<p>I never said you had to be a governor, I said it was executive experience. In fact earlier in this thread I even offered being a CEO as executive experience. I also said executive experience is relatable to being president and therefore is good. </p>
<p>The question was relevant for the discussion we were having. You and I both know that ppl were saying she had no experience, so I said Obama did not have executive experience, and I argued that she had more relevant executive experience than Obama does. And that is a fact.</p>
<p>So the time you spend determines experience? What if you were an inept leader for years (an example you would agree with:George bush), would that be better than being a good leader for a limited amount of time?</p>
<p>Unless memory serves me wrong, and it has in the past, I mentioned the CEO issue, though that’s unimportant. So many things, including executive experience, is helpful in being a good President and therefore is good.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree people were saying she has very little experience. Which is true. 20 months of executive experience does not make you more experienced to be President than 12 years in the Senate. I’m sorry, it just doesn’t. We were arguing overall experience not just executive and I contend that it is not intellectually sound to just foucs on executive experience, even when dealing with the Presidency. That’s why I offered the Law school example-it’s relevant but not intellectually sound enough to make a real judgment. Look at our two main nominees neither has had governmental executive experience yet both have had plenty of other types of experience. Palin has 20 months of executive experience. Not enough to make up overall for experience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The time you spend determines experience. You can either have bad experience or good experience. Obama has had good experience and Palin’s is actually a mixed record. Bush has been President for 8 years, we already know what 4 more years will be. Palin has been governor for 20 months, not nearly enough time to contend what the next 4 years would be. That’s the point, the time is too small to be even considered significant. Sorry.</p>
<p>You did mention that, sorry. I agreed with the example.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In the overall experience sure obama would win. But I argued that executive experience is more relatable to being president. Which it is and in that respect she wins. </p>
<p>If we look to overall experience as the best barometer of being president then that would mean McCain is the best choice. You obviously do not agree with that so there are other things besides experience that determine a great leader.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree, Obama only has 4 years of experience in the senate, which is only two more of than she has being govern. If she was governor for four years, would you say that was enough? </p>
<p>It is what you do doing the time you have been a leader. Obama voted present on alot of things in the Illnois senate, so that does not count to determine what 4 years of him would be. And during his four years in the Senate, a siginificat protion of that (about 1.5 years) was spent focusing on a run for the president, so that means he has only 2.5 years as a senator actually working. So a numerical breakdown means he has 10 more months of experience that we can look to compared to Palin, not really significant.</p>
<p>Governorship of Alaska as meaningful executive experience? Really, how desperate are conservatives?</p>
<p>Obama was editor of the Harvard Law Review, which meant pretty much he had to lead a group of perhaps the most intelligent young people in the United States. THAT can be executive experience.</p>
<p>Obama was “CEO” of his presidential campaign, and he has demonstrated himself to be an extremely competent administrator. THAT can be executive experience.</p>
<p>I would take a principal of a successful inner city high school over a babysitter of moose and seals.</p>
<p>^It’s not completely worthless. How would you feel if either McCain or Obama said “I’m not sure what the president does on a day to day basis.” You’d be worried, wouldn’t you? Why is this any different for the vice president? The job is less important, yes, but still. This woman has the potential to become POTUS if McCain wins and dies. If she doesn’t even know what to do when VP, how can we expect her to know what to do when president? </p>
<p>The fact that she’s running for a position she admitted to knowing little about is disturbing.</p>
<p>one, i wanted an answer out of debate. just curious as to what he thinks.</p>
<p>two, why is it completely worthless? if mccain had stated he didnt know what the president job consists of, would you still vote for him?</p>
<p>thank you debate, why do you continue to defend her? i think its irresponsible to campaign for a position that one does not know what it even does</p>
<p>Stop ignorantly spouting Hannity talking points. Voting present is something they do in Illinois congress. It is not some kind of cop-out, but rather a tactical maneuver to get things done.</p>
<p>“two, why is it completely worthless? if mccain had stated he didnt know what the president job consists of, would you still vote for him?”</p>
<p>Yes, probably. Remember, she said it before she took the position. Do you have the video? I want to see if she said it facetiously. And the transcript isn’t worth anything in this case, I really want the video.</p>
<p>Could you stop mentioning random ppl who have nothing to do with the discussion. If you read the conversation between me and Cervantes, he said that 20 months is can not be used to determine what 4 years of a leader would be. I said Obama’s experience in the state senate cannot be used to determine what 4 years of him would be like, bc he voted present, so we do not know what he stand for on those issues.</p>
<p>I defend her because she is one the ticket that I believe is the best for this country, not bc of her. But in order to get McCain we have to have her, so I am defending her. Regardless of who the VP is (I personally don’t care which one they picked, except for the fact that I guessed wrong. I thought it would be Tim Kaine and Tim Pawlenty.)</p>
<p>I am not voting for a man who does not know what the president does. I am sure McCain knows what the president does. Any person who has graduated from high school has to have learned what the president does, even if they do not remember.</p>
<p>Aye, here’s the rub. I don’t think experience is the best barometer of being President. However I do think there is a bare minimum. Obviously you cannot draw the line but a woman who was mayor of a hamlet only 20 months ago definitely does not make the line. The thing is Obama has moderate experience while McCain has a lot. Both have made the cutoff, time to look at other things. Palin, however did not. Also, you make a little bit of a skip in logic by saying executive>everything else. Since neither of us have been President we can’t really say which type of experience is best for President. It may seem logical that executive experience is since the Presidency is in the executive branch, but, knowing how to work with Washington is also a very important type of experience, arguably more important. Remember your bills need to be passed. YMMV.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well Obama served in the state senate for 8 years so if Palin were governor for six or more years I would not have mentioned anything about experience. Then I would have said McCain made a really good pick and Dems would have worried a little more about the pick. Even though Obama voted Present quite a few times he voted Yes or No a lot more times. Also, Obama did not devote all his time to running for President. And frankly, if we make the <em>faulty</em> assumptions you do (that all of Obama’s other time was wasted as you say), 30 is still 150% of 20 rather significant when you use the law of small numbers :(. I agree what you do counts, but there’s always a bare minimum. Palin didn’t cut it.</p>
<p>“thats scary you would vote for man running for a president who didnt know what the president’s duties are”- sorry that was meant for baelor. i am sure too that mccain knows what the president does. i was just making the point that palin doesnt know what the vp does, something i would believe biden does know the answer too.</p>