General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOn Warren's "lack of experience".....
Well, I don't understand on thing...
For now, EW said she won't run. OK.
But I do read frequently, here there and everywhere, that she isn't enought qualified to run now, because she is lacking of experiment on national stage....
But... Didn't a certain Barack Obama, who when he entered the WH has only on his national politics' resume, a single term in U.S Senate?
He had that " lack" too. That didn't stopped him to be an effective and wonderfull President.
So....Is all that blah on EW=ToEarlyToRun another way to not block Hillary's golden-paved mediatic and popular road to Pennsylvannya Avenue?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)John Boehner has a ton of experience. So does Mitch McConnell. So do all sorts of total wastes of space in Congress.
Doesn't seem to me that political experience necessarily confers any magic powers other than 'How to raise money to keep getting yourself re-elected'.
I'd rather have people who actually give a damn about the people of the country, not just people with 'experience' at screwing us over.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Be it managing a staff, or committee staff, a campaign or state, having to deal with competing interests is very much a pre requisite for high office.
If my favorite whipping boy, Ezra Klien, decides in a decade that he is Presidential timber, there would be no honest way he could be qualified. Has he led troops in battle? Has he led a large social movement? Ran a large city or even small I sh state? These are important.
mike_c
(36,269 posts)Arguably, his handling of the financial crisis at the beginning of his first term was the result of inexperience-- he simply handed the job over to the same suspects who had by and large caused the financial collapse, or who were at least loathe to make any structural economic policy changes because they themselves were so deeply invested in the status quo. Not everyone agrees that Obama has been a "wonderful and effective president." He is way too close to Wall Street and has overseen creation one of the most comprehensive security and surveillance states in the world, for example. I could go on, but I'm sure you get the point.
I've been a strong proponent of Elizabeth Warren for president in 2016, but lately I'm not so sure about how far that support extends. My advocacy is based almost entirely upon her populist economic positions, and I sincerely wonder what experience she might draw upon to resolve completely unrelated challenges. Further, we haven't heard much from her about any issues unrelated to economic policy, mostly domestic. So I'm beginning to temper my enthusiasm for Warren until I hear some more from her about foreign policy, privacy and surveillance, health care, environmental issues, education, transparency, and so on.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)ideology and uncompromising commitment to dogma....there are many more fundamental issues at play when it comes to the Presidency....It has to be about the BIG picture....this is a very big country indeed.