Obama contends that he has more executive experience than Palin

Obama compares his heading his presidential campaign to Palin being the mayor of Wasilla? Is this serious? The state of Alaska has a $10 billion budget and employees 25,000 people. Fox News has this story:

Barack Obama contends that he is more experienced in executive matters than Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin because he has managed his presidential campaign for the past 18 months.

Speaking on a cable news channel Monday night, the Democratic presidential nominee said he is better prepared to handle a disaster like Hurricane Gustav because of his pursuit of the White House.

“Well, my understanding is that Governor Palin’s town of Wasilla has, I think, 50 employees. We’ve got 2,500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe $12 million a year. You know, we have a budget of about three times that just for the month. So I think that our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the last couple of years,” Obama said.

John McCain’s spokesman called the suggestion “laughable.”

“For Barack Obama to argue that he’s experienced enough to be president because he’s running for president is desperate circular logic and its laughable. It is a testament to Barack Obama’s inexperience and failing qualifications that he would stoop to passing off his candidacy as comparable to Governor Sarah Palin’s executive experience managing a budget of over $10 billion and more than 24,000 employees,” said spokesman Tucker Bounds.

Labels: ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would be laughable...if it weren't so disturbing.

9/02/2008 4:10 PM  
Blogger 10ksnooker said...

I will bet the next thing Obaam will tell you is he doesn't want to take guns away from citizens either. And neither does Joe Biden.

9/02/2008 4:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have many disagreements with Governor Palin but the DNC and Mr. Obama as well as their followers are really low. To begin with Mrs. Palin is currently governor of the State of Alaska and has been for far longer than Mr. Obama has been a Senator. The fact that her husband got a drunk driving charge twenty years ago has no bearing on her ability to govern. The reality that her daughter is pregnant out of wedlock has nothing to do with her.
As Mayor of Wasilla she oversaw one of the fastest growing areas in the State and one of the fastest growing areas in the Nation. Current estimates of the population is far in excess of the data listed from the 2000 census. New streets, houses, schools, a Police Department and growing Fire Department, changing demographics and increasd traffic are a few of the challenges. As Governor she oversees over 3,000 employees.
Bottom line is that she has the management skills.

9/02/2008 5:17 PM  
Blogger jr said...

Here is a link to Obama's statements quoted in the Fox News article.


Keep up the good work, Dr. Lott!

Joey Rich, Jr.
Birmingham, Alabama

9/02/2008 5:24 PM  
Blogger Mike aka Proof said...

Of course, that's because Obama compares himself to her old job as mayor, not her current job as Governor.

If Obama can't keep up with current events, perhaps he shouldn't run for higher office until he catches up?

9/02/2008 7:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't see the interview, so I'll go with the assumption that the Fox News reported it fairly. Mind you, that's giving Fox News a lot more credibility than it deserves.

Obama's comparison is ridiculous. As someone else pointed out, he's not addressing Palin's experience as governor. It's a lame comparison and one that does not serve him well.

BUT.... and this is an important point... experience that qualifies you to be president is not required to actually be president. Witness the White House's current occupant.

9/02/2008 10:41 PM  
Blogger jr said...

Clark, I posted a link to a YouTube vid of Obama's statements on Anderson Cooper on CNN.

Joey Rich, Jr.
Birmingham, Alabama

9/03/2008 12:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't know which is more troubling: the possibility that Obama actualy believes this or that he thinks that we're dumb enough to believe it. Of course, it could be the sour-sweet scent of growing panic in the campaign.

9/03/2008 6:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yep that's pretty lame, no question. BUT... why are we fixated on this notion that you have to be a governor to be qualified to be president? Most of our past presidents were NOT governors. The McCain campaign didn't give a fig about "executive" experience until she came on board, because he doesn't have any either.

Palin's got more "executive" experience than McCain, Obama, or Biden put together. Is anyone arguing that SHE should be the president? Is McCain planning to let her run things because she's the one with more experience? Obviously not, so "executive" experience doesn't automatically qualify you.

By the way, Obama NEVER said in that answer that he had more executive experience than Palin, yet the headline on Fox News reads, "Obama: I Have More Executive Experience Than Palin." And it only included a portion of his statement.

It kind of proves that the mainstream media is not systematically supporting the Obama campaign as Lott tried to argue recently. Obama gets 71 words in his quote, but his critics get 143 words in theirs. Where's the balance?

Now that being said, let me reiterate, Obama's answer is lame because he doesn't have the same experience and there's no point in arguing that he does.

9/03/2008 9:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“My understanding is that Gov. Palin’s town, Wassilla, has I think 50 employees. We’ve got 2500 in this campaign. I think their budget is maybe 12 million dollars a year – we have a budget of about three times that just for the month,” Obama responded. Our ability to manage large systems and to execute I think has been made clear over the past couple of years and certainly in terms of the legislation I’ve passed in the past couple of years, post-Katrina.”

Obama is comparing running a political campaign with running a business, town OR a state.
Palin has done ALL THREE. Obama has done NONE of them.

Running a business: Must work within a budget. The budget comes from sales or service. No sales or service, no budget. No budget, no business. Consequences.

Running a state or town: Must work within a budget. The budget comes from taxes and fees. No taxes or fees, NEVER happen. Budget problems. Raise taxes and fees. No problem. Raise taxes and fees too high and lose job. Consequences.

Running his political campaign: There is NO budget but plenty of income. Income comes from donations. Run out of contributors. No problem. It is called ‘campaign debt’ and someone else will pay it off. Consequences???

Who would YOU leave YOUR company with while you had to be absent for a year or four?

9/03/2008 12:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clark said, "Mind you, that's giving Fox News a lot more credibility than it deserves."

This sort of statement has always puzzled me, but especially now. Fox has a right of center bias and that erodes its credibility?

By the same token, do the left of center biases of CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, NPR and most all of the major print media similarly erode the credibility of those outlets?

The primary has focused us all on the bias of the media in favor of Obama. This bias has been particularly disturbing to Clinton supporters.

The funny thing though is that the bias that favored Obama over Clinton has for as long as I can remember been present in favor of democrats over republicans. Apparently, some democrats only see media bias as a problem when their pet candidate is adversely impacted. The others just complain about the lone, sole Fox news network.

9/03/2008 5:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, the "liberal media" has been dead for years, no matter how much Fox, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Hannity have tried to peddle it. Actually, you'll notice that Limbaugh, for example, doesn't even use the phrase much anymore... he calls it the "drive-by media"... and although he still falsely accuses them of being pro-Democratic in their coverage, he is right that our mainstream media is incredibly shallow.

And as for my doubts about Fox's credibility, read my previous post... Fox tried to characterize Obama as saying something that he didn't actually say. And look how many people, Lott included, jumped right on board with that.

But really folks...
1)if executive experience matters so much, why didn't matter BEFORE McCain selected Palin?
2) if executive experience matters so much, don't you think we deserve someone with quite a bit more than Palin has?
3) if executive experience matters so much, is it your expectation that McCain will turn over all of the executive decisions to Palin, or are you just assuming he will keel over early and leave her in charge?

I'll admit executive experience matters some... but, be honest folks, it isn't the only kind of experience or the only quality that matters in a presidential candidate.

9/04/2008 12:46 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

>Clark said...

> "Sorry, the "liberal media" has been dead for years, no matter how much Fox, O'Reilly, Limbaugh, and Hannity have tried to peddle it. "


Oh that is ludicrous on the face of it. There are many available points of proof that the MSM is still pervasively liberal -- do a little websearch work and you can't avoid seeing it.

Just for fun, you can start with these...


That is just one recent, obvious example; there are many, many more recent systematic distortions.

9/04/2008 9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With all due respect Clark, please view the clip for yourself.


Obama was responding to a question by Anderson Cooper that some Republican critics have in fact said that Governor Palin has more executive experience as a mayor of a small town and as governor of a big state of Alaska.

Obama then went on to contrast her executive experience as a mayor with his. Mischaracterize? Not at all.

On another note, the "liberal media" has not been dead for years but is alive and well. Your reliance on op/ed broadcasters to establish your point is a bit feeble.

I suggest you read the latest, most comprehensive objective study quantifying media bias:

A Measure of Media Bias

9/04/2008 10:07 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The issue of her executive experience only came up in answer to the Obama supporters saying she was too inexperienced. It's not that it matters "so much," just that it's silly to support someone as inexperienced as Obama running for President while criticizing Palin with more relevant experience running for VP.

On a separate note: I especially liked James Taranto's retort to Obama's running for office idea of experience: by that standard, the most qualified man in America to be president is Lyndon LaRouche.

9/04/2008 11:25 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since it pertains to our discussion of media bias...


9/04/2008 1:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With the highest approval rating of any governor, she must be said to have extraordinary management skills. Since she's already the best of all fifty governors, doesn't she deserve the chance to prove herself on a higher level?

9/04/2008 7:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous, I will read the article, thanks for the citation... It's 47 pages long, so forgive me if I don't jump all over it. The Quarterly Journal of Economics is not my favorite bedtime reading.

originalfrank, sorry, the blog of a conservative commentator is not where I will go for objective evidence of bias. There are sooo many points of proof that the liberal media has died... NBC hired military experts for Iraq wat coverage and presented them as nonpartisan experts when in reality they still had close ties to the Pentagon, the administration, and the war proponents and the folks at NBC knew it.

Anonymous, I did view the clip and as I said, his response was lame. He did not, however, ever say "I have more experience than Palin." The Fox News headline is clearly designed to create the impression that he did and the text of the article goes on to reinforce that impression.

Look, I'm not saying that the mainstream media is conservative by any means, but for the most part they parrot whatever talking points they get and an awful lot of those talking points come from the current administration. It is a journalist's job to question and investigate and there has been very little of that in the last eight years... from the war in Irag to the latest stories about who is responsible for the anthrax-laced letters in 2001.

As I've said, the mainstream media are shallow and sensational... they will broadcast whatever they think will attract eyeballs, but liberal? No. A liberal media would be in a frenzy over allegations that the Bush administration forged evidence to support the case for war in Iraq. A liberal media would be all over the police brutality and unconstitutional arrests and searches in St. Paul during the Republican convention. A liberal media would never have tolerated a talking head like Tim Russert palling around with his Bush administration buddies. A liberal media wouldn't hang out at McCain's ranch or ever be referred to by McCain as "his base." A liberal media would never be one that the Bush administration would claim it could so easily manipulate.

We have a disgustingly lazy, shallow, sensational, celebrity-driven mainstream media... but not a liberal one.

9/05/2008 11:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Popularity does not mean that someone is "the best."

I'm not saying she's not been effective. Actually the more I read or hear about Palin (from so-called "liberal" sources), the better I like her.

If popularity equals quality, you would have to concede that Bill Clinton was a far superior president than George Bush.

9/05/2008 11:28 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Clark said...

originalfrank, sorry, the blog of a conservative commentator is not where I will go for objective evidence of bias. ...

So you won't look at reproductions of the cover of US magazine? Wow, now I know why you can't see evidence of the systematic lefty media -- you refuse to look at the obvious! A great way to keep preconceived biases, of course.

9/05/2008 4:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Duh... of course I looked at it... how else would I know that it was the (badly designed) site of a right-wing blogger?

Who's the one with a preconceived bias? "...a systematic lefty media..."? How utterly absurd.... riiight... Viacom and Time-Warner and GE, et al. are all engaged in a massive left-wing conspiracy! How obvious!

9/06/2008 10:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of obvious:

Media Donations Favor Dems 100-1

Let me repeat: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans — a ratio of 100-to-1. No bias there.


9/07/2008 11:21 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home