Experience is not only irrelevant, it's impossible to attain. The presidency is a unique job. Serving decades in congress doesn't prepae you. Running a major corporation doesn't prepare you. Serving as governor of a state doesn't prepare you.

There is, in this vast economy, only one job that puts you somewhat in charge of the largest economy and military in the world but that also has you answering to the judiciary and legislative branches.

Since we have one president at a time, for a four year term, not many people have been able to do that job. Yet, it is so unique that the only qualification for it would be... to have been president. And many of the people who have been president were either not re-elected or were re-elected by a quite narrow majority.

Basically, there is no relevant experience for this job. There is knowledge, curiosity and intellectual ability. I'm not sure whether or not Obama has those qualities but if he can prove he does, he has my vote. His resume isn't the issue. As you say, his abilities are.

thosethingswesay.blogspot.com

I think the only two things a President brings to the job are judgement and the ability to persuade others that his judgement is good. It isn't possible for any one person to know enough to handle the job of President based on his own knowledge and experience. He has to have the judgement to select the right advisors and other staff. When a problem arrives at his desk, and that must happen many times every day, he has to be able to judge which of the options his staff finds for him to consider is the best one.

Then, having made that choice, he has to be able to persuade not just the Congress and the cabinet to accept his choices, but to persuade the American people that he has made the best choice, so they will buy into it too. Lately our Presidents have handled that last part of the job in reverse - trying to guess what the American people will like and accept, then pretending to lead them in that direction. So, we get wars and tax cuts.

Of all of the candidates now running Obama is the only one I see being capable of persuading us to do things we would prefer not to do - like negotiating before shooting, like paying for what our government must do instead of just printing more money to pay for it.

As far as I can tell, both from reading his books, and from what he has done so far, Obama has the good judgement to pick his staff with the interests of our country in mind, and not his reelection as a primary focus. Best of all, I don't see him being in this primarily for personal enrichment or the further enriching of corporate "friends".

Hoppy in Sacramento

Well, I'll tell you after Bush everybody I've ever met in my life is overqualified to be President.

Tom

"I think the only two things a President brings to the job are judgment and the ability to persuade others that his judgment is good." I meant that he also brings beliefs and an agenda. I don't want the purist, wisest man on earth. I want someone who shares my hoped for direction for American government and politics. That and not his struggle with his wife's cancer are why I prefer Edwards (or Obama) to Clinton. 

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

 . But of course Clinton had a great deal of relevant experience as the chief executive of the State of Arkansas.

So did Bush as the chief executive of the State of Texas ..lot of good that did us.

Managing a large and complex organization, whether a company, a government bureau, a foundation, a military organization or the executive branch of a state government or national government, requires specific mangerial skills. While each organization is different, many of those skills are transferable.

Bush transferred everything he had and it was totally insufficient.

As with all things in life, it is the job title that creates the experienced man. Rather it is the character the man brings to the job title that determines his experience.

Bush's track record in every job he had was consistent...a total failure and unparalled incompetence.

It is character and judgement that count. Not job title experience.

"because, in my opinion, you do not need experience to be President. What you need is intelligence, character and humility"

I'm curious, is there any other jobs where experience is not needed?
For example, does experience helps to be a good
Real Estate Agent, Doctor, School Administrator, CEO of a company,
Car Salesman, Teacher, Cabinet Secretary, General
What's so special about the job of President?

Can anybody point me to a high paying job employment ad that say:
"No experience necessary."

He is known to listen to advisers.

 Is this a good thing?

Bush listens to his advisers.

What we need is a president who will at times overrule his advisors.

For that you need a president who is confident in his knowledge of the world, history and vision.

.> So did Bush as the chief executive
> of the State of Texas ..lot of good
> that did us.

My understanding is that the government of Texas is set up like a parlimentary democracy: the Governor is the head of state [= President of France]; the lieutenant governor is the head of government [= Prime Minister of France]. While the head of state has some say in the direction of the whole shebang (particularly through jawboning and veto power) it is the lt. gov. who actually does the day-to-day executive work of the TX government. Correct me if I am wrong on that.

sPh

I can only assume that John meant that Bush gave off an aura of being ordinary and virtuous. He is, of course, neither. I would, however, argue that he is more ordinary than virtuous.

Given the nature of the Presidency there seems to be no training for it. It does seem that those who have been governors tend to do a better job than those who have only been legislators. The latter, as we saw with Kerry, can take all sides of any issue because of all the different votes they have. Governors also have to produce real things for their constituents. It is not clear that Senator ever really has to accomplish much if they provide constituent service.

Obviously not every former governor was a good President. Carter being a rather inexperienced governor was a terrible President who's ineptitude gave us Reagan. Clinton on the other hand seemed to understand that governing is about making choices and getting things done.

The biggest problem with Obama and H. Clinton is, so far, they make nice atmospheric speechs but say nothing. Both of them seem to put every utterance through a focus group before it leaves there lips. It would be nice to have a Democratic candidate who believes in something, more than we should all get along, and says what they believe as if they actually believe what they are saying.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

Clinton and Giullani both seem to me to be the triumph of resume over character. Yet Obama's resume ain't nothin' to sneeze at.

There's this ineffable thing called "judgement", and Obama's got it, and she doesn't, despite all her experience. She's not an inspirational figure to more than half of the US public.

Obama's personal history is part of this. As is his skin color and his name. To the rest of the world, which has looked on in horror and fear at the way our government has behaved in the past 6 years, it will be an enormous advantage to the United States to have a president who looks more like the rest of the world, has actually lived in another country (albeit as a child), who has family connections into other cultures and countries (giving him an insight a patrician white boy could never have), and a history of working to empower ordinary people. We will need a president who can have the personal credibility necessary to reassure our friends, make some new ones, and repair damaged relationships. Hillary and Bill could do some of this, but he could do more. Plus, his judgement about this war was spot on from long ago, and she was wrong. There's no getting around that.

Judgement matters. Character matters. Now, more than ever.

"I can only assume that John meant that Bush gave off an aura of being ordinary and virtuous." Yeah, thanks, Ben.  I assumed one would guess I wasn't dismissing Democrats as elitists and adulters either, especially as I was more explicit about the Giuliani myth. Oh, well.

My father used to talk about Americans as still having a longing for kings.  It's part of this whole image thing, although now fed through a culture obsessed with partisan-created and media-created images.  If we believed enough in government by the people, we could start asking ourselves not who we want out of government but what we want out of government, then finding leaders with the same conviction.  

John 

http://www.haberarts.com/

Ben, your photo, if current, implies youthfulness compared with myself and some of the others here.  Clinton was somewhat charismatic, I assume you know.  Ray-Guns was very charismatic, much to the horror of the geezers on this site.  For reasons I do not understand, it appears that publicans find Bush charismatic, seems a dullard to me.

Charisma is a useful political (or, if you are in the preaching business, evangelical) trait.  It moves people.  It doesn't communicate.

The "great communicator" (Reagan) communicated very little.  Great with the sound bite, but the sound bite had little content.  His skill was with seeming profound and sincere when saying the most trite of things.  He probably was sincere as only trite things resonated with him.

Obama's charisma will do him well, but it is not a way to communicate information.

Hillary doesn't merely seem to lack sincerity, her record justifies doubt in here ability to be sincere. 

I'm a little leery, too. That's what people were saying about Dubbya before the 2000 election, so the Grand Old Party ponied up Cheney to cover their "boy's behind." Well, we can all see how well that "team" has turned out to be. I'm looking for a candidate who not only has the goodwill of the people to formulate sound policy but also has experience working with other politicians and, more importantly, has a plan to get this country back on track. Charism is great for the media, but our country is too diverse and too polarized to find a Great Leader we can all rally around. If a president can't work with the people in Congress to bring about effective change in this country, s/he is just fodder to chew on. I'm waiting for the "cream" of a candidate to rise to the top of this bucket of bull who can show proven leadership skills.

Not knowing these things forces him to rely on advisors (like Cheney) who have consistently given bad advice.

This is the big difference between Bush and his father.

Many of the people working for Bush such as Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams and the rest of the neocons also worked for his father. The difference is his father knew enough to overrule them when he had to. They were not able to hijack his father's presidency because there was no question who was the boss. Bush Sr for all his flaws was well informed about major issues, especially foreign policy. The neocons in his administration were not able to manipulate him.

Is Richardson your choice for President over all the other Democratic nominees?

And Clinton, after all, had no national experience whatsoever before he became President.

Apples and oranges.

Clinton had been a governor for 10 years. He had spent years debating, formulating national policy. In 1992 Clinton was fluent discussing pretty much any issue, from North Korea to farm policy. You could ask him anything and he would give you a detailed answer that showed he had thought about and studied the issue and had come up with answers on his own.

Obama OTOH relies on homilies and generalites. You get the sense he has not thought through these issues and instead is relying on talking points.

It doesn't mean Obama is an empty suit like Bush. It just means he hasn't spent enough time thinking through national issues and formulating solutions.

Thanks for the compliment as the photo is reasonably current. :) I'm 36, which I assume puts me more or less in the middle of the pack in terms of median with respect to this site.

Charisma can be a powerful tool. In the hands of an otherwise good candidate, it can make him a great candidate. I would argue it is related to how one communicates (at least for me), but it's also very closely tied to movement, as you suggest. I suppose I would say that an ability to communicate improves one's charisma, and one's charisma improves one's ability to motivate others. Communication skills might not be a strict necessity for charisma, but it definitely aids it.

I also agree with you that I don't quite get Bush's "charisma", in that he doesn't seem very charismatic to me. I've really tried to understand how people think Bush was the right person to vote for in 2004, and I still can't wrap my head around it. The thing is I know quite a few otherwise intelligent people who voted for Bush in '04. I do think most of them are in that 15% or so who voted for him in '04 but don't think he's doing a good job now.

Frankly, I blame Bush on Clinton.  If he is gonna get a blow job in office, he doesn't need to lie to prosecutors about it.  Gore, in all of his woodeness, would have been too far ahead for the sneak behavior in Florida if the Dem's hadn't had the burden of Clinton to carry around.

The reelection of Bush is more of a mystery, although the constant promotion of fear was certainly the theme of the times.  I avoid the tube, so I don't know what happens there.  But in the real world, Bush was worse than a loser.

The Dems don't fight hard enough.  Bush's initial flight from Florida away from the capital should have been immediately grasped as evidence of cowardice.  The Dems should have promoted that from Sept 12 through the 2004 election, our cowardly president.