Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

DOES EXPERIENCE MATTER?

Here's a quick background (from wikipedia) on all the President's since FDR:

FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT - Democrat - served 8 terms. Was 51 when he took office. Was a State Senator from NY, Secretary of the Navy, Governor of NY, then President. Milestones: Depression, New Deal, Unemployment drop from 24% to 2%, Social Security, WWII.

HARRY S. TRUMAN - Democrat - served 2 terms. Was 61 yrs when he became Pres. Was VP under Roosevelt. Was 2 term US Senator from Missouri, served in WWI, was also a judge. Milestones: Manhattan Project/Atomic Bomb, creation of UN, Cold War, Marshall Paln, creation of Israel and NATO, Mccarthyism.

DWIGHT DAVID EISENHOWER - Republican - served 2 terms. Age 63. Served 2 terms. Was a General and Supreme Allied Commander in Europe. Milestones: Interstate Highway system, civil rights, Hawaii/Alaska become states.

JOHN FITZGERALD KENNEDY - Democrat - served less than 1 term due to assasination. Age 44 when he was President. Mass House of Rep, 7 years in US Senator Mass. Served in Navy WWII, received medal for PT109. Milestones: Cuban missle crisis, bay of pigs, space program, civil rights movement, beginning of vietnam war.

LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON - Democrat - served out remaining JFK term and 1 more term, did not run again. Age 55 when he was Pres.  Was VP under Kennedy. Texas house of rep, then US Senator from Texas, was Majority Leader. Served in WWII. Milestones: civil rights, great society: medicaid/medicare, war on poverty, vietnam.

RICHARD MILHOUS NIXON - Republican - served 1 1/2 terms due to impeachment/resignation in 2nd term. Age 56 when he was Pres. Navy Lt Commander WWII. Milestones: Foreign policy: treaty with Soviet Union, China Visit, Vietnam War, Integration, created EPA.

GERALD RUDOLPH FORD - Republican - served 3 years taking over from Nixon, did not win reelection. Was VP under Nixon when Agnew resigned. 28 years in House (Michigan), also was Majority Leader. Milestones: pardoned Nixon.

JAMES EARL (JIMMY) CARTER, JR - Democrat - served 1 term, was not reelected. Was Govenor of Georgia for 1 term, also GA state senator. Age 53 when he was Pres. Served in the Navy. Milestones: Energy Crisis, Iran Hostage Crisis, Economic inflation, airline deregulation, Panama Canal.

RONALD WILSON REAGAN - Republican - served 2 terms. Age 70 when he became President (oldest so far). 2 term CA Govenor. Army Air Force. Milestones: Air Traffic controller strike, "Reganomic", Grenada, End of cold war, war on drugs, Iran-Contra.

GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH - Republican - served 1 term, was not reelected. Age 65 when he became Pres. TX US house of Rep, UN Ambassador, Dir of CIA, VP under Reagan. WWII Navy. Milestones: Panama Invasion, Gulf War, large deficit/economic problems.

WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON - Democrat - served 2 terms. Age 47 when he became President. (3rd youngest after Kennedy and Teddy Roosevelt). Arkansas Attorney General, 3 term Govenor of Arkansas. First non-military (no military experience) President. Milestones: Turned economy around (to surplus), family medical leave, gays serve in military (don't ask don't tell), children's health care, Iraq, Kosovo, Lewinsky Scandal/Impeachment, America Corp.

GEORGE WALKER BUSH - Republican - served 2 terms. Age 55 when he took office. served 2 terms. questionable national guard record.
1 1/2 term Gov of Texas. 9/11, War on Terror: Invaded Iraq, Patriot Act, Dept Homeland Security, Highest deficit in history, Energy crisis, no child left behind, hurricane katrina, hurt relationships with allies.

SO WHO WILL BE UP NEXT?

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA - Democrat - 7 years Il state Senator, 2 years US Senator. Age 47. Milestones: community organizer, Keynote speaker at 2004 Democratic Convention, Foreign Relations Committee (has not held meeting), worked with Feingold to eliminate Lobbyists gifts to congress.

OR

HILLARY DIANE RODHAM CLINTON - Democrat - 2 term first Lady, 7 years US Senator. Age 60. Milestones: Arkansas Board of Education, healthcare task force, passed children's health care program, children's immunization program, gulf war syndrome, adoption and safe families act, keynote speaker for 4th world conference in Beijing on human rights, whitewater investigation, Senate Arms Services Committe, co-sponsored funding for world trade center with schumer, investigations into health issues by 9/11 first responders, family entertainment protection act, hearings on Yucca mtn.

OR

JOHN SIDNEY MCCAIN III - Repubican - Age 72 (would be oldest President) Arizona House of Rep, 21 years in US Senate, Capt US Navy, Vietnam - 5 years POW. Milestones: Senate Armed Services Committe, Keating Five Scandal, campaign finance reform, line item veto, Immigration Reform.

Tags: 2008, Barack Obama, Candidates, experience, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, presidential election (all tags)

Comments

73 Comments

Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

And Hillary did not accomplish her task at reforming Arkansas education.

by Pravin 2008-03-12 11:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

what is the basis for your statement?

by JoeySky18 2008-03-13 12:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

They wanted to filter out teachers based on competency. Failed. THe Clintons actually had some good proposals. But where are the results? This is why I do not pay that much attention to policy and more on leadership to affect meaningful chnge.

by Pravin 2008-03-13 12:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

I was referring to the results on education.

by Pravin 2008-03-13 12:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

Well I think Geraldine Ferraro was slightly off the wall but the MSM again  took it and ran with it.  I still haven't seen Obama say he's sorry to Hillary for anything or the american people about NAFTA.  Beside Geraldine wasn't a paid adviser like Powers high-up in her campaign.  He never says sorry, never admits mistakes (which we all do) sound familiar

by bradydundee 2008-03-13 04:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

Really?

Clinton's role on the Arkansas Education Association was to increase the upper-level math available, as well as science and participation.  Arkansas high-school students (9-12) have increased from 1992-Now;going from 36% to 50%, taking at least one upper-level math class.

9-12 graders have gone from 19%-28% in taking at least one science class.

8th graders have gone from 3% in '92 to 16% now, and along with many more increases, I don't see how you can say there has been no improvement.  Take a look, starting on pg. 5.

http://measuringup.highereducation.org/_ docs/2006/statereports/AR06.pdf

by TxDem08 2008-03-13 06:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

While there is always a delayed effect for proposals, you are going to give credit for the entire 16 year gap since the Clintons left Arkansas?

by Pravin 2008-03-13 01:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

If all it took was the longest resume, then quite a few Presidential candidates wont qualify. There are some lifelong politicians with longer resumes. Are you telling me there weren't democrats with longer resumes when Clinton ran in 1992? What an idiotic diary this is.

by Pravin 2008-03-12 11:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

Of course there were...but at least he had EXPERIENCE as a Govenor....what has obama accomplished?

by nikkid 2008-03-12 11:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

Governor of Arkansas, in my honest opinion, ranks about the same way as State Senator of Illinois does.

by marcotom 2008-03-13 12:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

Right - because being a part time state senator in a legislative body equals being a full time executive of an entire state.

Do you people even think for a second before you say this crap, or do you really believe it?

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 12:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

The problems you face in Arkansas, frankly, don't translate to the federal level. Illinois is much more representative of the country as a whole.

One could argue about which one is more important for years to no avail. I'm just saying you are making it too easy for yourself by just discounting his years in the state legislative altogether.

by marcotom 2008-03-13 02:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

The problems you face in Arkansas, frankly, don't translate to the federal level. Illinois is much more representative of the country as a whole.

In a land of stupid comments, this one takes the prize.

One could argue about which one is more important for years to no avail.

Yes, if one is arguing with an utter moron.

by Inky 2008-03-13 05:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

That comment was completely absurd.  You're attempting to compare a Illinois State Senator with a 2-term Govenor, and a former Attorney General?

You should stick with trying to beat Hillary's record, Bill Clinton is WAY out of Barack's league.

by TxDem08 2008-03-13 06:31AM | 0 recs
Maybe Obama can say that in his next stump speech

I am sure that would go over really well.

by ineedalife 2008-03-13 03:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

Two terms as First Lady?  You make it sound like an elected office.  Also, you falsely state that Barack Obama has never held a meeting of the Foreign Relations Committee.  What you meant to refer to is the SUB committtee.  There's a big difference.

by Setrak 2008-03-13 02:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

Everyone is buying into this complete mischaracterization of what Geraldine Ferraro said. Her words were taken completely out of context and distorted beyond belief for the express purpose of scoring some of the ugliest political points I have ever witnessed.

Geraldine Ferraro has been a fighter for everyone's civil rights throughout her long career of public service. From her long historical perspective she was making a profoundly positive point about Barack Obama's candidacy, saying it is historic, and has only been possible because of the culmination of the work, dreams, and sacrifice of the civil rights movement, the maturation of our society, and most importantly, a never before seen consolidation of support and mobilization of the black community. Her point was that is would not have been possible before, and is only possible now because of those history making efforts for social change, that make a presidential candidacy by a black man viable in a way that has never occurred before. She wasn't speaking at all to his qualifications, whether he "deserves" to be elected or not, her statements referred only to the fact of the new "readiness" of our society to consider and support a black candidate for the highest office in the land.

Her perspective is that the social movement toward the Obama candidacy is the important factor in making what would have been unfeasible not long ago a political reality. She was lauding the black community for the strong upsurge in activism and organization, which has never before been seen to happen on this scale. She was giving credit where it is due. It was a huge compliment from a civil rights and feminist icon, and she was stabbed in the back for it, for political purposes.

She is saying in essense that no matter how remarkable Obama is, or what his qualifications are, that nothing could have come of his campaign had these trends not been coming to fruition - the timing was right. Barack Obama stands on the shoulders of all those who have come before, fighting to end the racism and injustice. Ferraro was giving credit to those greater social forces at work, not attributing his rise to "affirmative action" or any other crap like that. That kind of racist BS had nothing to do with what she was discussing. Why anyone would want to distort and mischaracterize her remarks by taking them out of context and attributing racist connotations to them is unnervingly corrupt and politically ruthless.

I do think she is right, and additionally I do believe that if Obama were a woman of any color he would not be in the same position with his very short, limited experience as a public servant. That is MY belief, not what Geraldine Ferraro was saying, to be clear.

Young people may want to take complete credit for Obama's success and believe it is his uniqueness and gifts that make his candidacy possible, but we who have been around much longer know that Zeus did not jump fully formed from the forehead of Athena, his candidacy is a product of many people, included among them, Geraldine Ferraro. There have been countless profoundly gifted and brilliant black people who have come and gone and never come near to running for the presidency, no matter their unique talents. When you stand on people's shoulders, many of whom are long gone, having paid the supreme price for their activism, it would behoove you not to defecate in their faces.

Nothing against this diarist for the discussion of presidential candidacy qualifications, but that is a completely different discussion than what Geraldine Ferraro was talking about. I just want to set the record straight.

by 07rescue 2008-03-13 12:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

Her comments were out-and-out, transparently racist. All of the typing in the world isn't going to change this.

I see stuff like this and weep at the mental gymnastics you people must be doing to justify this in your heads. Either that, or you're actually racists too. I'm not really sure.

by amiches 2008-03-13 02:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

"Her comments were out-and-out, transparently racist."

Your remarks are flat out wrong, and your slurs against Ferraro and myself are disreputable.

by 07rescue 2008-03-13 04:27AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

She said that Obama is where he is solely because of his race, as if he were some kind of affirmative action project. I'm not sure how that isn't racist. Continue your cognitive dissonance routine, but the rest of the world thinks what she said was abhorrent.

by amiches 2008-03-13 05:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Ferraro was Right?


Geraldine Ferarro also said that Walter Mondale chose her for a running mate in no small part BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN.

Was Ferarro was sexist for saying that?

 

by moevaughn 2008-03-13 06:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Ferraro was Right?

She can speak for herself. I was not alive in 1984 so I can't speak for the fairness of that statement.

To speak for another is the offensive part. I honestly cannot believe this is being defended on a "progressive" blog.

by amiches 2008-03-13 07:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Ferraro was Right?

Maybe because she realizes she did not deserve it. Even someone with a racist mind can be honest. Look at Pat Buchanan.

Now, she is no Pat BUchanan. But what she did here was racist when she said that Obama wouldnt be here if he was white.

by Pravin 2008-03-13 11:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

You keep avoiding answering the most basic problem with that interpretation - if that is really the case, then why did Clinton say she disagreed with Ferarro's statement? Why didn't she take the opportunity to set the record straight about what Ferarro really meant? (That's ignoring why Ferarro herself didn't explain what she really meant, if your interpretation is correct.)

by upstate girl 2008-03-13 02:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

Clinton didn't hear the context of Ferraro's remark's, either. She was responding to what reporters told her were the remarks.

by 07rescue 2008-03-13 04:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

So after days had gone by, and being questioned about it once already, another day passes and Ferarro resigns and Clinton comments again, this time denouncing it more harshly and rejecting her words entirely - you're saying that Clinton still "didn't know the context" of her words? That she was only basing her comments on what reporters told her was said? You're honestly trying to float the idea that Clinton wouldn't bother to even get the transcripts of any of the interviews and speeches where Ferraro has made these kinds of claims, especially by her most recent public statement?

by upstate girl 2008-03-13 05:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

Here's her quote, in case you hadn't read it:

Of Ferraro's comment, Hillary Clinton told her audience: "I certainly do repudiate it and I regret deeply that it was said. Obviously she doesn't speak for the campaign, she doesn't speak for any of my positions, and she has resigned from being a member of my very large finance committee."

Pretty strong statement from someone you're claiming doesn't bother to look up the "context" of Ferarro's words.

by upstate girl 2008-03-13 05:34AM | 0 recs
Re: HRC on Ferarro

  damned if you do; damned if you don't

by moevaughn 2008-03-13 06:09AM | 0 recs
Diane?

Learn something new every day from Wikipedia!

by Rob in Vermont 2008-03-12 11:32PM | 0 recs
You forgot Lincoln


Here's what I think: experience means jack. Did you know Abraham Lincoln served 8 years in the Illionois State House of Representatives, and 2 years in the US House of Representatives?

Obama has 8 years in the Illinois State Senate, 3 in the US Senate.

He has Lincoln beat by a year.

Men are wise in proportion, not to their experience, but to their capacity for experience. -- George Bernard Shaw


http://www.mydd.com/comments/2008/3/7/23 1941/3647/22#22

by kindthoughts 2008-03-12 11:44PM | 0 recs
Re: You forgot Lincoln

I'm only using recent history as a comparison....not all 200 + years.....in RECENT history he would be THE WEAKEST on EXPERIENCE....

by nikkid 2008-03-12 11:47PM | 0 recs
Re: You forgot Lincoln

If you're not going to use the entire sample base, could you specify your criteria for "recent" history and why that arbitrary section of time matters, but not what came before it?

by upstate girl 2008-03-12 11:51PM | 0 recs
How convinient of you to have an arbitary stopping

by kindthoughts 2008-03-13 07:37AM | 0 recs
Re: You forgot Lincoln

But of course, lincoln actually did stuff that was significant before he became president. The same cannot be said of Obama. Lincoln argued cases in front of the state Supreme Court and won. He innovated defense manuevers, He helped create the Republican party. he took a public stand against slavery. Lincoln did stuff. He was important. He came from an underprivileged family and was self=made. And lastly, Lincoln kicked major ass in debates. Obama stutters, stammers and says virtually nothing. Without a written speech and a teleprompter, he looks way too much like the comedian on SNL.

Obama is the son of a Harvard graduate, a Harvard graduate in his own right who is married to a Harvard graduate - and he has done nothing with all that. he hasn't taken any risky stands. He hasn't argued any important cases in front of any courts and won, or written any papers that are among the most frequently cited.

He's a very privileged guy who went to work for a real estate law firm and worked part time in the Illinois state senate. That's it. The only thing that he has in common with Lincoln is that they've both lived in Illinois.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 01:06AM | 0 recs
Re: You forgot Lincoln

Wait, I thought public stands were meaningless if you weren't in office when you took them. Hillary-land is so confusing sometimes.

by amiches 2008-03-13 05:46AM | 0 recs
Re: You forgot Lincoln

Hillary Land follows basic rules of logic. A private opinion that does not require considering the will of one's constituents is not the same as a public opinion held by an office holder on behalf of constituents. Hillary is bound to represent the state, and must vote with those considerations in mind. No one who is a private citizen must factor in the wishes of his fellow citizens when forming an opinion.

Obama had no one to represent but himself. it is funny how he lies and says that he was in the middle of a high stakes battle for the US Senate when he gave that speech - when in fact he was running for a part time job in the Illinois senate in one of the bluest districts in the state. Why does he lie like that?

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: You forgot Lincoln

In 2002, he certainly would've been laying the groundwork for a Senate run in '04.

by amiches 2008-03-13 07:58AM | 0 recs
Re: You forgot Lincoln

The lie Obama told about this was that he was in the middle of a high stakes campaign for the US senate. And that, of course, is a lie. He wasn't in the middle of any high stakes campaign - much less for the US senate.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: You forgot Lincoln

He said he was in the middle of a tight Senate campaign, which he was - jockeying with other potential nominees in the Chicago party.

Repeating that he lied doesn't make your words true.

by amiches 2008-03-13 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: You forgot Lincoln

Nope, he said he was in the middle of a campaign for US Senate. He lied and you pretending he didn't doesn't make his statement truthful.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: You forgot Lincoln

He was in the middle of a campaign for US Senate.

by amiches 2008-03-13 11:25AM | 0 recs
I am really quite sure that Lincoln's opponents

were also saying useless crap about him when he was running like you are right now against obama.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-13 07:31AM | 0 recs
Re: I am really quite

Truth hurts, I'm sure. Obama is a singularly unaccomplished man for someone with his privilege and education.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 07:55AM | 0 recs
Different era

And Lincoln had military experience. Back then virtually nobody had college degrees either. And the lifespan was much shorter, etc.. But if Obama thinks it is wise to claim he is another Lincoln let him.

I guess you could compare Obama to Alexander the Great and King Tut. They commended great empires at a younger age. But that would be ridiculous.

But since Obama seems determined to start a civil war in the Democratic party I guess the comparison to Lincoln does have some merits.

by ineedalife 2008-03-13 02:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Different era

Actually, Obama will be the same age as Bill Clinton was when he took office. Is that too far back in the mists of history to qualify as a valid comparison?

by upstate girl 2008-03-13 02:49AM | 0 recs
You cannot with a straight face

Say Obama's resume stacks up to Bill Clinton's.

Even Obama wouldn't say that.

Obama reached all the way back to Lincoln to get a former President with as little experience as himself. But that was a different era. Comparing apples to oranges.

by ineedalife 2008-03-13 03:26AM | 0 recs
BS

Obama never said anything about lincoln, that was a comment by somebody on MyDD.

And you sir are reaching at straws.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-13 07:33AM | 0 recs
Re:

You're right.  It's O's supporters who are reaching all the way back to Lincoln.  Maybe Sen. Obama is smart enough not to compare himself to Lincoln!

by moevaughn 2008-03-13 08:36AM | 0 recs
Good one

so lets see.

You accuse of Obama supports of reaching fro straws by when they demonstrate the Obama has more experience then Lincoln.

Then you say, how dare does obama do it.

And when you find out he did not, you say he should have.

Can you be a bit more of a troll please.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-13 01:59PM | 0 recs
Re: You forgot Lincoln

If Obama fits the Lincoln mold, then he ought to accept HRC's invitation to join her at town hall forums, where they would directly engage the electorate, and compare/contrast their respective plans for the future of our country.

Lincoln and his opponent had seven of these town forum type debates.  

Why won't Obama follow Lincoln's example, and take Hillary up on her offer?  What is he afraid of?

by moevaughn 2008-03-13 06:18AM | 0 recs
Yeah

Obama has to do exactly what Lincoln did in the exact way Clinton wants it.

Dream on.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-13 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Yeah

Who said that?  You're the one comparing Obama to Lincoln.  If he were at all comparable to Lincoln, he wouldn't be afraid to join HRC in town hall forums to directly engage the electorate.

by moevaughn 2008-03-13 08:38AM | 0 recs
I was not comparing them

in everything they do.

what I said is: Lincoln also did not have a lot of experience when e run for president.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-13 11:44AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

Ferraro's remarks are correct, just ask President Al Sharpton. I and all white males are compelled to vote for every black man that we find on a ballot. Since women voters are such a small minority in the Democratic party only a black man has a chance. Why else do you think all elected offices in local, state and the federal United States' government are held by black males?  Thanks Jerry for your bravery in pointing this out how black men have such an unfair advantage in obtaining elected office. The evidence is all around how did we miss it?

by graham poor 2008-03-12 11:44PM | 0 recs
She wasn't right

If she wanted to attack Obama for being inexperienced she picked a really bad and ugly and ineffective way to do it.

Indentifier politics are important.

I do believe a good portion of support for Clinton comes from voters who are voting for her not just because she's a woman, but her being a woman raises the stakes for them.  It puts their personal hopes and dreams on the line.  SAME FOR OBAMA.  He's black.  Blakc people identify with him.  Aside from them believing he'll be a great president, they are coalescing around him for many of the same reasons.

Ok, so this is different in a way, but after giving it a lot of thought I finally realized that Ferrarro needs to understand that she sounds like Rush Limbaugh saying Donovan McNabb was overrated because he was black.

Say he's overrated cause his passing stats suck and show how the defense carries the eagles to success, but don't get the color involved.

Same goes for Ferrarro.  Say he's prone to incompetence.  Say he quotes Kennedy on Diplomacy and has no idea what Kennedy actually said about how Diplomacy actually works.  (which is true by the way).

Don't bring color into it.

That said, I have found in my discussions with Obama supporters that what's feeding this is not a moral sense of outrage about the actual comments themselves, but some need to get a tit for tat scalp for Power.  Or to get some recompense for the Farrakhan episode during the last debate.

Clinton has repudiated the comments and has expressed her regret that they were never made.  She has said that Ferrarro does not speak for the campaign anymore.

She is cut loose.  A free agent.

by Edgar08 2008-03-13 12:01AM | 0 recs
Re: She wasn't right

While I disagree with most of what you say, strongly even, I still give you credit for denouncing and rejecting Ferraro's ill-informed words.

by marcotom 2008-03-13 03:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

Some technicalities:

FDR was elected to 4 terms, not 8.  He died in his fourth term.

Nixon was never impeached.  He resigned before the impeachment process could take place.

Clinton was impeached.  However, the subsequent senate vote to remove him from office did not pass.

by shalca 2008-03-13 12:12AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

oh, and one more thing, Geraldine Ferraro was wrong.

by shalca 2008-03-13 12:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Ferarro

Geraldine Ferarro also said that Walter Mondale chose her for a running mate in no small part BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN.

Was Ferarro sexist for saying that?

 

by moevaughn 2008-03-13 06:20AM | 0 recs
Maybe she should nto have accepted it then.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-13 07:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

By the way, Barack Obama was in the Illinois State Senate for 8 years, and he has been a US Senator for more than 3 years now.  Why do people get away with rounding down like this...I have seen Bill Clinton get away with it too.  

by gorebeatbush2 2008-03-13 01:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

Bottom line: Obama has more legislative experience than Hillary. And no, her years as first lady don't count. As one of the Texas papers said, proximity to power is not the same thing as experience.

by fugazi 2008-03-13 05:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?
There's a big difference between state politics and national politics. That's why Obama is losing steam now. They play amateur gutter ball Chicago style politics that are starting to fall apart. I don't believe they have the experience to go the distance.
by EdgeCurrent 2008-03-13 06:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

The Illinois senate is a part time job. It's not comparable. And yes, Hillary's experience as a dominant policy force in the White House counts - just as it would if she was a guy who was on staff. Hillary was part of the administration by every account, both positive and negative. And we saw it first hand, of course.

I don't know where people get this delusion that Hillary wasn't up there heavily engaged and working for the administration. It's so weird. It involved forgetting everything we knew about Clinton.

by Little Otter 2008-03-13 07:59AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

Also, the Foreign Relations Committee has met many times...you are thinking of the sub-Committee...please be accurate here.

And, Woodrow Wilson had TWO years of elected experience before being elected President....TWO!

Finally, John Edwards was nominated for VP in 2004 and I assume almost everyone reading this voted for him...maybe even for President during the primaries, which he almost won...well, finished second at least.  Well, Edwards would have had 6 years in the US Senate when sworn in, that is it...2 more than Obama will have had by then.  Other than that, Edwards was a lawyer.  So, don't make this argument unless you did not vote for John Edwards, cause by your logic he was not qualified either.

This is weak stuff folks.  Get a clue.

by gorebeatbush2 2008-03-13 01:39AM | 0 recs
Those who don't learn from the past....

But I think the message is that John Edwards lost. And John Edwards once again was a"right time, right place" candidate or in Ferraro's word's "lucky". If he was so great why didn't he get any traction this time around when his resume included former VP candidate?

And the list the poster compiled is what it takes to be a WINNER in American politics. We are nominating a candidate to WIN the presidency.

Personally I think either of our candidates has a uphill battle in the general election. I'm not a pessimist about it, but a realist. The balance is that the Republicans have put up a tough sell candidate as well.

Last election there was a formula circulating around that has accurately predicted the winner of every presidential election for the past hundred years and it accurately predicted Bush. In it a "first time" candidate in almost any category is a huge negative. CEO-level executive experience, like generals, governors, even university president (Wilson), is  a huge plus. Luckily McCain's executive experience is at junior officer level. I'll try to find that formula and see how it predicts this years candidates.

by ineedalife 2008-03-13 02:58AM | 0 recs
Woodrow Wilson

Woodrow Wilson:

1885: Publishes "Congressional Government: A Study in American Politics."

1886: Ph.D History & Political Science, Johns Hopkins University

1889: Publishes "The State: Elements of Historical and Practical Politics."

1893: Publishes a partial history of the United States, "Division and Reunion, 1829-1889."

1902: Publishes the five-volume "A History of the American People."

1890-1910: Professor at Princeton University. (Wilson "quickly became the most popular and highest-paid faculty member.")

1908: Publishes "Constitutional Government in the United States."

1902-1910: President of Princeton University. ("Wilson upgraded the university both financially and intellectually, and he attempted far-reaching reforms of both undergraduate and graduate education.")

1910-1913: Governor of New Jersey. (Wilson "won the governorship with a dynamic, progressive campaign. Once in office he put his earlier ideas about parliamentary practices to work in implementing a sweeping reform program that gave him a national reputation and made him a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination.")

Quotes are from "Woodrow Wilson." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 13 Mar. 2008

http://www.britannica.com/bps/topic/6447 66/Woodrow-Wilson

by fairleft 2008-03-13 06:11AM | 0 recs
Affirmative action candidates

Yes Geraldine Ferraro was right which is why Pat Buchanan, Rush, Ann  Coulter and O'Reilly agree with her. All you latte sipping Volvo driving bleeding heart liberals kicked the more experienced white guys like Dodd and Biden to the curb so you could have two less experienced affirmative action candidates. Hillary is lucky she's a woman and slept with an ex-President and Obama is lucky he's a Black man with a funny name. If they where white men they would not be where they are. Yes poor old Dodd, Edwards and Biden didn't have a chance against candidates who could play the race and gender card and play on liberal guilt.

Thanks for not being PC Geraldine and telling the 'truth' (or at least the truth according to right wing Republicans). As all the wingnuts will be happy to tell you the Republicans don't have any quota system for blacks and women, they picked the old experienced white guy.

by hankg 2008-03-13 04:50AM | 0 recs
Never mind

I started to catalog all the inaccuracies in your list (geez - you can't even copy from wikipedia honestly), but gave up.

So whatever... Yeah, Gerdingus David Duke Ferraro was right.  The darkies are taking our jobs.

by zonk 2008-03-13 05:16AM | 0 recs
Does Experience Matter?

First of all, "experience" is not "years spent in Washington." They are very different concepts.

Yes, true experience matters. Judgment matters more. One can be an experienced failure and/or an experienced incompetent. One can also be experienced and a mediocre (or worse) campaigner.

But if experience is the most important criterion, why isn't Bill Richardson winning the Democratic nomination? And why did Bill Clinton win the nomination in 1992?

by BBCWatcher 2008-03-13 05:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Maybe Geraldine Ferraro was Right?

Well IMO if Obama were to win the whitehouse, it is fair to say, that in recent history (since FDR) he would have the LEAST EXPERIENCE of any President which facing the biggest challenges of any President.

I think it's funnty that Oprama-fans site his "judgement" as reason enough to elect him!!!

Judgement? Was Rezko good judgement? Is admiration of his racist-pastor good judgement? Is his NAFTA fiasco good judgement? Was backing Bush's energy policy good judgement?

If that's all he's offering is Judgement - then you should be concerned.

Maybe the ONLY reason he's still in the race is because of his race. Am I racist for saying that?

Is it possible that Hillary is ONLY in the race because she's a woman? Yes, FOR SOME PEOPLE. But, you can't argue with the fact that she has MORE EXPERIENCE than Obama. Those of you that 'mock' her First Lady's experience do not take into account that she was there and involved.

Last time I checked the Clinton administration was the MOST SUCCESSFUL Democratic Presidency since FDR since it was the only Democratic Presidency since FDR that served 2 terms.

When he got there, the country was a mess (like now) and when he left most of us could say - we were far better off than when he got there and he left the country in good financial shape....

by nikkid 2008-03-13 06:32AM | 0 recs
Bill Clinton's administration

I think you are confusing the two people.

Just cause she is his wife it does nto mean she was a driving force for it all.

by kindthoughts 2008-03-13 07:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Bill Clinton's administration

And for the sake of argument, let us say she was. Isnt she then violating the spirit of the two term policy by going for third and fourth terms for their copresidency?

by Pravin 2008-03-13 11:14AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads