The Experience Factor - Edwards weakness

[jcrew2001]

I'm favoring Edwards, but what could kill him is his lack of experience. But compared to the other candidates, his 6 years in the Senate isn't that bad.

Hillary - just finished her first 6 year term
Obama - only 2 years Senate
Clark - general, no elected exp

No chance - but lots of experience:
Vilasck - 8 years as governor
Biden - forever in Senate
Dodd - forever?
Richardson - 2 terms as governor, almost

Wildcard:
Kerry - again, I don't think he has a chance at the nom again, but unless Gore enters the race, no one else looks as good on paper.

Repubs:
McCain - forever
Mitt - only 1 four year term
Brownback - don't care
Huckabee - 8 years a governor i think
Rudy - no chance, 8 years mayor

[Ignacio Upton]

1. Richardson was also U.N. Ambassador, a Congressman, and Energy Secretary

He looks the best on paper, but I'm not thrilled about him either.

[jcrew2001]

21. NM

Richardson is an interesting candidate. I don't think he will run against Hillary - he's part of the team Clinton. I would not be surprised if he was put on the VP slot, he would be a great VP and campaigner and he might help win Florida.

[BeatleBoot]

2. That Experience Factor Really Hampered "W" - Didn't It?

[elocs]

11. Exactly. What were Bush's wealth of qualifications

that entitled him to his party's nomination? Serving as a weak governor in the state of Texas?

[jcrew2001]

22. bush

His qualifications was he had the same name as his dad.

[paulk]

28. it was a different time

We'd just had eight years of peace and properity under Clinton. People were more concerned with Presidential blowjobs than Presidential experience.

Experience, imo, will be a big issue in the next election...

[illinoisprogressive]

3. Obama has 12 years in govenment and was a constitutional professor at harvard

[BeatleBoot]

4. Thank you.

[Nedsdag]

5. The University of Chicago, not Harvard. n/t

[ripple]

25. Yep, president of the Harvard Law Review n/t

[FrenchieCat]

6. So I guess then, the question becomes....

what did all of those you have listed done in their years of experience at whatever they were doing?

What notable feat did they accomplish, what legislation did they advance, what did they focus on? What difference did they make?

Cause it's just quantity but most important is quality of service.

Hillary - First Lady 8 years, 6 years Senate
Obama - 8 years State Senate, 2 years Senate
Edwards - 6 years Senate
Clark - 34 years serving his country, 6 more yrs serving on his own dime, never elected.
Vilsack - 5 years mayor, 6 years state Senate, 8 years governor
Biden - 35 years senate
Dodd - 7 years congress, 26 years senate
Richardson - 5 years congress, 1 year UN Ambassador, 3 years Sec of Energy, Gov 4 years served
Kerry - Served in the military service, 23 years Senate
Kucinich - Mayor 1 year, 9 years congress

Repubs:
McCain - Served in military service, 6 years pow, 4 years congress, 20 years Senate
Mitt - 4 years governor
Brownback - 1 year congress, 11 years senate
Huckabee - 10 years governor (was appointed, then elected to 2 terms)
Rudy - 8 years mayor

[dsc]

47. Kucinich served a full term as mayor not 1 year

I think 4 but it might have been 2.

[Clarkie1]

7. Why does anyone need elected experience?

We have had many great presidents who held no previous political office.

Edwards weakness is not that he doesn't have much political experience, it's that he doesn't have experience in postions of leadership and his education as a trial lawyer is not what is needed in a Commander in Chief.

[ArkySue]

8. Need Foreign Policy/Diplomacy experience.

Edwards is weak in those areas, as are some of the others. Look at the candidates with that in mind and you get a whole new ballgame.

[FrenchieCat]

9. Add Foreign policy experience as a requirement,

and the chart looks like this!

Clark - 34 years serving his country, 6 more yrs serving on his own dime, never elected.
Biden - 35 years senate
Dodd - 7 years congress, 26 years senate
Richardson - 5 years congress, 1 year UN Ambassador, 3 years Sec of Energy, Gov 4 years served
Kerry - Served in the military service, 23 years Senate

Repubs:
McCain - Served in military service, 6 years pow, 4 years congress, 20 years Senate

add negotiating peace treaties....and it gets smaller still!

Clark - 34 years serving his country, 6 more yrs serving on his own dime, never elected.
Richardson - 5 years congress, 1 year UN Ambassador, 3 years Sec of Energy, Gov 4 years served

[Beer Snob-50]

16. how many of our stronger past presidents have this experience?

you have to surround yourself with those strong in these fields.

[Jai4WKC08]

45. FDR, Ike, Nixon maybe, Bush41

FDR had the leadership of being governor, and the international view from being Sec of the Navy -- back when it was its own cabinet position, and actually the primary military service for backing up diplomacy, since the Army couldn't reach very far.

Eisenhower of course was Supreme Allied Commander, like Clark, and never elected to anything before the presidency. But he knew war & peace, how to work with allies, leadership of large bureaucratic organizations. He managed to end the fighting in Korea, and kept us from nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union -- while Stalin was their leader, that was a fairly big accomplishment. He also presided over some pretty good years economically. Wasn't afraid to use the military to enforce civil rights. Not the perfect president, but we could have done a lot worse.

Nixon was in Congress and Ike's VP. I was pretty young back then, but I seem to remember Nixon doing a lot of globe-hopping for Ike, whose health was never very good. OK, so Nixon was a crappy president overall, but he kept detante with Soviets going and got a good start on a relationship with China.

Bush41 was also in Congress (just a term or two in the House), head of the CIA for a very short time, and VP for Reagan. I don't think he got to do as much with foreign policy as Nixon did for Ike, but I might be misremembering. Also not a very good president, but at least when he took us to war, it was for specific attainable objectives and, in the case of the Gulf War, with UN sanction and a broad coalition that included most of the Arab countries. He also saw the downfall of the Soviet Union and managed not to get too entangled in the troubles of Eastern Europe during that time. I shudder to consider how his son might have handled it.

[Pithy Cherub]

48. Thomas Jefferson was Secretary of State

elected Virginian, and an author of the founding documents based on his strength of knowledge of world affairs. Jefferson brought a renaissance quality to the presidency that allowed him to shrewdly negotiate the Louisiana Purchase and get those two guys go off and explore, Lewis and Clark.

Theodore Roosevelt was in the military and to this day people remeber him as one of the Rough Riders. His world experience established him as a VP candidate that was prepared to assume the presidency with harrison's death,

Woodrow Wilson had a lifetime of service as a democrat and though a very mixed record put together the League of Nations which was the forerunner to the United Nations.

Of course James Madison was no slouch in the experience department and was as instrumental as Jefferson in crafting the documents based on his world experience for the operation of this country.

John Adams though he hated every minute of it did his tour in European settings that helped forge his presidency and greatly informed his post presidency period.

James Earl Carter spent many a day in Admiral Rickover's elite submarine unit learning about the world. His first trip was several years before his run for the presidency as Governor to meet with the Prime minister of Israel. Carter has lifelong devotion to forging peace and had the military experience in his repertoire.

All in all, most presidencies were based on a wide range of experience that many people conveniently forget in today's political environment. ;)

[SharonRB]

39. Ding, ding, ding

It's what I've been saying for a long time. A lot of those people would be fine on domestic issues, but foreign policy/diplomacy is going to be crucial this time around, and Edwards just doesn't have the experience in that area.

[Clark2008]

59. Sharon, did I tell you that you were my favorite!

(Hat tip to Botany).

But, seriously, that's just the way I feel.

Can we have Gore or Clark, please? :hug:

[Eurobabe]

10. Sorry, Kerry is not going to be the nominee

His chance came and went. No bashing, just the truth. New ideas needed.

[blm]

19. The new idea needed was the DNC's 50state strategy to replace the targetted state strategy

that had been in place since the mid90s and caused the collapse of the party's infrastructure in too many states, even crucial ones like Ohio.

[jcrew2001]

20. 50

Does anyone know if their state has improved turnout specifically from these party organizers. I live in the Northeast, so I don't have any first-hand experience.

[blm]

24. I live in NC.

Our Dem HQ in 2003-4 was the backroom of a flower shop - yet we were in a densely populated city. Dean gave this county plenty of support when he became chair. Today the HQ is in its own building.

When I was in SC during 2000 and 2002 elections, Horry County didn't even HAVE a Dem office at all. The nominee needs a party infrastructure in place to tap INTO, not form on the fly in every red county 6 months ahead of the election.

[paulk]

30. actually, it is bashing

this thread is not about Kerry. There's no reason for you to make a post like your's in this thread, unless the purpose is to bash or start a flame war.

[politicasista]

32. Exactly

This thread was about experience, not who gets the nominee.

[zulchzulu]

38. Some peeps get their hands all sweaty on the keys when they see Kerry's name...

...and then they lay out nothing but unfounded personal opinion that they think is "fact"...

[cassiepriam]

12. I like Edwards, but we face a serious national crisis today. We need experience.

We need a known commodity.

PS And also no more governors with a lack of international experience.

[Digit]

43. I like the skillset he possesses as an attorney negotiating with people

We need some serious negotiation skills in the WH, not just bombing the hell out of people.

This is a quality I believe John Edwards possesses. Listen to his speeches...he knows how to talk to people. It is a SKILL, and not something you can randomly assign a badge of honor just because you have DONE it before.

[sendero]

13. Honestly...

.. I don't think the American electorate gives a flying flip about experience.

And personally, I pretty much agree. This isn't programming computers, it's leadership and most leaders are mostly born, not made IMHO.

[wyldwolf]

14. On paper, or in blind resume tests, Richardson looks like the best candidate

Lack of experience will be the factors for Obama and Edwards. While Clinton is also inexperienced, she is perceived as having loads of it because the rightwing convinced everyone she was calling the shots in the White House.

Based on experience AND things people may be looking for in a candidate, I think Richardson/Clark would be the best ticket on paper.

Western and Southern states.

Tons of governing, diplomatic, and defense credentials.

[jcrew2001]

23. fighter

I think Hillary's chances are good is because she is a fighter and will fight back against everyone including the VRWC. She'll prove to the country that she has the "balls" to be president.

[sandnsea]

33. He is good on paper

That is very true. He's personable too. Still, he just doesn't exude "President". I don't really know why I don't like Richardson more, he just doesn't have any inspiring vision of change that I can see so far.

[SharonRB]

40. If Gore doesn't run

I think Richardson may just be the stealth candidate.

[bigdarryl]

15. As Obama says its JUDGEMENT not experience that counts Cheney and Runsfield...

had tons of experience and look what it got us.

[Catchawave]

44. Judgement, vision and compassion !

I agree with Obama....

I don't want my President to be a boorish lout who *thinks* he knows everything then we get another "Decider". I want one with the judgement to select and surround himself with the best people AND LISTEN TO THEM :D

[Jai4WKC08]

52. It ain't either/or...

That's a false choice. No one is saying you have to pick candidate A who has judgment but no experience, or candidate B who has experience but no judgment, and no one else.

No reason we can't have judgment AND experience. And vision and compassion too.

Why should we accept less?

[bigdarryl]

17. Vilsack was also Mayor for eight years before he was Governor

[jcrew2001]

18. National experience

We're used to seeing national politicians with either washington experience or executive/governor experience.

Although Edwards only served 1 term, it was still 6 years, which is longer than mitt romney and the same as George W in Texas.

I think that the "Lack of Experience" label on Edwards isn't accurate because its now been 8 years that he's worked on National Issues both in Washington and outside of it.

If he can study up and convince voters he has the foreign policy aptitude, which he is already doing, then he can become a real solid Presidential Candidate.

Obama's only 2 years in the Senate and I personally don't count the Illinois state legislature because I'm not from Illinois and its small time.

Vilsack as mayor doesn't count for me either.

The only serious "Its my time candidates" are McCain, Kerry (again), Biden (maybe), Dodd.

[AtomicKitten]

26. the bottom line

and as HRC said, the voters will decide ... as it should be.

[generaldemocrat]

27. When it comes to EXECUTIVE experience.......

Gore and Clark are the leaders in that regard.

[AtomicKitten]

29. I absolutely agree.

:)

[politicasista]

31. There are other good qualifed people to join them n/t

[Jai4WKC08]

50. Richardson and Vilsack

None of the others have jack for executive experience.

Not advocating those two. Don't know enough about Vilsack and have lately read some major negatives about Richardson. But at least running a state, or a govt bureau (like the Dept of Energy for Richardson) is executive. It requires leadership and management skills that you just don't get as a legislator.

Of course, experience isn't everything. Cheney has executive experience up the wahzoo (as Sec of Defense under Bush41) and he's still an evil old bastard. But someone can be the greatest guy in the world and find himself out of his league trying to run a large organization if he hasn't done it before. We ought to expect anyone who wants to lead the country to be a proven leader who also stands for the right things.

There's no reason we can't have it all: integrity, progressive values AND experience.

[jcrew2001]

54. Richardson

Richardson will announce his run on Sunday, but I'll be surprised if he gets anywhere. Maybe he just wants to do well in the debates. I mean, there were 7 people last year, so they won't start dropping out until after Iowa.

[Jai4WKC08]

56. Not sure what you mean by "7 people last year"

There were none last year by my count. Not officially. Of course many were "campaigning" to some extent or another -- for congressional candidates, but to help themselves too. And

Now, if you mean last cycle, there were at one point as many as 10 candidates. I think Bob Graham dropped out before the first debate after Clark jumped in, so the standard number on the debate stage was 9 (altho I seem to recall that some of them may have missed one or two of the debates).

Not sure why you would say none of them will drop out until after Iowa. Last time Graham did. I'm sure there were others who were at least thinking of running and decided not to, altho I don't recall hearing of any who filed FEC papers.

This time around, we've already had two start up and drop out (Warner and Bayh), and I would expect there to be others before the first caucus. Maybe Richardson, Biden or Dodd, and maybe Kerry if he gets in at all. And maybe Clark. Clark is not likely to hang in for no reason if he doesn't feel he's going anywhere -- that's why he was one of the first of the top tier (the very first if you dont' count Gephardt) to drop out last time. He won't throw good money after bad just because it's someone else's.

But I do think you have several folks who are really running for VP, looking to enhance their profile and name recognition and make a favorable impression on the voters so that the ultimate winner might want them on the ticket. I think that might be Richardson's motivation, and maybe Dodd's. Not Biden, I don't think. Obama may have started out with that kind of thinking, but now believes he has a shot at the gold. I know there are many who think that Clark is one, but I am completely convinced that's not the case.

[CarolNYC]

57. Graham and the debates....

Graham and Clark were both a part of the first debate that was held after Clark jumped in last time. I remember because it was held in NY and the Dem Party had a fancy high priced dinner as well as a less fancy economy priced after-dinner thingy after the debate. I couldn't afford the dinner but went to the after-dinner thingy. I remember hearing someone who worked for Graham saying that Graham was the only thoughtful one up there during the debates....and then she added, "And well Clark too, now that he's in."

I think all of the candidates were at that debate. I also think they all attended the high priced dinner too. Only one chose to grace us poor common folk with his presence afterwards, though...Wes Clark. I was kind of disappointed that at least Dennis didn't show up as well....but thrilled to see Wes and Gert working the room and being mobbed like a couple of rock stars.

[Jai4WKC08]

60. Thanks Carol

I must have missed that first one, altho I can't for the life of me imagine why.

[CarolNYC]

61. Well, I don't know if this was a factor but it was held in the afternoon...

We had organized a little sort of welcome to the race rally at a little park downtown for the Clarks. I went on my lunch hour. Wes and Gert came and shook a lot of hands, etc. I went back to work while some walked over to Pace University where the debate was held. I don't know where it aired but I tried to keep track of it at work through first hand accounts on CCN....Then there was the dinner and the late night thing....It was all very exciting for us NY Clarkies, with Clark just joining the race...

[wiley]

34. Perhaps Edwards' 6 years in the Senate is a negative, considering

all the legislation he didn't sponsor, or what he voted for or against. That should be considered for all candidates. You also completely ignored Dennis Kucinich, whose actions in the House and before are quite complimentary to his resume. I'm strongly leaning towards those with little or no national experience but principled stands and performance in other areas.

What I find most disturbing is the number of people who voted for Kerry/Edwards in 2004, who don't even remember Edwards name when asked.

[venable]

35. I'm sorry but I have a hard time imagining

who voted for Kerry/Edwards and don't know who Edwards is.

Sorry, friend, doesn't ring true. You're saying they don't know who Edwards is? Please explain who these people are.

[wiley]

36. I saw people being interviewed on TV last night. Some had

a hard time remembering if they had voted. One guy actually described who he voted for and Edwards' background, yet he had no idea that he was looking at a picture of John Edwards. I've personally talked to people who forgot they had voted for Kerry as well.

People are overwhelmed with data and media mindlessness and their brains shut off or something.

I wouldn't take it as a personal insult to Edwards, just that people who are not extremely involved with politics often forget things.

I also can't explain many things about people and why they are like they are. But I don't make things up, friend.

[Jai4WKC08]

46. Oh no, it's definitely true

But don't feel bad about it. There are LOTS of Americans who don't know who Cheney is either. I suspect most of 'em don't vote, but some do. Sad, isn't it?

Edwards wasn't out on the road much for Kerry. Not before really big audiences. I'm sure that was the Kerry campaign's decision, but it's still a fact.

Actually, it's a good thing for Edwards that people don't know him. If everyone knew who he was and he is still only garnering 10-20% in polls, it would mean he doesn't have much a chance.

[jcrew2001]

49. lieberman

I think lieberman would have done better in 2004 also, if he didn't delay his campaign to wait for Gore's decision.

[paulk]

37. experience, especially in foreign relations and diplomacy

is going to be a big part of the next election.

I think that's a big part of why Kerry won the nomination last time. People, when it came time to actually vote, looked at the situation the country was in then chose the candidate who had the most experience in dealing with that situation.

I think Edwards is this election's Howard Dean. He'll do well in the polls right up until people actually have to make a real choice. Then, when it comes time to pull the lever, voters will look at his lack of experience in politics/govt. service and think twice.

[zulchzulu]

41. Although he's not my first choice, it's up to him to fight that off...

My sig should show where I stand on the election, but I think Edwards could fight off the "lack of experience" issue if he was the nominee. You can bet it surely would be one of the big issues that the GOP would want to paint on him with full force.

It's up to Edwards to convince the primary season voters first..in debates and on the stump. In this time of war, it certainly could be a bit overshadowing what his "presidential brand" is, namely the war on poverty and such.

Peace time candidates can fare better without a lack of foreign policy experience, such as Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter. Even Lincoln was elected during peace time, although it was somewhat certain that an uprising was going to happen.

It's when the war drums are going and people are fearful that someone without foreign policy experience can be seen as "weak".

[wisteria]

42. Kerry, will look as good in the race as he does on paper. I think he has a good shot. n/t

[XemaSab]

51. It all really depends on who the republican nominee is

and where we're at as a country in 2 years.

Edwards' message of fighting poverty resonates with a lot of people, but my feeling is that in 2 years the American people are going to be demanding answers and wanting a resolution in Iraq. It's going to take someone with a lot of finesse to pull that off. It might even be a point in favor of a less experienced candidate.

One of the reasons why so many people went for Dean is because Dean never *had* to cast a vote on the war. Hindsight's 20/20, but voting records (or lack thereof) helped Dean in the primaries and hurt Kerry in the general election.

I think the republican nominee will be scrutized just as closely if not more closely than the democrat, because whoever the president is, they will need a plan for Iraq and Afghanistan.

[jcrew2001]

53. Iowa

Kerry positioned himself as the stronger national defense candidate/veteran against Dean, and with the help of Ted Kennedy won Iowa.

Edwards won't have that establishment base, so he'll need to have a strong grassroots base. Hillary will have the establishment support. Obama will also get a lot of grassroots support.

Edwards needs to really sell his message. Obama has a lot of charisma, but i don't really know what his message is besides hope, etc.

[XemaSab]

55. Being able to give a coherent speech

Is a big part of winning Iowa. Having REALLY GOOD ground support and caucus people is another part.

Iowa isn't like other states, for better or for worse. I think it may be anyone's ball game as far as what happens. :shrug:

[Clark2008]

58. Why do you favor him?

See, I think he's too slick. Too much of a politician. Too willing to change stances that are politically expedient. I also know from personal experience that he doesn't care a whit about what his constituents do or feel as long as it makes HIM popular.

And, this has nothing to do with Clark. I felt this way about Edwards back before Clark ever even considered running.