Obama is more experienced than Reagan

People keep trying to bring up Obama’s “inexperience”. I have two objections to this. 1) He is a very accomplished person professionally and 2) Why is it, all of a sudden, that people think the only ones capable of being President are career politicians? Who else has direct foreign policy experience except people in government? Are we non-politicians so stupid and so ill-informed that we could never be considered for President?

No, of course not. Obama has a law degree from Harvard and he was the president of the Harvard Law Review. He was professor and a lawyer before serving in both the state senate and the US Senate. He has more government experience that probably 99.99% of the people in the country.

By contrast, Ronald Reagan was the governor of California for 2 terms. That is the sum total of his political experience. Note that this includes no foreign policy experience. Oh I guess I should mention he was the president of the Screen Actors Guild.

Obama is more experienced and more educated than Reagan was and much better prepared to be President.

Obama is not perfect. I disagree with some of his positions. But STFU with this bullshit that he is incapable of doing the job. He is completely capable and he represents a welcome change from the 8 years of incompetence we just endured.

Obama is more experienced than Reagan

5 thoughts on “Obama is more experienced than Reagan

  1. Yes, but Kennedy still had more experience than Obama. Plus, Kennedy’s lack of experience led to the most precarious nuclear threat this country has ever known, the Cuban Missile Crisis. Obama has not learned his history very well. Obama points to the negotiations between Kennedy and Kruschev as why we should negotiate with our enemies. Those negotiations were so disastrous for the US because Kruschev recognized Kennedy’s weakness and inexperience and the result was the installation of nukes in Cuba. Obama should study his history a little more closely before he starts citing examples that actually undermine his position.

    Now I’ll admit that Kennedy ended up handling that situation well in the end but his naivete almost got a few million folks killed. That was some serious on-the-job training.

    The world is even more dangerous today and I don’t trust Obama to handle it. He’s too green, too idealistic, and too weak.

    And I think a lot of his supporters are cultists because they don’t know or understand what his positions are, or who he is, or what hes stands for, but the faint at his feet because he makes ’em feel all squishy inside.

    It’s about as obvious of a cult of personality as I’ve ever seen in modern politics.


  2. If we were talking about any other job on Earth, Obama’s resume kills Reagan’s. Should we hire the 70 year old ex-actor or the young, accomplished lawyer/professor/activist?

    I concede, Reagan had more executive branch experience. But having no legislative experience isn’t an asset. Having excelled at one of the most prestigious law schools in the country shows a lot of hard work and intelligence. Taken as a whole, Obama is much better prepared for the job.

    I agree with Jachin above, it’s a silly point to be arguing. But the notion that Obama doesn’t have enough experience is completely fucking daft.

    John F. Kennedy graduated from Harvard, was a in the state senate for 6 years and the US Senate for 7 years prior to being elected President at the age of 44. Boy what a mistake that was.

    Finally, I don’t know why you feel compelled to portray Obama supports as cultists. The fact that we believe in our candidate should be thought of as a Good Thing© versus the tepid apathy greeting John McCain.


  3. “Obama is more experienced than Reagan”

    Michael, this is possibly the most laughable statement you have ever posted.

    Reagan was just shy of his 70th birthday when elected and Oama is 44. Can you possibly tell me that 26 years of life experience and wisdom is not “experience?”

    Reagan was a 2 term governor of a state with some 30+ million people. This is a chief executive position. Obama has ZERO executive experience. Being the governor of California is like running a good size country.

    Obama has a law degree and was president of Harvard law Review??? He was a community organizer and a less than 1 term senator.

    You Obama cultists are just deluded. I truly believe you are infatuated with the IDEA of an Obama and I admit, it has a certain attraction. But this guys is not experienced enough, far to much to the left of the spectrum, and not fit to lead the greatest country on earth.

    Your assertion that Obama is more experienced than Reagan is just delusional.


  4. mnphenow says:

    As much as I would not like to see Obama (or Clinton or McCain) as president, I agree with your complaint. This is supposed to be a government of the people, for the people, by the people, not a government of career politicians who hold some sort of exclusive knowledge of foreign policy matters.

    More specifically, this nebulous notion of “foreign policy experience” is completely unnecessary if the government operates within its constitutional bounds and follows the founders’ advice of “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none.”

    On the other hand, if we want to continue to be an aggressive, subversive, tyrannical global empire, then, yes, I suppose our chief executive would need some experience in such matters.


  5. The “experience”, is one of those things that pretty much any politician or anyone trying to make a political point can sway however they want.

    Reagan was way older than Obama when he was president so he had way more “life” experiences. Also Reagan had of years of experience in an executive branch of the government. A lot of people consider working in the executive branch to be much different that being in the legislative or judicial branches of government. There’s also military experience and probably several other facets of being a president that some care about.

    I do not really listen when people bring up “experience” as a reason for electing a politician. People have come from all kinds of background, and ages to become good and bad politicians.

    I think if people try to convince you that Obama isn’t as experienced as McCain, you could try to argue that he is experienced “enough” to be president, but more importantly I would stress the weakness of any argument for or against a politician based on “experience”.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s