Thursday, July 26, 2007


Are You Experienced?

(those that got the title reference to Jimi Hendrix's DEBUT album get bonus PTF Points, redeemable in the forthcoming PTF Fan Shop)

Just a quick thought here... I'm getting a little pissed about people continuing to talk about the "lack of experience" that Barack Obama has.

The alleged "frontrunner" was a former First Lady, and has served in the Senate since January, 2001. I'm not sure how that qualifies as a significant difference in experience. Obama has served since 2005, so I guess Clinton has four years on him serving as the junior Senator from New York. Wow.

John Edwards served as a one-term senator, but people don't seem to question his experience.

If you look to the Democrats who have the MOST experience (folks like Joe Biden and Chris Dodd), they're actually polling LOWEST right now.

The person who arguably has the MOST appropriate experience, Al Gore, is not running - for the moment.

I'm just wondering if "experience" is code language for another more insidious reason people might have a problem with Barack Obama.

Posted by FleshPresser at 1:40 PM /

2 Comments

  • Anonymous Anonymous posted at 3:31 PM  
    You're right that Hillary really has no more experience than Obama. She only got the senate job because of her "celebrity". You're also right that political "leaders" are completely impotent - no matter what side of the aisle they're on.

    I'm all for the open revolt against Both parties. Let's have political parties that have the balls to vote their convictions!

    Newt Gingrich for President!

  • Blogger FleshPresser posted at 4:18 PM  
    Wait... you call for an open revolt against both parties, and end your comment with a rallying cry for one of the most obvious "Face of the Republican Party" - Newt Gingrich?!?

    I'm not sure I'm saying that all political leaders are impotent, either - although I feel that there are PLENTY of political leaders who could use a shot of Political Viagra, or a spine transplant - and you can find THEM on both sides of the aisle.

    I AM very frustrated about the extent to which the Democratic Party leaders and the DNC are ready to try and force-feed their selection for the Democratic nomination to the American public once again, assuming that no matter who it is, Democrats will vote for that person. They've also got to know (we KNOW that their candidate of choice is Hillary Clinton) that there is NO way that Hillary Clinton can win a General Election in the United States.

    So, why does the Democratic Party, instead of learning the lessons of John Kerry and 2004, decide to dive headfirst into the same exercise, and essentially crown an "Heir to the Throne" months and months before a single Primary vote has even been cast?

    I can clearly see a window in this election for a third-party candidate that is open wider than it has ever been in elections past.

    • Post a Comment

    « Home