I think some bloggers are missing the point. When people like me say "experience", they mean "known quantity." It has nothing to do with race or gender; it has everything to do with knowing what someone stands for and how the person behaves in a variety of settings. I've worked for the government for 18 years, and Senator Clinton is simply the most impressive politician I've ever encountered. (I have never met Senator Obama, vs. perhaps half-a-dozen interactions with Mrs./Senator Clinton.) Additionally, I couldn't tell you about Senator Obama's Senate record, while I'm deeply impressed with Senator Clinton's. Having said all these things, I've also interacted with Senator McCain: smart guy, usually affable, but boy, when he's having a bad day, look out. So between unknown and occasionally mean, I'm leaning toward unknown. I would love it, though, if Senator Obama became more public with his plans on things like Social Security, the deficit, and the war. I feel very uneasy over my lack of understanding what he thinks about economics and taxes, foreign policy, and the kind of cabinet officials he might appoint.

Oh, they mean "known quantity"? Are you sure? I'm sorry there are no known quantities as proved by Bush, Cheney etc.. We have to pick the person we think will address current issues and LEAD as well as respond to future emergencies in a thoughtful, measured, and hopefully a solution oriented manner. All that needs to happen to Social Security is for the payment ages to to grow at the same rate as life expectancies. The deficit needs to be addressed like Clinton did. the war needs to be brought to a close expeditiously. these aren't Your real concerns, they are vague smokescreens and Hillary is no longer a candidate.

Was Hillary a "known quality" when she supported NAFTA or when she claimed to oppose it? Was she a "known quality" when she voted FOR the Iraq war and when she claimed to oppose it? And on it could go.

This is what I've been characterizing as the stocks vs. bonds issue.

Stocks are riskier, but witha potentially higher return.

Bonds are safer with the much lower return guarenteed.

I think that in the case of current government vs. somebody new, it's a case of the current republican administration (bonds) just not keeping pace with inflation ( a changing world).

Hillary Clinton may well have been the more "experienced candidate" under the terms you describe, but she's no longer a publicly traded stock. You just can't buy her, no matter how attractive you think the potential returns are.

So the choice comes back to current administration vs. something new.

I would also like to point out that as of the 2004 elections..George W. Bush had 4 YEARS of the most applicable experience possible. He was the ultimate known quantity and he still sucked.

cshea7777:

I think some bloggers are missing the point. When people like me say "experience", they mean "known quantity." It has nothing to do with race or gender; it has everything to do with knowing what someone stands for and how the person behaves in a variety of settings. I've worked for the government for 18 years, and Senator Clinton is simply the most impressive politician I've ever encountered. (I have never met Senator Obama, vs. perhaps half-a-dozen interactions with Mrs./Senator Clinton.) Additionally, I couldn't tell you about Senator Obama's Senate record, while I'm deeply impressed with Senator Clinton's. Having said all these things, I've also interacted with Senator McCain: smart guy, usually affable, but boy, when he's having a bad day, look out. So between unknown and occasionally mean, I'm leaning toward unknown. I would love it, though, if Senator Obama became more public with his plans on things like Social Security, the deficit, and the war. I feel very uneasy over my lack of understanding what he thinks about economics and taxes, foreign policy, and the kind of cabinet officials he might appoint.

So what you mean is that it's *your* experience that matters, and not so much the candidate's?

cshea7777:

Additionally, I couldn't tell you about Senator Obama's Senate record, while I'm deeply impressed with Senator Clinton's.

Of course, Obama's record as both a state and a national senator is public record, so the only reason that you can't tell me about it is because you didn't both to research it. Whereas you've met Clinton six times and are aware of her record. Have you looked at Obama's campaign web site? Read his two books? There's a lot of public information about him; what precisely is it that you wish you knew that these sources don't tell you?

I have worked in state and federal government. I am not impressed with Sen. Clinton's record. I also worked for some of the people on her team. I am really not impressed with them.

She voted for the bankrupcy bill that is hurting our economy. She supported NAFTA and globalism in the Senate, until she figured out on the trail that they were not popular. China's MFN status? etc? She voted for corporatist positions most of her time int he Senate.

Obama's corporatist, too, so I don't get the hatred. They are a hair apart in experience AND position. He's as known as she is.

Then again, I wanted Edwards. I must be just strange, I guess.

Nah..I liked Edwards too.

@cshea:

Sending 4100 servicemen and women to die in Iraq impressed you how, exactly? Craven cynicism? Mindless obedience to authority? A total lack of principle?

And if you aren't familiar with Barack Obama's positions by now, its because you have no interest in finding out, which says quite a lot about you and very little about Senator Obama.

While I haven’t worked in the government, both sides of my family have or do and I have met Senator McCain, Senator Clinton, and Senator Obama on numerous occasions.

McCain is an intelligent guy and very outgoing, but he does have a temper and if he’s having a bad day you simply stay out of his way. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out when to leave someone alone.

Clinton is intelligent, but more reserved. She’s the typical hard working woman that is constantly afraid that others will compare her to the men around her and find her lacking. It’s much like short man’s syndrome. She’s competent and experienced even if I disagree with her on most issues.

Obama reminded me of how I felt in high school around the black kids. My school was around 85% black (largest black percentage of any high school in that city) and many of them did not like anyone that wasn’t black. As a small Chinese girl it wasn’t always comfortable. You could never really tell if you were safe or who really hated you and who just tolerated you. When I was around Obama I got the same feeling, that underneath the smile, charm, and laughter that he really hated my non-black skin. For the most part I don’t really notice race, but it’s impossible to miss when you can feel the racial hatred against you.

Obama’s plans concerning economics, taxes, and foreign policy most closely match those of Jimmy Carter. If you want to know what an Obama presidency would be like and whom he would appoint as his cabinet officials you should look over the history of the Carter administration and then imagine those positions filled by members of the Nation of Islam and other hate groups. These are the type of people that currently make up his campaign staff.

I'd rather go with a moderate with an admitted temper problem over a known racist and radical.

Cassandra

Those of us that were paying attention were well aware of what Bush, Cheney, and others were capable of. We knew that Bush was a lame duck and that Cheney was a crook, but we felt that they would do a better job than Gore or Kerry would, and they have. We simply picked the lesser of two evils.

Based on his lack of experience and extremely questionable friends there is every reason in the world to question Obama’s ability to respond to future emergencies in “a thoughtful, measured, and hopefully a solution oriented manner”. In sharp contrast McCain has show repeatedly that he is able to do this with relative ease.

Bill Clinton responded to the deficit by claiming credit for the economic effects of the budget drawn up by Bush Sr. when he was in office. By Clinton’s second term we were able to see the effects of his first budget and the picture wasn’t all that rosy. In addition, Clinton slashed the military budget every year he was in office, which left our military anemic and unable to protect the country. His cuts led directly to the success of the attacks on 9/11. It’s not a good idea to take credit for something that eventually led to disaster later on.

The war needs a competent commander at the helm. Someone like McCain, who has the necessary experience and the ability to learn if necessary. Obama doesn’t have this experience and has repeatedly shown that he doesn’t have any interest in learning. People who say that the war needs to be ended immediately have an extremely poor understanding of history and the nature of the enemy we are fighting. It’s an expression of extreme ignorance and naivety on their part and Obama has expressed these qualities in earnest.

The concern over Obama’s ideas and plans for the country is of extreme importance. To think otherwise reveals a lack of understanding and education.

Cassandra

bananaboat,

I agree with you completely. I am a conservative independent who votes for who I feel is the best candidate person for the job.

My husband likes Obama but I do not like the fact that he says what he thinks people want to hear. He is a democrat all the way...& takes full party positions.

In contrast, McCain takes positions that is not always popular but positions that he feels is right for our nations future. He is able to work with both partys, republicans & democrats & has shown that in the past.

I wished all politicans were non-partisan & just Americans. Where the United States citizens come first & not the party they are affiliated with.

This is my opinion & you can disagree if you like but I also still see President Bush that way. He does what he feels is right for the nation no matter how popular it is. He has spent his presidency dealing with the monster the prior administration created.

Clinton attacked foreign countries & run 3 times before leaving office.

1.(Three days following a disastrous attempt at apology on national TV August 17, 1998 Bill Clinton launched a missile attack on several facilities in an attempt to halt terrorist Osama Bin Laden.)

2.Also the weapons of mass destruction was first coined in the Clinton Administration (Iraq). They had the UN weapon inspectors in Iraq long before he left office. The day following a settlement with Paula Jones, Clinton made an aborted strike on Iraq.

3. One day before he was to be impeached, Clinton called an uncharacteristic suprise air attack on Iraq. Though the stated reason was refusal to allow UN weapons inspections, one must note that Saddam Hussein acted no differently than he had in the preceding six months.

Then there is NAFTA, free trade with China, our military cut to the bones, social programs slashed & let's not forget the educational experiences our childern got from the nightly news cast.

I don't know about Cheney but President Bush's time in office has been diffucult at the least...911, the war in Afganistan & Iraq, Katrina, & the economy. Even at his worst, he is a better man than Bill Clinton on anyday!

I wonder what his presidency would have been if Bill Clinton wouldn't have preceded him?

I'M PROUD TO CALL GEORGE W. BUSH MY PRESIDENT!!!!

I'M PROUD TO CALL GEORGE W. BUSH MY PRESIDENT!!!!

You are sicker than usual..

Agreed, Obama has never voted against his party regardless of how insane their position is on any particular issue. His economic plans were laid out over 30 years ago with the Carter administration and those 4 years were the worst of the past 50. More than once McCain has pointed out that Obama is trying to run Carter’s 2nd term and according to economic strategists he is.

Obama not only agrees with every one of his party’s positions, but he’s grown up around and has been mentored by some really terrible people. Men that should have been executed for treason back in the 1960’s, men who openly support Islamic terrorism against the United States, Israel, and our allies, men who send money to these organizations. The leader of Hamas has openly endorsed Obama for president. You know something’s wrong with a candidate when your sworn enemy that has vowed to destroy you is endorsing them. We’ve already seen him dress up as a Somali Elder.

<link>

I’m not crazy about Bush. I believe he has made some serious mistakes, especially concerning Israel. I believe that he is far too deep in the hip pockets of big business for him to govern effectively. However, I believe that he has done a much better job than Gore or Kerry would have done. I believe that once all the dust settles that history will judge him as average.

I do believe that Clinton was one of our worst presidents. He lacked the balls necessary to face a situation full force and stick with it until it was finished. When he did respond he did so in a half assed and weak-kneed way. As you said, on August 17th, 1998 he settled for an ineffective missile strike against several facilities that belonged to Osama Bin Laden. But what he should have done is send black ops in to make sure Osama was even there and then assassinate him.

The United Nations is an obsolete and ineffective organization that has outlived its usefulness and should be dissolved. At the very least the United States should permanently remove itself from membership. Their inspectors are incompetent and ineffective. Clinton’s aborted strike on Iraq the day following the settlement with Paula Jones was designed to shift attention away from that settlement. It was never an honest attempt to accomplish anything.

The surprise air attack on Iraq the day before his impeachment was a similar tactic. Clinton never showed any serious intention of stopping Saddam or Osama. He had numerous opportunities to eliminate either man and he repeatedly failed to do so.

I’m looking forward to a McCain presidency.

Cassandra

Eh, It's just an opinion. There's no reason for you to get personal over it.

Cassandra