"Experience" is meaningless.

No one really knows what someone else's experience really is. The important thing is history and track record -- not the candidate's experience, but our experience of the candidate. I find Hillary's "experience" argument as worthless as Obama's "change" argument. Does anyone think Obama doesn't have some pretty successful experience in his past? Does anyone think Hillary won't change things? It is silly. The only thing that matters is what the candidate says they are going to do and any evidence they can offer that they will be able to do what they say.

:applause:

but the last time i heard the "experience doesn't mean much" argument, it was from shrub. he was going to be the good manager and appoint experienced people.
so in my estimation, experience does count.

He was a "reformer with results" with lots of experience in creating consensus in Texas. It was all false.

shrub mentioned all of his accomplishments as texas gov. most of which were bullshit, talked about being the MBA president, and when
asked about his lack of experience compared to gore, downplayed it and talked about being a good manager and appointing capable qualified people. the bummer for dudya is that all that bullshit was just bullshit. the consensus he built in texas belonged to bob bullock. unfortunately nobody outside of texas ever really looked at that.

Some of our great people are those who rely on talent rather than long history of training. Shrub, however, had a list of failures as a petty businessman as long as your arm. It doesn't take much insight to see that his "talent" was for drinking. Now, he's had seven years of experience in the White House. It still hasn't done him one bit of good as far as being a decent president.

in many cases. We aren't born with too many skills.

Guys, we are chasing our tails, running around looking for definitions for adjectives. This is all just one step removed from good old fashioned flag waving and name calling.

Instead, we should be listing accomplishments and qualifications.

It isn't as if anyone has built an "experience-o-meter" into which we can plug the candidate and get a reading from one to 10.

According to many people I spoke with, they disagreed with him on the "war" but liked his "experience".

Yeah, his great "experience" is making us proud continuously authoring crap like the L/K Amendment!

"Experienced doctors have made mistakes, therefore, I prefer inexperienced doctors"

Nah, personally I just don't automatically vote for someone just because they have "experience". It doesn't seal the deal for me.

You're saying that experience is a BAD thing. It's not.

Unfortunately, "experience" means different things to different people now. The term has become meaningless because it can now be bought pre-fab and painted onto any candidate. Bush is a classic example. He had business "experience" and "experience as an executive head of state." He was a "proven leader" therefore. False. The syllogism makes sense, but the application is fallacious.

For Bush, the marketing brochure item "experienced" was simply identified early, and the little man was groomed and steered into it by Daddy, Ken Lay, and a computerized marketing machine. Based on that example, IMO, the concept of experience can no longer be trusted in our "Alice in Wonderland," Google-babble political environment. It's just bait and noise.

Your idea of experience may have a foundation. My idea of it may even be the same as yours. But for me, "experience" as self-reported by a candidate, or bleated sans footnotes by glib partisans, or reported by the MSM is now just noise. Skepticism is in order. I really don't care if the knowledgeable and wise would use experience appropriately in their judgements. The term (like any label now) is a menace in our confused pop culture.

I'll be clear that I lean Clinton (a dramatic reversal for me), so you can color your opinion of my post based on that -- despite the fact that I am saying one of her main "qualifications" is meaningless. I would clearly love an Obama or Edwards presidency, but I am unconvinced about the feasibility.

IMO, you can still rely on references (endorsements where no quid pro quo is suspected), track record, and actions/words demonstrated right in front of your eyes. You can also rely on foundation. The Clinton Administration (Bill's) is as close to bedrock as I see. It has nothing to do with Hillary's "experience" though. It was a machine I saw working and producing for the country in my lifetime, and I want to start it up again (with more of a progressive bent as I now think possible thanks to Bush).

elected leadership. But rather, how has this person led their careers and personal life. This is why I supported Clark. Experience does matter, but to me you have to look at the whole picture.

p.s. I'm a Biden person now, not a Clinton one. Sorry General. :)

...along with proven results and things I can see before my own eyes (like Clark patiently disassembling a right wing fool in real time). I like Biden but had to stick with the General on Hillary. :-)

Joe Biden is the most experienced candidate. I think that counts for something...particularly in foreign affairs.

-Paige

Bush ran as an experienced CEO with both business experience (meeting a payroll) and political experience (head of state in Texas). It was phony baloney. Experience has become an arguable, unverifiable entry on everyone's resume. It has been turned upside down and sideways. Everyone claims they have it and that there opponent doesn't have it (or has the wrong kind or whatever).

The one line sticks in people's minds.

from the last one Prez elections Kerry flip flopper, GOre wooden this one Obama inexperienced, Kucinich UFOs, Edwards - the haircut etc. Don't forget most people know nothing or are interested in politics.

Here at DU many know better - Obama IS experienced.

:headbang:

Longest experience ever in Congress, if I'm correct. Even had the experience of running for President before. Yet if he and his fellow Congressmen in his last term would all have run for President, he would have been my dead last choice.

On the other hand, George Washington had no experience as a politician, Lincoln had very little when he was elected, even JFK was ridiculed as a short-term junior senator from Massachusetts.

"Experience" as an election criteria means jack squat, IMO.

Yet JFK won in 1960. Who would you have picked?