Experience vs. Inspiration

When I fly in an airplane I want the pilot with the most experience, not the one who can inspire hope in me that I get to where I am going. When I pay my taxes, I want the person filing them to be experienced, not the new person who inspires hope in me that he can do the job. When I hire someone to fix my washing machine, I want the tried and true experienced person, not the one who inspires me to hope that he can fix it. When I go to the doctor I do not want to get the one who inspires hope in me that s/he can cure what's wrong, but the one who knows what the hell to do the minute I call. It's not really the job of a public servant to inspire, but to get the job that the people demand done. The democrats think that if they have hope and are inspired things will get better, but they actually won't. When Oprah makes her employees sign her fifty page non-disclosure statement, she doesn't "hope" they can't break it, she pays teams of experienced lawyers to MAKE SURE they can't break it, or be sued in an experienced court by an experienced judge.

Comments

[fishretired]

Does that mean that McCain is the best suited for the job? Years in Hanoi Hilton must count for as much as being married to the president.

Roseanne - try presenting some coherent argument other than just vote for my choice. Hilary is a mean snake that I used to LOVE, but now I see her for what she is...anything for power!

[salidon]

I wonder. Has there ever been a president of this country who had "experience" to assume the office, save that he be an incumbent candidate?
George Washington was the general of the revolutionary army. No presidential experience there, save that he could lead men into battles against red coats. Abe Lincoln surely didn't have any experience, save that he came from Illinois. McCain has no experience, only the desire to become president. He has a history of being a prisoner of war, and involved in the Keating Five mess in AZ. Did I mention some of his sinful, immoral affairs which, if I'm not mistaken, goes against every spiritual fibre of the god of heaven?
Jefferson owned slaves, screwed one, maybe more . . . is that a prerequisite for being president?
Andrew Jackson owned slaves as well, fought in the war of 1812, hated Indians, massacred a score of them because he just didn't like them. . . that made him experienced for the job of president?
Hillary Clinton is the wife of an ex-president, lived in the White House, was a lawyer, the victimized wife of a philandering husband . . . she's qualified?
No one is experienced. There is NO criteria
I recall you have to be:
- an American citizen.
- of a certain age . . . sorry, I don't know what that is right now, Guessing, I would say about 35 years?
In these times, if I dare hope, our ethnic backgrounds should no longer matter, nor should our gender.

[Rachel36]

Actually, Obama has 4 more years as a Senator than Hillary. Besides, being the wife of the President doesn't count as experience. You didn't see her taking the blame for Monica, so how can she lay claim any Presidential success?

Hillary is my senator and I am glad she is, but let's take the blinders off already so we can see what's coming.

[reasoned]

1. Isn't this whole “experience vs lack of experience“ argument similar to the one made in 1860 by William Seward against Abraham Lincoln? In fact, wasn't it also the same argument that was made in 1992 against a little-known small-state governor by the name of Bill Clinton? (Someone who until becoming president never even held any other national office.) Obviously, history is not Roseanne's strong suit.

2. We are not electing an airline pilot or a doctor; that's what the cabinet members are--you know, a foreign policy expert for Sec of State; a finance expert for Sec of Treasury, and so on. However, when it comes to choosing a president, we are electing a leader, someone who can point a nation toward a common purpose, someone who can convince others to set aside their own political self-interests and coalesce around a powerful idea or initiative. That is the mark of a great leader; indeed, historically, the mark of a great president. I guess that civics is also not one of Roseanne's strong suits.

3. If I recall correctly, I think that Roseanne was/is against the Iraq war. So, it seems illogical to me how one can be against the 2002 Iraq War Resolution, yet supportive of Hillary Clinton for president. And, it's not just because she voted in favor of that resolution, but rather, and more importantly, because of the transparent political opportunism with which she did so. Look back at the context of the times: The nation was still reeling from the 9/11 attacks; Pres. Bush had very high approval ratings (around 80%); the midterm elections were just around the corner (and given the mood of the country the outlook for the Democrats was not healthy). Now, against that backdrop we had three senators with well-known presidential ambitions who voted in favor of the resolution: John Edwards, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. Unlike the small and lonely group of senators, like Sen. Kennedy, who opposed it, these three presidential aspirants did not vote their conscience, but their political ambition. Simply put, they did not want to be on the wrong side of that question back then for its perceived risks when running against a future Republican opponent. Of course, later, when the mood of the country changed, and Pres. Bush's popularity took a nose dive, then suddenly these three profiles in courage were also against the war, in fact, all along, as it turns out. So, uh, I gather that logic is not one of Roseanne's strengths either.

Hmm... So, what are we left with? Oh yes, comedy, yes, good old comedy. Roseanne, why don't you just stick with that, and not venture into political commentary where you are clearly outmatched by so many others.

[anywho]

Hillary is finished....she and her campaign are the only ones that don't see it.

[hillman]

Let's get to near history and Hillary's vote for the Iraq war resolution. Our country had just been devastatingly
attacked. Such was the patriotism that a Democratic Senator who left most of his body parts in the fields of Vietnam
was knocked out of the senate for not being patriotic enough! 29 Democratic senators voted for the resolution. Many
of them, like Kerry, were finally persuaded that the vote will be used primarily for getting Saddam Hussein to come
clean. They might not have trusted Bush but he was going to war anyway. Only, we might have given Republicans a 60 vote
senate. Friends, Hillary Haters, Monday Morning Quarterbacks, Backseat Drivers, what would have happened then?

Meanwhile, on a hilltop, far away from the battlefield, there was a Senator in the safe confines of a very blue state.
His state not devastated like New York. Sears Tower still towering. He made a fine anti-war speech. Simultaneously, he
was lustily voting Present in his state legislature instead of taking a stand on radioactive issues to avoid providing
propaganda material to the Republicans. Political expediency, it's called. Clinton haters are very intimate with this
phrase. If Obama had to be politically expedient in the Bluest of Blue states, what, you must think, he would have done
in the jingoistic pressure cooker of the 2002/03 senate? When we did not know where and when again we might be hit again
. One anti-war commentary given from the distant, safe, liberal confines of IL should not a president make!

Predictably, once Obama was in Senate, his voting was identical to democrats like Clinton. He raised no hell, showed no
leadership. Why should he? You see, voting against war funding is a somewhat unpopular thing. You can't do that and hope
to become President. And you can't just say Present, you know. You have to vote.

So now we have a tight race. Hillary might very well lose. No doubt, Hillary supporters will have to show up.

Obama supporters also feel about his electability. Good night, good luck and sweet dreams. We wouldn't let Hillary lay a
hand on Obama. No, she must be all tea/coffee only. If you criticize - you are racist. Dearest, I am going to go out on a
very dangerous limb here. I have a feeling, Republicans won't be so sensitive. No, I think they will have a thing or two
to say about that. *Despite* all the hype, Obama is not doing dramatically better than Hillary against McCain. How will
it look after Republicans have worked him over? To those who insist that our gem, Obama is still unknown - he has spent
aver $120 million dollar introducing himself. Media has been all ga-ga about him. Can it really get better for him? You
know, Fox, i.e., conservative media won't keep giving him a pass. They won't mind asking him about his drug use. Pox on
them but they will - and much more. Though, in my personal opinion they ought not to bother with that. McCain's strong,
maverick character and years of experience will be quite enough. To a left of center and right of MoveOn org type of a
person like me, when I put Obama next to McCain, I see a shrub next to a Titan. Obama's experience? He has organized in
Chicago - shame on me if I deny him that. In a general election, Comrades, that only works if the public has a seizure
while rolling on the floor in laughter. Bird flu, global warming have nothing on the effect Obama's record-setting lack
of experience might have on the general population.

Remember these words: no star, no matter how shiny, is about to jump straight from a state legislature to the White House.
If I as a Democrat cannot imagine it, think about all the Republicans out there.

No, wrong, I am not a purple Democrat. I thought Howard Dean was a better candidate than Al Gore/John Kerry. I was devast-
ated when he was knocked out because he dared to be emotional/­spontaneou­s. He had such a strong executive experience but
the media didn't like his laughter. He had no style. In America we must have Style.

I doubt if an undecided voter comes all the way here. And I don't have the Audacity of Hope to believe I can make any
impression on those who love Obama. But try I must.

[anywho]

Hillary is finished. Her behavior and actions over the weekend were embarrassing and unpresidential. She made a complete fool of herself.

I am now an OBAMA supporter, I NEVER disliked Hillary personally!! Well that certainly changed after this w/ends performances. I really don't care for her at all anymore. As far as I'm concerned she has belittled herself and probably hurt herself going forward even after the presidential primaries are over.

PS. I also get the feeling that her "female" support is predominately gay. Not that I have a problem with that (I work with many wonderful gays daily as a Flight Attendant), it is just that this support is a narrow slice of the electorate and doesn't represent women per se.

[trinity29]

Roseanne, I understand that you are no political expert and you are just stating your opinion here. I respect your opinion but I have some key questions to ask you.

Have you had a teacher who said to you I have been doing this for 20 years, except she has been teaching lousy for 20 years? Experience is as experience does.

If you care about the country and where its going look closely at what exactly is this experience you are speaking on when it comes to Hillary. Her 35 years of experience which includes the White House years? In that case you have to take into account the damage of NAFTA.

Are we looking at her experience as an elected official? Well Obama has more years on her there and also has more direct legislative experience than Clinton there as a civil rights lawyer. As an elected official, Hillary defended the war until it became completely unpopular and an electability risk for her. She had not judged that the war will take this kind of turn. Obama on the other hand stuck his neck out to voice an unpopular judgment knowing full well that he intends to remain in the political arena.

The Kyl-Lieberman bill that pretty much authorizes US to attack Iran should be of concern to citizens in this war fatigued country. Her vote on torture, cluster bomb, bankruptcy bill should be of concern.

I am not stating that Obama is clean without any scandals or dirt. Judge a candidate by the merit of their work, not just years. Bill Clinton faced the same argument when he was running because he was too young.

Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney had tons of experience. Look where that got us. It is not about the experience only Roseanne. Its who you are in bed with and what kind of political will can you mobilize. As a rookie senator Obama passed a bipartisan ethics bill which is a huge deal. Clinton on the other hand makes backroom deals with people.

When you were hired to do Roseanne, you didn't want it to be some "more" experienced actress did you? You wanted it to be you because you could play the part well with the most honesty and vulnerability based on how you understood the character needed to be played. Experience counts, yes, but what counts more is skills and judgement and getting things done. Obama has a strong record on that front.

[Newman9]

In the interest of putting some facts behind the rhetoric, let us compare the H. Clinton record with Obama’s. These are the facts from the congressional record. You can check these facts from the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov).
Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty. Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive. 16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.
There you have it, the fact's straight from the Senate Record.
Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize.
During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced:
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control bills,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These inculded
**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.
In all since enter the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096.

Posted by: Susan | February 23, 2008 11:02 AM

[Shadowmann1]

Yes, and Hitler made the trains run on time in Germany. Let's face it, Hillary FAILED on the most important decision this century - the war. She also has a record of indictments and ethics problems that are also record-breaking. Heck, McCain has more "experience" but is just on the wrong side of many issues. More smoke, but less heat for Hillary. Hillary was NOT President - she was a President's wife.

Think.

[SCCavie93]

Thanks for the fact checking. It is amazing that so many people can be so misinformed or worst yet, lack the awareness to FIND FACTS. Supoort for Hillary is one thing but to repeat the FALSE claim of Obama's inexperience while claiming that being the wife of a president is experience counts is downright STUPID. Why not go ahead and let Laura Bush,Barbara Bush, or Nancy Reagan be president if that is the case. I am sure the Hillary supporters realize how dumb that sounds but they rush to use Hillary time as first lady as "proof positive" that she is ready on DAY ONE.

Hell, like McCain, she has FAILED to manage her very OWN campaign and they want to turn her over with the COUNTRY??? INSANE.

I am not anti-Hillary as much as I am "DEMOCRATS really need to STOP being STUPID"!

The strategy has to be unity behind the person MOST likely to WIN! Putting all emotions, gender, race etc...aside....the GOAL must be to WIN and take back the white house with or WITHOUT the CLINTONS!

Wake up AMERICA...the Clinton DRAMA has already started and the vast majority of the people are OVER IT! I do NOT want to go backward to the 1990's with scandal after scandal and another 4 years of EXTREME division across the aisle of Congress.

[Newman9]

In the most important decision of her career, the highly "experienced" Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq War. She now says that she was outsmarted by George W. Bush.

When I fly, I want someone who is smarter than someone like George Bush, not someone who can easily be outsmarted by an imbecile.

[Shadowmann1]

This arguement makes no sense for so many reasons. If the doctor had more experience but was drunk, holding the scalpel backwards, and had been sued for malpractice several hundred times over his "experience" would you still prefer that experience? If the pilot with the most "experience" had crashed his plane nearly every time he took off would you prefer her/him? Who had more experience - Kennedy or Nixon? By your "logic" doesn't this mean that if Hillary were the nominee that you would ultimately have to vote for McCain? After all, he has more "experience."

Think.

[dollyblue]

Everyone so desperate for experience should have supported Biden, Dodd or Richardson. They each had lightyears more experience than either of the two remaining candidates.

[LawrenceL]

Oh, Roseanne, you are so right!

Obama is an impressive, intelligent person, but I really wish he had more experience. I will vote for him if he is the Democratc candidate, but I wish Hillary had been able to "inspire" voters to examine Obama's non-record. I would like to know how he is going to bring a bitterly divided country together. I suppose we would all like to know that.

[trinity29]

what kind of experience would you have liked him to have? what kind of experience does Hillary have that makes you think that she is qualified to be President?

[malrubius]

Experience as a failed and secretive first-lady is not the experience I'm looking for in a president.

[ddanpereira]

Roseanne this country is on the verge of becoming too dumb to bother saving! It’s sad when SNL, a comedy show, has to explain how the corporate media controls the American public: Bush in 2000, 9/11 unavoidable, Iraq War, Bush 2004, Terrorists everywhere. The American public bought all this and now Obama is the Messiah that Halle Berry will follow anywhere? We are doomed.


Here you go Obamabots, chew on this


Kirk Watson, a state senator from Texas, was so embarrassing for not being able to name one achievement of Obama’s on national TV. Well, Mr. Watson is on pace to exceed Obama’s own 8 year career in his state legislature.


183 Bills Authored in 2 years (732 in 8 years projected)
20 Bills Co authored in 2 years (80 in 8 years projected)
51 Bills Sponsored in 2 years (204 in 8 years projected)
2 Bills Co sponsored in 2 years (8 in 8 years projected)


Even crazier is that the Texas state legislature only meets ONCE every TWO years for only 140 days. So Kirk Watson is even MORE qualified than Obama because he’s accomplished way more than Obama in a shorter time frame.


Kirk Watson for President. Unfortunaley, he can’t spew empty rhetoric as well Obama.


Actually, I am sure that with over 1000 state senators in the United States, you will find many of them with much better records than Obama or Watson on the same issues. In fact, my State Senator of many years just decided to make the leap to mayor and I didn’t think he was qualified for that let alone PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.


Obama’s record as State Senator wasn’t that great to Illinois residents, because he lost in the Democratic primary for US House of Representatives in 2000. He has only served three years as US Senator, with the last year mostly campaigning.


As the world gets more complicated, America contiues to lower the standard for President. (2000, 2004 Bush, 2008 Obama). Why not have in 2012, Zel Miller? He’s charismatic and funny!


Roseanne, Tina, Billie Jean you rock.