do they american voters actually care about "experience"? obama will lose because the midwest is a bunch of paranoid racist fucks, not because of "lack of experience". i'd love to see stats that even remotely suggest that experience matters in electoral victories.
The George Bush of 2000 would not win in the post 911 world; while no "polls" show this, history does over and over again. In 2000 and 1992 for that matter there was no "threat" from outside forces to this country. The Soviet Union was dead for all collective purposes, and America was "safe". Yet if we go back a few more years, to 1980, things were different. The Democrats had a candidate (Carter) who was seen as a good guy, but weak and inexperienced. He didn't instill much faith in the American people. Reagan was the exact opposite. While inexperienced in foreign policy (yet extremely knowledgeable in the subject as well as US foreign policy history), he instilled great confidence in the American people. I'm not saying Reagan was a great president; I'm saying he was great at reaching the American people and gaining their trust. People felt safe with Reagan for whatever reason, and as president he pursued a very aggresive foreign policy. While overrated in many regards, there is no denying that Reagan was indeed "The Great Communicator"
In 1984 Reagan won re-election in a historic landslide over Walter Mondale, who had no foreign policy experience and also was tainted by his connections to Carter. In 1988 George Bush Sr., a complete opposite to his son in terms of foreign policy experience and credibility, soundly defeated another Democrat
perceived as weak on foreign policy (the tank) as well as social issues (the rape question, while unfair, gave the American public this opinion).
In 1992 HW Bush found himself in a world he was unfamiliar with. There was no enemy to pursue, and nothing to protect the American people from. With his foreign policy experience now insignifigant in this "new world" of American politics, his glaring flaws on other issues began to show up. HW Bush was never seen as a great speaker, and he often made public "goofs" and mistakes; yet these things didn't hurt him in 1988, or before. He lost to a pure politician who, like Reagan, knew how to gain the public's trust and support by talking their language: not a language of nuclear threats and great walls, but of taxes and health care. Clinton won again in 1996 against another Republican stuck in the "old world" of American politics.
In 2000 the younger Bush was able to defeat a career politician with lots of experience, yet who could not connect to the American public. Gore, at the time, was more of an "old world" politician than Bush, who was seen as someone not tainted by Washington. Oh how America was wrong
Obama:
I like Barak Obama, but I am almost sickened by the blind praise he gets for giving a good speech, or reciting JKF (another great speaker but poor politician), or telling everyone how great America is, etc. Have you people never heard a sermon? He reminds of of those types who "preach" for two and a half hours without saying anything.
Barak Obama entered the senate on a wave of popularity unseen in the political realm in decades. He assumed his place with great expectations. Yet four years later he hasn't done anything to support the idealistic personality he has cultivated in the public's eyes. Outside of the online pork barrel spending bill he co-sponsered with a Republican senater, he has no legislation credited to his name, to my knowledge.
Yet he has the audacity to declare "I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington, but I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change." The big problem most people perceive in Washington is that the senate and house simply don't do anything; as has been documented, the last few years have been very uneventful in the senate/house. And likewise, he hasn't done anything along with his fellow senators. Yet as is the case with most "non Washington politicians", he attempts to distance himself from others when in fact he's not much different.
