View Single Post
Old 02-19-2008, 10:20 PM   #10 (permalink)
nuttyjoe
Council Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,270
Points: 5,894, Level: 49
Points: 5,894, Level: 49 Points: 5,894, Level: 49 Points: 5,894, Level: 49
Level up: 72%, 56 Points needed
Level up: 72% Level up: 72% Level up: 72%
Activity: 7%
Activity: 7% Activity: 7% Activity: 7%
nuttyjoe is offline
Reply With Quote
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katczinsky View Post
Well let's see, Obama's experience entailed some local experience, a few years in the Illinois state legislature, a few years in law, and two years in Congress. When was the last time we elected a President with the same credentials? Oh yeah, now I remember, Abraham Lincoln.

And when was the last time we elected a President with experience, and with a cabinet full of years of top military and foreign affairs (and war time) experience? Oh yeah, George Bush.

The point is that inexperience doesn't necessarily mean the person in question is unqualified for the job, or even that all the experience in the world means that the person is qualified.
Exactly, Katz. Experience can have different meaning according to one's agenda, Gary. But I'll go with mine- who has the experience to be President? Niether Obama or Clinton. Why? Because neither has served as President.It's that plain and simple to me. As is Hillary's need to stop kicking this dead dog. It's not barking; as evidenced tonight and the last 8 primaries. She needs a new script to follow.