Has Obama's lack of experience lowered the bar for other entering candidates?

United States
September 5, 2011 5:20pm CST
For nearly every presidential election the issue of a candidate's lack of experience in national politics had been a death sentence to his or her candidacy. In the first presidential campaign since Obama's win in 2008 we have a few with thin credentials of few years on the stage... including possibly someone who was Alaskan Governor for less than 20 months... Does having a Prez elected with two years in the Senate before his election embolden others to run early? Does it lower the bar for what we look for in a candidate?
2 people like this
6 responses
@bobmnu (8157)
• United States
6 Sep 11
The lack of experience in what? What is important is the leadership ability of the person. Gov. Romney has experience as a state executive but very little experience working with Washington politics. Rep Bachmann has the experience with with Washington politics but no executive experience. president Carter had state executive experience, and Military experience but lacked experience in Washington politics. He brought in outsiders and that was part of his problem was the bureaucracy fought him and the politics of Washington fought him and his people. Like it or not the Bush/Cheney combination had the executive experience with someone who knew the Washington politics and it seemed that the two men could work to each others strengths.
1 person likes this
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
6 Sep 11
After Obama's first term performance, it should not embolden anyone; but should he be reelected, the bar will have been lowered as it was in 2008.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
6 Sep 11
All elections lower the bar somewhat because what one party can't stand about the other parties candidate one year, they embrace in their own candidate in future elections. For example, Clinton's lack of military service was a big sticking point for the Republicans both times he ran. The Democrats countered that with a lot of shots at military service in general. In fact, many pointed to Clinton's anti war activities as a plus. But when John Kerry was the Democrat nominee, the DNC all of the sudden found respect for military service, especially for service in Vietnam. Kerry got to play both sides by being a vet and his own anti war activities. On the other hand, Bush's military service was something they mocked... calling him a draft dodger. Of course, the Republicans downplayed Kerry's service, but emphasized Bush's service. So what happens if Palin runs, and get the nomination? Well, all of the sudden a lack of experience will be a plus for Republicans and Democrats (who loved the fact that Obama wasn't a Washington insider) will be say that experience is the only thing that matters... even though Obama's experience is nothing to brag about.
@Taskr36 (13963)
• United States
6 Sep 11
They already did that with Palin when she was just the VP nominee. It was fascinating how the people who said experience didn't matter were suddenly screaming that she didn't have the experience necessary to be VP, and yet somehow Obama had the experience necessary to run the country. We even got a lot of the "I don't want that women with her finger on the button!" as if anyone could start a nuclear war as easily as pushing a button. You really nailed it on the military service by the way. I would also point out the way democrats, to this day, scream of the evil swift boat attacks on Kerry, but fully supported nearly identical attacks against McCain, despite the fact that he personally condemned the swift boat attacks back in 2004.
1 person likes this
@ParaTed2k (22940)
• Sheboygan, Wisconsin
6 Sep 11
All elections lower the bar somewhat because what one party can't stand about the other parties candidate one year, they embrace in their own candidate in future elections. For example, Clinton's lack of military service was a big sticking point for the Republicans both times he ran. The Democrats countered that with a lot of shots at military service in general. In fact, many pointed to Clinton's anti war activities as a plus. But when John Kerry was the Democrat nominee, the DNC all of the sudden found respect for military service, especially for service in Vietnam. Kerry got to play both sides by being a vet and his own anti war activities. On the other hand, Bush's military service was something they mocked... calling him a draft dodger. Of course, the Republicans downplayed Kerry's service, but emphasized Bush's service. So what happens if Palin runs, and get the nomination? Well, all of the sudden a lack of experience will be a plus for Republicans and Democrats (who loved the fact that Obama wasn't a Washington insider) will be say that experience is the only thing that matters... even though Obama's experience is nothing to brag about.
@AmbiePam (121147)
• United States
6 Sep 11
I think it does lower the bar. And I'm worried about that. Obama's hopey changey platform got him into office but he hasn't done much good with our country while running it. I mean he made great promises. But people with more experience realized even back then he couldn't back them up. You can have the best intentions in the world. But something of substances doesn't always come of those.
1 person likes this
@mehale (2200)
• United States
22 Sep 11
Honestly, a new face in politics is not a bad thing in my opinion. For too many years it has been the same career politicians making the same mistakes and taking our country to a point that it never should have gotten to. The spending is out of control, government just keeps getting bigger and crazier all the time. I actually think that either Huntsman or Cain would be good, though I doubt that they will get the nomination. I am not sure that Obama lowered the bar, to answer your question, I just think that more people are beginning to see the problems facing our nation, and are entering the race because they actually care.....or at least I hope that is why.