Thoughts on Obama's level of experience?

[Anonymous]

OP here again. Thank you so much to everyone who took the time to respond. You've outlined some great points and I appreciate your thoughts.

Happy to read more though so keep 'em coming!

[Anonymous]

Whilte Obama is clearly an intelligent man and gifted orator, a few things bug me about him. Essentially, he reminds me of all the jerky guys I went to law school with. You know the type -- you probably dated some guys like this -- the ones who are so smooth, smarter than everyone else, and untouchable. This was just a blip in the media, but it struck a chord with me: while a law student, he accumulated hundreds of dollars of parking tickets and neglected to pay them (see details below). Did he forget to pay them? Probably not. Just like those other guys in law school who think they can beat the system (in his case: move out of state knowing that they city won't track him down -- thus, no need to pay).
Before Barack Obama was a United States senator and a presidential hopeful, he was a Harvard University law student living in Somerville who parked in bus stops and accumulated hundreds of dollars in parking tickets. And for nearly two decades those parking tickets went unpaid, until a representative of Obama’s settled all his outstanding debts with Cambridge’s Traffic, Parking and Transportation Department Jan. 26.Obama attended Harvard Law School from 1988 to 1991. During his time at Harvard, Obama lived at 365 Broadway in Somerville, according to his parking tickets. Records from the Cambridge Traffic, Parking and Transportation office show that between Oct. 5, 1988 and Jan. 12, 1990 Obama was cited for 17 traffic violations, sometimes committing two in the same day. The abuses included parking in a resident permit area, parking in a bus stop and failing to pay the meter. Twelve of Obama’s 17 tickets were given to him on Massachusetts Avenue.
In one eight day stretch in 1988, Obama was cited seven times for parking violations and was fined $45. Thirteen of the 17 violations occurred within one month in 1988.
Obama’s disobedience of the rules of the road earned him $140 in fines from the City of Cambridge. The tickets went unpaid for over 17 years and $260 in late fees were added to the tab. On Jan. 26, the fines and late fees were paid in full. The final tally for Obama’s parking breaches was $400, according to Cambridge Traffic, Parking and Transportation.
Obama spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said the presidential candidate’s parking violations were not relevant.
“He didn’t owe that much and what he did owe, he paid,” Psaki said. “Many people have parking tickets and late fees. All the parking tickets and late fees were paid in full.”
Psaki declined to comment further. She refused to say how the fines went unpaid so long and what prompted Obama to finally pay them.

Next: He's for merit pay for teachers -- not cool.

Finally: While I admire his commitment to stop smoking, he really shouldn't be chewing gum in public -- it simply isn't presidential. I was surprised to see him going to town on a wad of gum while sitting on stage for a MLK event.

[Anonymous]

Essentially, he reminds me of all the jerky guys I went to law school with.

I hear you, PP -- based on your post, I agree he sounds a lot like the jerky guys I went to law school with, too. But most of those guys were white guys, not African Americans.

I posted this an another thread, but I'll say it again here. Like Obama, I'm an alum of Harvard Law School. I was not on the law review, but I know people who were. My thought is that if Barack Obama can manage to get himself elected the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review, he can do pretty much anything he sets his mind to.

As for the unpaid parking tickets: I think most people in Cambridge will tell you that Cambridge generally -- and particularly the area around the law review building where it seems Obama got almost all of his ticket -- is an absolutely horrible place to find parking. I didn't bring a car to law school for that very reason. Since Obama lived in Somerville, driving was probably the easiest way to get to campus quickly. And with the weather being so cold in MA from pretty much October to May, you want to be outside as little as possible (the law school isn't that close to any subway station).

I'm not trying to excuse what he did, I'm just providing possible explanations. But given the shenanigans that our past Presidents have engaged in (Monica Lewinsky comes to mind), would you reallly not vote for someone merely because he had unpaid parking tickets from when he was in his 20's?

[Anonymous]

PP again - "ticket" in the third paragraph above should be "tickets" (plural). Just don't want anyone to disregard my post because I had a typo.

[Anonymous]

He is a gifted orator with an extremely talented speech writer (who is 23 y/o white hipster type guy, interestingly enough).

He is also either naive or choosing to present a vision that he knows is not going to be a reality. And either one of those things being true bothers me. A lot.

He is also passive-aggressive often and gets away with implied attacks that no one calls him on. Too smooth for my taste. I prefer Hillary's awkward bluntness.

So, while I am all for hope, I am not interested in superficiality or a naive vision being presented to make me feel good.

Whomever is elected after these 8 disastrous years is going to have a hell of a time cleaning things up - it will be hard, costly and often unpleasant. He seems to ignore these facts, which Hillary does not. She tackles them head-on with a wonkiness that might not be always appealing but is nevertheless evidence of her qualifications for the office of President.

[Anonymous]

"I hear you, PP -- based on your post, I agree he sounds a lot like the jerky guys I went to law school with, too. But most of those guys were white guys, not African Americans."

I went to law school at U-MD in Baltimore -- with a racially and socioeconomically diverse student body -- and I can assure you that jerky law students come in all colors

I remember listening to two African American guys bemoaning the fact that MD was implementing a mandatory reporting for pro bono activities. Essentially, these guys didn't think that lawyers at firms in fancy suits should have to provide pro bono legal service. At the mandatory ethics program we were attending, one of the guys actually asked whether he or his firm could just write a check instead. He said no one could force him to do anything he didn't want to do -- like take on a poor client. I'm a public interest attorney, so having to listen to these guys all afternoon was not easy. I'm not saying that all guys in law school are jerks -- I'm just saying that Obama's skin color doesn't necessarily make him more socially aware or committed to public service.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I'm just saying that Obama's skin color doesn't necessarily make him more socially aware or committed to public service.

Regardless of his skin color, he worked for several years as a community organizer in poor Chicago neighborhoods. I don't think his social awareness and commitment to public service are in doubt. But, there is the issue of his chewing gum which basically makes him unelectable

[Anonymous]

I'm uncomfortable posting in this thread. . . . However, I have to say I'm not convinced of Obama's superior judgment. In 2001, Obama said that Donald Rumsfeld, who at the time was Bush's nominee to be Secretary of Defense, was a "mainstream" political figure. He said, "I don't think soon-to-be-secretary Rumsfeld is in any way out of the mainstream of American political life. And I would argue that the same would be true for the vast majority of the Bush nominees, and I would give him credit for that."

Obama was saying that he didn't want to be portrayed as liberal for opposing John Ashcroft, but there were better ways to make his point than to claim that "the vast majority of Bush nominees" were "mainstream." Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, et al. were hardly mainstream figures. If he thought they were, his judgment isn't as superior as some of the posters in this thread are arguing.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:I'm uncomfortable posting in this thread. . . .

Given that this is at least your third post, you are coping well.

Anonymous wrote:However, I have to say I'm not convinced of Obama's superior judgment. In 2001, Obama said that Donald Rumsfeld, who at the time was Bush's nominee to be Secretary of Defense, was a "mainstream" political figure. He said, "I don't think soon-to-be-secretary Rumsfeld is in any way out of the mainstream of American political life. And I would argue that the same would be true for the vast majority of the Bush nominees, and I would give him credit for that."

Obama was saying that he didn't want to be portrayed as liberal for opposing John Ashcroft, but there were better ways to make his point than to claim that "the vast majority of Bush nominees" were "mainstream." Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, et al. were hardly mainstream figures. If he thought they were, his judgment isn't as superior as some of the posters in this thread are arguing.

Unfortunately, the reality is that Rumsfeld was mainstream in January 2001 as evidenced by the fact that Hillary voted for his confirmation. Wolfowitz was not appointed until February, so you can't hang that on Obama. Clinton supporters are starting to look desperate trying to sling this kind of mud. I guess the parking tickets and chewing gum charges are not sticking. Maybe you want to bring up his kindergarten essay again?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm uncomfortable posting in this thread. . . .

Given that this is at least your third post, you are coping well.

Anonymous wrote:However, I have to say I'm not convinced of Obama's superior judgment. In 2001, Obama said that Donald Rumsfeld, who at the time was Bush's nominee to be Secretary of Defense, was a "mainstream" political figure. He said, "I don't think soon-to-be-secretary Rumsfeld is in any way out of the mainstream of American political life. And I would argue that the same would be true for the vast majority of the Bush nominees, and I would give him credit for that."

Obama was saying that he didn't want to be portrayed as liberal for opposing John Ashcroft, but there were better ways to make his point than to claim that "the vast majority of Bush nominees" were "mainstream." Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, et al. were hardly mainstream figures. If he thought they were, his judgment isn't as superior as some of the posters in this thread are arguing.

Unfortunately, the reality is that Rumsfeld was mainstream in January 2001 as evidenced by the fact that Hillary voted for his confirmation. Wolfowitz was not appointed until February, so you can't hang that on Obama. Clinton supporters are starting to look desperate trying to sling this kind of mud. I guess the parking tickets and chewing gum charges are not sticking. Maybe you want to bring up his kindergarten essay again?

Jeff, I've not brought up his kindergarten essay -- as you know, since you can track exactly who posts what. I can't sign in on this computer, and I can't go back and figure out the time of each of my posts today. I simply don't have the time to do that. Yes, that was my third post.

Face it, it is hardly mudslinging to bring up the fact that Obama said Bush appointees are mainstream. You tout his judgment, I reply, and you claim it's mudslinging. I am very uncomfortable that you as the moderator are replying to virtually every post in which anyone expresses reservations about Obama. It does feel to me that you squash discussion a little bit. That's okay -- it's your board.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Face it, it is hardly mudslinging to bring up the fact that Obama said Bush appointees are mainstream. You tout his judgment, I reply, and you claim it's mudslinging. I am very uncomfortable that you as the moderator are replying to virtually every post in which anyone expresses reservations about Obama. It does feel to me that you squash discussion a little bit. That's okay -- it's your board.

I'm only replying because its such easy pickings. Also, what has bothered me about politics for a long time was the casual use of out-of-context facts or half-truths. I don't like when anyone does that, whichever the candidate. I've defended John Edwards on this board and I would defend Hillary as well in such circumstances. I didn't like McCain lying about Romney and if there were a McCain/Romney discussion going on I would complain about that as well.

If you seriously think that Obama saying that Rumsfeld was mainstream in January 2001 is indicative of poor judgement, that's your right. I think that's ludicrous and I think that bringing it up and embellishing it by including someone like Wolfowitz who was not an appointee in January 2001 and ignoring that Clinton voted to confirm Rumsfeld is mudslinging. But, let's accept your view that Rumsfeld was out of the mainstream. Then, why did Hillary vote to confirm an out-of-the-mainstream candidate for one of the most important jobs in the administration? Is that worse judgement?

If you don't want me to reply, get your facts straight. If I can't factually disprove what you are saying in less that 3 or 4 minutes, I'm not going to have time to do it. But as things stand now, Clinton supporters are bringing up one rinky-dink thing after another. My reference to Obama's alleged kindergarten essay was not that you literally brought it up, but that it is indicative of the type of attacks the Clinton campaign has used. Hillary's official website actually has a press release saying that "In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President.'". If this is true I congratulate Senator Obama because I don't know any kindergartners who can write essays. But, its not really a reason to not support him for President. Just like his saying someone whom Hillary voted to confirm is mainstream -- at a time when that person was mainstream -- is not a good reason to choose Clinton over Obama.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Face it, it is hardly mudslinging to bring up the fact that Obama said Bush appointees are mainstream. You tout his judgment, I reply, and you claim it's mudslinging. I am very uncomfortable that you as the moderator are replying to virtually every post in which anyone expresses reservations about Obama. It does feel to me that you squash discussion a little bit. That's okay -- it's your board.

I'm only replying because its such easy pickings. Also, what has bothered me about politics for a long time was the casual use of out-of-context facts or half-truths. I don't like when anyone does that, whichever the candidate. I've defended John Edwards on this board and I would defend Hillary as well in such circumstances. I didn't like McCain lying about Romney and if there were a McCain/Romney discussion going on I would complain about that as well.

If you seriously think that Obama saying that Rumsfeld was mainstream in January 2001 is indicative of poor judgement, that's your right. I think that's ludicrous and I think that bringing it up and embellishing it by including someone like Wolfowitz who was not an appointee in January 2001 and ignoring that Clinton voted to confirm Rumsfeld is mudslinging. But, let's accept your view that Rumsfeld was out of the mainstream. Then, why did Hillary vote to confirm an out-of-the-mainstream candidate for one of the most important jobs in the administration? Is that worse judgement?

If you don't want me to reply, get your facts straight. If I can't factually disprove what you are saying in less that 3 or 4 minutes, I'm not going to have time to do it. But as things stand now, Clinton supporters are bringing up one rinky-dink thing after another. My reference to Obama's alleged kindergarten essay was not that you literally brought it up, but that it is indicative of the type of attacks the Clinton campaign has used. Hillary's official website actually has a press release saying that "In kindergarten, Senator Obama wrote an essay titled 'I Want to Become President.'". If this is true I congratulate Senator Obama because I don't know any kindergartners who can write essays. But, its not really a reason to not support him for President. Just like his saying someone whom Hillary voted to confirm is mainstream -- at a time when that person was mainstream -- is not a good reason to choose Clinton over Obama.

I don't know what facts I have wrong, unless you think I was implying that Obama was talking about Wolfowitz -- and I can see how it might seem I was saying that. I wasn't, however. I was just using him as an example of an out-of-the-mainstream Bush appointee. I certainly didn't say Hillary didn't vote to confirm Rumsfeld. I disagree with that vote, as I do with some of her other votes.

What bothers me most about Obama is his sense of self-importance. He has the air of a classic narcissist. Politics is full of them, of course -- JFK and Bill Clinton are two of the best, most recent examples. I tend to agree with the very few columnists who have the temerity to balk prevailing opinion and suggest that Obama is grandiose, even messianic. I certainly think he's far more calculating than most people realize. He's just very subtle about it.

Just to be clear, I had no idea about the Rumsfeld thing until last night and I certainly didn't hear it from "the Clinton campaign." I heard it from a reporter I used to work with. He said he didn't report it but he would have if it had been a Hillary story. That bothered me, and it would bother me regardless of whether I supported Hillary or Obama. That's not the way the press is supposed to work.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:What bothers me most about Obama is his sense of self-importance. He has the air of a classic narcissist. Politics is full of them, of course -- JFK and Bill Clinton are two of the best, most recent examples.

I'm not sure I share your concern but I'm certainly comfortable with the comparison. Obviously, a whole lot of self-confidence is required to expect to be elected to the most powerful job in the world.

Anonymous wrote:
Just to be clear, I had no idea about the Rumsfeld thing until last night and I certainly didn't hear it from "the Clinton campaign." I heard it from a reporter I used to work with. He said he didn't report it but he would have if it had been a Hillary story. That bothered me, and it would bother me regardless of whether I supported Hillary or Obama. That's not the way the press is supposed to work.

The story was reported on ABC's blog yesterday. Anyone with the attitude you describe is not a reporter, but rather an opinion writer. The story really has no real value regardless of the candidate. The NYT had a front page story about Bill Clinton which is obviously a hit job. It also has no relevance to the current election. ABC News also has a story about Hillary and Walmart. It is somewhat relevant, but the timing is interesting. The media has an obvious love affair with McCain and I fear that both Hillary and Obama should expect rough treatment in the press and McCain solidifies his lead.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What bothers me most about Obama is his sense of self-importance. He has the air of a classic narcissist. Politics is full of them, of course -- JFK and Bill Clinton are two of the best, most recent examples.

I'm not sure I share your concern but I'm certainly comfortable with the comparison. Obviously, a whole lot of self-confidence is required to expect to be elected to the most powerful job in the world.

Narcissism and self-confidence are two entirely different things, though.

The story was reported on ABC's blog yesterday. Anyone with the attitude you describe is not a reporter, but rather an opinion writer. The story really has no real value regardless of the candidate. The NYT had a front page story about Bill Clinton which is obviously a hit job. It also has no relevance to the current election. ABC News also has a story about Hillary and Walmart. It is somewhat relevant, but the timing is interesting. The media has an obvious love affair with McCain and I fear that both Hillary and Obama should expect rough treatment in the press and McCain solidifies his lead.

The press is in love with McCain and infatuated with Obama. I did see the NYT story on Bill and agree it's a hit job. Hadn't seen the ABC blogs on Obama or Clinton but, depending on the reporter, either could be a hit job. What distresses me is that the guy I'm describing is a reporter, straight up. He's not an opinion writer. He said his editor shared his view that it was not a story if it involved Obama, it was a story if it involved Hillary. Same thing on McCain vs. Romney, he said. It bothers me very much. We as democrats with a small d are better served if the press does its job in a fair, unbiased way. And we as Democrats would be better served if the press would put Obama under the same microscope as it does Hillary, so he can go into the general election tougher and more prepared. I'm not saying that the Rumsfeld thing is a real story, but the standards for determining whether it is or not should be absolutely the same regardless of whether Obama or Hillary is involved.

[Anonymous]

To paraphrase MLK

WE "will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin [or their sex] but by the content of their character."

IMO, Obama wins the content of character hands down. Given a choice I would pick character and inexperience (along with a formidable IQ) over experience, equally formidable IQ, and - well I am not going to get into name calling here...