continues to be the focus of his rivals' attacks. Hillary Clinton advertises her seven years in the Senate and two terms as First Lady, saying "I am ready to lead on Day One." And the message has gotten through: by clear margins, voters rate her as the more experienced of the two candidates. The fact that this hasn't stopped Obama's momentum doesn't mean he's heard the last of it — not with John McCain, who has spent 26 years on Capitol Hill, the likely Republican nominee. "I'm not the youngest candidate. But I am the most experienced," says McCain. "I know how the world works."

Obama's credentials would be an issue in any election year. He would be sworn in at age 47, making him one of the youngest Presidents in history, and would arrive in the Oval Office with less executive experience than most of his predecessors. Depending on what your leanings are, you could compare his work history — lawyer, state legislator, Washington short-timer, orator — to Abraham Lincoln's, or to a thousand forgotten figures in politicalgraveyard.com. The question of experience takes on added bite this year, though, because the next President will inherit a troubled and menacing satchel of problems. From the Iraq tightrope to the stumbling economy, from the China challenge to the health-care mess, from loose nukes to oil dependence to (some things never change) Cuba policy — the next President will be tossed a couple dozen flaming torches at the end of the inaugural parade, and it would be helpful to know that this person has juggled before.

But if one moral of the Bay of Pigs is "Beware of charisma" or "Timeworn trumps callow," what do we make of the mistakes and miscalculations of deeply experienced leaders? Franklin D. Roosevelt's failed court-packing scheme, for example, or Woodrow Wilson's postwar foreign policy? For that matter, Kennedy would not have faced such a harsh early tutorial if the venerable warrior and statesman Dwight D. Eisenhower had not allowed the Cuba-invasion plan to be put in motion during the last of his eight years as President.

Wouldn't it be nice if time on the job and tickets punched translated neatly into superior performance? Then finding great Presidents would be a simple matter of weighing résumés. Take a Democrat like Bill Richardson — experienced in Congress, in the Cabinet, as a diplomat and governor — and have him run against Republican Tom Ridge, a former soldier, governor and Director of Homeland Security, with the winner chosen by a blue-ribbon commission of all-purpose elders. The Danforth-Mitchell commission, perhaps, or O'Connor-Albright. But it has never worked that way, which is why Lincoln's statue occupies a marble temple on the Mall in Washington, while his far more experienced rival William Seward has a little seat on a pedestal in New York City. "Experience never exists in isolation; it is always a factor that coexists with temperament, training, background, spiritual outlook and a host of other factors," says presidential historian Richard Norton Smith. "Character is your magic word, it seems to me — not just what they've done but how they've done it and what they've learned from doing it."

There's something egglike about the concept of experience as a qualification for the highest office. At first blush, the idea appears to be something you can get your hands around. Presidential experience means a familiarity with the levers and dials of government, knowing how to cajole the Congress, understanding when to rely on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and when to call on the National Security Council — that sort of thing. But bear down even slightly, and the notion of experience is liable to crack and run all over. If knowing the system is so useful, then second-term presidencies should be more successful than first-term. Instead, many Presidents lose effectiveness as they go along. Lyndon Johnson, for example: his experience as a master legislator no doubt helped as he steered his historic civil rights and welfare agenda to passage. By the end of two years as President, however, "he was out of gas," recalls Johnson aide Harry McPherson. The longer Johnson was in the Oval Office, the more feckless his presidency became.

Was it Franklin Roosevelt's experience as governor of New York that gave him the power to inspire in some of the nation's darkest hours? Or was that gift a distillate of his dauntless battle with polio? To a keen student of human nature, all of life offers lessons in how to lead, inspire and endure. Lincoln's ability to apply useful lessons from his motley experiences was among his most striking traits. When Ulysses Grant explained his grand strategy to defeat Lee by attacking on multiple fronts, Lincoln immediately thought of a lesson in joint operations learned years earlier on the farm. "Those not skinning can hold a leg," he said approvingly. For other temperaments, no amount of schooling, no matter how specific, will do. Richard Nixon served as a Congressman, Senator and Vice President; he watched from the front row as Eisenhower assembled one of the best-organized administrations in history. When Nixon's turn came, though, his core character — insecure, insincere, conspiratorial — led him to create a White House doomed by its own dysfunction.

Experience, in other words, gets its value from the person who has it. In certain lives, a little goes a long way. Some people grow and ripen through years of government service; others spoil on the vine. At the same time, the value that voters place on résumé is constantly shifting. James A. Baker III is an authority on this. In 1980, he managed the campaign of his well-credentialed friend George H.W. Bush, under the slogan "A President we won't have to train." But the public mood was sour on Washington, and victory went to an outsider, Ronald Reagan, who had never served in Washington. Eight years later, the mood was stay the course, and Bush's experience as Vice President was his ticket to victory. Then the atmosphere turned again, and in 1992 the public demanded someone new. Baker, a former Secretary of State, still believes that a candidate with credentials should certainly tout them, but in the end, "there's no such thing as presidential experience outside of the office itself." The quality we ought to seek "is leadership."

Countless words have been devoted to the presidency, and still its dimensions remain indescribable. Two words that recur poignantly are power and loneliness. Former White House chief of staff Leon Panetta recalls a moment in 1994 that for him expresses the intersection of these burdens and the essence of the office. Bill Clinton had called for a military dictator in Haiti to step down, and the crisis had ratcheted up to the point where "the ships were moving, the Navy SEALs were on alert." Some of the most experienced statesmen in Washington "were all standing around the desk saying to Clinton, 'You've got to make a decision.'" (After Clinton ordered the 82nd Airborne Division to start flying toward Haiti, the dictator backed down.) A President can take counsel from the most eminent advisers in the world, but in the end, only the President can make the fateful decisions. Some decisions are too hard or too weighty to be made at a lower level. "It's about that moment," Panetta says — that decisive moment.

When Americans pass over the best-credentialed candidates because their heart or their gut leads them elsewhere, they are only reflecting a visceral understanding that the presidency involves tests unlike all others. They are, perhaps, seeking the ineffable quality the writer Katherine Anne Porter had in mind when she defined experience as "the truth that finally overtakes you." An ideal President is both ruthless and compassionate, visionary and pragmatic, cunning and honest, patient and bold, combining the eloquence of a psalmist with the timing of a jungle cat. Not exactly the sort of data you can find on a résumé.

With reporting by Tiffany Sharples/New York

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1717926-2,00.html

memyselfI
03-02-2008, 11:05 AM
There are all kinds of "experience". There's job experience, life experience, educational experience, and spiritual experience. Some of that might actually come in handy when carrying out one's presidential duties.

And then there's dancing about the fire with a pig skull on your head and an hallucinating, spirit-possessed, African soothsayer in tow experience. That's what I look for in a leader.

FAX

You are not speaking about the Chosen One? Are you.

FWIW, I don't think any particular experience makes you qualified for the WH but I to think prior experience in the WH makes the learning curve alot less than those who go there wide-eyed and completely dependent on their staff to inform them WTF is going on. That doesn't necessarily mean having been POTUS or related to one. That just means having the exposure to how things work.

banyon
03-02-2008, 11:07 AM
You are not speaking about the Chosen One? Are you.

FWIW, I don't think any particular experience makes you qualified for the WH but I to think prior experience in the WH makes the learning curve alot less than those who go there wide-eyed and completely dependent on their staff to inform them WTF is going on. That doesn't necessarily mean having been POTUS or related to one. That just means having the exposure to how things work.

Are you trying to say that any of these three candidates has that kind of experience?

memyselfI
03-02-2008, 11:10 AM
Are you trying to say that any of these three candidates has that kind of experience?

I think McCain and Hillary do because they've been in a close proximity to the WH over their careers. Has Obamessiah actually ever been TO the WH besides the welcoming luncheon for new congress members?

My point is that all the experience FAX mentioned is valuable. But I do think those who have been around awhile and have an idea of how things work have less learning curve and that is an asset. And not one that can easily be duplicated.

HolmeZz
03-02-2008, 11:11 AM
I think McCain and Hillary do because they've been in a close proximity to the WH over their careers. Has Obamessiah actually ever been TO the WH besides the welcoming luncheon for new congress members?

My point is that all the experience FAX mentioned is valuable. But I do think those who have been around awhile and have an idea of how things work have less learning curve and that is an asset.

SO WHY DID YOU SUPPORT JOHN EDWARDS

banyon
03-02-2008, 11:33 AM
I think McCain and Hillary do because they've been in a close proximity to the WH over their careers. Has Obamessiah actually ever been TO the WH besides the welcoming luncheon for new congress members?

My point is that all the experience FAX mentioned is valuable. But I do think those who have been around awhile and have an idea of how things work have less learning curve and that is an asset. And not one that can easily be duplicated.

I don't think we have had any president who fits "close proximity to the WH" since Nixon. I assume that the White House Chef would be qualified to run for POTUS, but a five term governor would not?

Baby Lee
03-02-2008, 11:53 AM
I don't think we have had any president who fits "close proximity to the WH" since Nixon. I assume that the White House Chef would be qualified to run for POTUS, but a five term governor would not?

GHWB?

banyon
03-02-2008, 11:54 AM
GHWB?

Oh, yeah, I forget about him sometimes.

irishjayhawk
03-02-2008, 12:02 PM
As I said in another thread, I've only really gotten a list like this:

1) Must have served in the military.
2) Must have more than 1 term in the government

Now, I don't understand either of those. Why should someone HAD to have served in the military? And why do they need more 1 term in the government? So they can get in bed with lobbyists? Become corrupt? How many politicians have we seen die inside DC? Why do they need "experience" there if we've seen it's effects first hand? Why do they need to subject themselves to being called flip floppers for voting one way - without being able to say why - while in DC?

Both the reasons that people spout don't seem sufficient.

HolmeZz
03-02-2008, 12:40 PM
I think it's quite clear Obama is ready.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/8WJsuM19-8c"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8WJsuM19-8c" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

StcChief
03-02-2008, 01:11 PM
I think it's quite clear Obama is ready.

<object height="355" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/8WJsuM19-8c" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="355" width="425"></object>to back to being the Junior Senator from Illinois

memyselfI
03-02-2008, 02:43 PM
GHWB?

GWB for that matter. He certainly had the luxury of having 12 years of exposure to the WH so when he got there it wasn't like he'd been there for the first time.

SNR
03-02-2008, 02:50 PM
I think it's quite clear Obama is ready.

Yeesh, that's cheesy.

HolmeZz
03-02-2008, 03:47 PM
Yeesh, that's cheesy.

Almost as cheesy as a blimp.

a1na2
03-02-2008, 03:56 PM
Just curious.

I don't think that's the case but ..

Experience in an elected position. Which means that Hillary's claim of 35 years experience is absolutely bogus. I don't mean to minimize what she did in her responsiblities but her experience was not in determining policy for the U.S. government as the first lady, that also falls back to being the first lady of Arkansas.

She and Obama are both junior senators and even though they may be considered good at their positions it is not the type of experience that one could have any confidence in when determining their fitness to be the POTUS.

I do not think McCain is any better as a candidate but he does have more experience with leadership in an elected office.