November 27, 2007
-
Stranger to Washington
I would like to thank everyone who participated in my birthday and gave me birthday wishes.
Here we go:
I was reading an article about Barack Obama and how he is lifting up his outsider status from Washington. The line that stood out in my mind was the first line of the article: “The nation needs a president who is more a stranger than an insider when it comes to the capital’s way of doing business, Barack Obama said Monday, portraying his relatively modest experience in Washington as an asset.” Here is the link: Link
The reason this article struck me was because I have been reading the back and forth issue of the experience factor. Hillary Clinton claims experience because she was First Lady. Barack Obama pointed out the other day that having Bill talk to her didn’t make her experienced at all.
Barack is making the argument that he has business experience and that Hillary doesn’t really have very much experience at all. He is making the claim that he should be elected because of his outsider status.
Would you prefer that we elect a person that is more of an insider or a stranger to Washington?
Comments (70)
Tomorrow is your birthday? Happy Birthday, Dan!!!
Kathi
Oh, good grief, I don’t believe I was first.
Stranger! Why would we want someone that’s even further enbalmed in the best ways to scam and manipulate?
I think you’re getting confused in your old age.
An insider would probably be able to accomplish more in Washington. Knowing how the system works is always an advantage.
Bush had business experience.
Just sayin’.
I still like Obama better, though.
I would rather have an average joe in the white house than some senator.
Dude thats lame about the b-day thing,
Clinton is an insider in all the wrong ways.
Strange = less politics. Good thing.
I prefer Ron Paul.
I can’t offer anything to this argument because I’m so biased against Hilary.
-David
stranger. I think we need a fresher perspective in Washington… Someone who could change things, not keep them the same.
Ok, but honestly, what kind of experience are we talking about? Why business? Why not economic? Are they the same? =X
Jaspro makes a splendid point. Ideally, I would prefer a person who can function in the macro and micro. Idealism could be dead, though..
Outsider… Id rather elect someone with state running experience, like a govenor.
By the way, he’s so dreamy… lol.
I would prefer someone who didn’t even want to be there and had zero political experience but who would give 137% to every task they were given. Preferably this person would be an engineer because I am a fan of the analytical skills that are common to engineers.
If stranger = ignorance, than no. But if insider = totally political mongral, than no to that too.
Ummm, what about Hillary’s experience as, oh yeah, a senator of New York?
And I don’t think that a lack of experience is necessarily a good thing. Fresh perspective is good, but knowing the ins and outs of our political system is helpful as well.
I’m probably voting democrat, assuming it’s either Hillary or Obama.
I think we need some on fresh blood, not another insider and DEFINETELY NOT Hillary! Bill was bad enough for 8 years! Sheesh! I am glad I lived abroad when he was president!
I would simply like someone who is ready for it all.
I will have to admit that an insider will get things done. A stranger is better in theory…but life doesn’t work that way.
Hard to say. Stranger, might mean less time to become as corrupt as the rest but if they can’t or won’t play the “political game” they probably won’t be able to get much accomplished. Which is really a sad thing.
I’d rather have someone who has experience in the private sector AND in politics. I’d rather have someone who has been in Washington for years, but hasn’t been coerced into the political paradigm – that is, someone who doesn’t believe that taxes are free.
I’d rather have Representative Dr. Ron Paul.
Why – brilliant arguments by Obama. I agree with WondersCafe. It’s easier to hire someone with direct experience but there’s also the appeal of hiring someone new.
an outsider…just not Obama
Either. I’m more interested in their knowledge of foreign and domestic matters, their ability to lead, and their ability to think critically.
I’d prefer not to have any democrats in the white house, outsider or insider.
Out of those two, I definitely prefer Obama. I believe that you can learn to play “political games” to get what you want, if you want it badly enough, just like if you want to keep your job – you’ll learn, quick, how to get things done. Just because Obama is an outsider to Washington doesn’t mean he’s not willing to get the job done. :]
I’d just like to say that the picutre of Obama you’ve got there… cute.
I think he is kind of a cutie now.
Oh good Lord, help me. I think I’ve just decided who I’m voting for.
I agree, an outsider, but not Obama. Has anyone read the “Left Behind” series? Yes, they were fictional works, but… based on the bible.
Consider the ways that Obama is similar to Nicolae. Any takers?
Makes no difference to me, as long as they’re honest and good politicians (oh, how futile).
Just hand the role of chief executive over to Her Majesty, Elizabeth, Czarina of all the Britons.
The American political system could use a breath of fresh air…but that has nothing to do with experience, the question is does he bring new ideas, or is he just repeating existing ones?
I want someone who has core beliefs. Washington insiders scare me.
Stranger. I’ve been saying it for ages, his “inexperience” is why I like him. Washington sucks, or hasn’t anyone else noticed?
I dont like either one- How about Chuck Norris?
ha ha ha…
I’d prefer that we keep both Obama and the Nutcracker as strangers and outsiders to the White House.
It’s really hard to choose. I really dislike Hillary. Due to my bias I am having a difficult time making a rational decision.
Happy belated birthday! I don’t think I said anything yesterday, although I meant to.
And I would rather have anyone in the White House who isn’t Hillary. That’s pretty much the only thing I’m looking for.
I understand with, and wholeheartedly agree with, the outsider angle. But not Obama. Ron Paul has my vote.
I don’t think it really matters. And honestly all of these is overstated anyway. It’s just political manuvering.
In my opinion there are only 2 things that matter, when choosing what candidate to back up with your vote:
1) Does the candidates philosophy and/or stances on important national issues agree with yours? (reasonably)
2) Do you believe he or she will follow through on his or her plans once elected?
The rest of it, is for the most part irrelevant.
Happy Birthday– Some bubbly for you. hehe.
I’d elect a ‘stranger’– maybe they won’t be as corrupt?
A new broom sweeps clean–an outsider.
But an old broom knows all the corners…
Still, an outsider.
Also, the more I hear about Ron Paul, the less I am agreeing with his views. At a certain point, I agree with some of his policies, but overall, I am much more inclined to vote for Kucinich. Paul is just too conservative for my taste. He is the best “Republican” candidate I feel, but I would vote for Obama or Kucinich over Ron Paul.
Just my feeling. It surprises me how many people who identify as liberal are planning on voting for Ron Paul, who is by no means liberal.
Even if whoever is voted in is an outsider, it won’t take long to become an insider….THEY ARE ALL POLITICIANS!
The only one that was evident that NEVER became an insider in my opinion was Ronald Reagan. Now there was a REAL president. I still think Mike Huckabee is the closest we have to that again that is in the race now.Either way, we MUST have someone with moral character, INSIDER or OUTSIDER!
historically, our best president ever was outsider to politics- George Washington- but his case is unique, I believe… i dunno tho, i think we could use some fresh minds in washington- the only thing the insiders know how to do is stall and cause conflict
i like obama, and i’ve been thinking the same thing as he has said about hillary, so i wouldn’t mind electing him.
Do I have to choose between those two? Hillary and Obama, its like choosing which STD I want to get. Oooh, I choose syphillis…its the cadillac of sexually transmitted diseases! To answer your question, I guess it depends more on the character of the person running than just the mere notion if they are on the “in” crowd in Washington DC. Still, given the choice, I’d happily elect Bullwinkle. Sure he’s dumb as a doorknob and weighes over 400lbs…
But its all Moosel!
Glad you liked your birthday wishes–you are so young yet!! I think a stranger-someone who does not know all of the tricks of the trade, would be refreshing!
I think we need someone who has insider experience with an outsider perspective. Obviously the answer is Fred Thompson.
Neither one of those two idgits….. I think we’d have better results doing an “American President” contest sort of like “American Idol” or “Dancing With The Presidents” and let the contestants have a dance off…. Some shmuck out of Buttville, Middle America would stand a better chance at running this country!
I think a newer face in Washington might be a really good thing.
However, I agree with QuantumStorm – whoever is a leader should be honest, with intergrity and unwavering dedication to doing what is right, not just pandering to corporate interests or other special interests, and totally free from corruption, not doing anything for “campaign donations”.
TeacherPerson makes an interesting analogy. Some say that JFK didn’t really get a lot accomplished until after his death, when LBJ picked up Kennedy’s legislative agenda and shepherded it through congress.
I am afraid I really distrust the top Republican candidates, but I don’t know if we can trust either Obama or Clinton either.
I am not sure but I can tell you that I don’t know who I want for president either – a true undecided.
I love how they always start out as an “outsider” and quickly become an “insider” because it’s the only way to get anything done. I’ll take those with experience, thank you. I’ll take the insider.
That’s tough. You want someone who knows how things work, but at the same time many of history’s greatest innovators have been strangers to the field they innovated.
I’ll probably base my decision on more than those factors alone. A talented individual is far more valuable, stranger to Washington or not.
Outsider
A stranger. Obviously.
<33
My instinctual response was a stranger, but after reading a few of the comments, I don’t know. Someone with insider experience could get things done better than an outsider.
Stranger. Less knowing people. Less bias.
We need someone new.
a stranger by far — some experience in government — working way up from local to state to national — but not a lifetime Washingtonian but far………
stranger.
I think we need all new blood in washington… all the washington insiders have been there too long and are getting lazy and untrustworthy…..
A stranger that way he is not twisted by our evil government ways.
The first most reaching solution to so many of our political complaints I think would be best addressed by getting the people in there WE truely want and scaring straight straight the rest …..
So, let’s get off our lazy bums and google ‘Preferential Voting and the VOTE-123 system’, start talking/emailing, and GET INVOLVED. How does that saying go? If you’re not part of the solution You’re part of the problem.
Insanity=doing the same thing over and over expecting different results
well… hmmm. I think an outsider would be better… and possibly not as corrupt by the internal crap