Sometimes, the best person for the job is not necessarily the most experienced.

IMHO.

Case in point. I applied for a job for a professional position in a state agency program that received federal funding, one known well for its bureaucracy. Many qualified candidates were up for the position. I was lacking in skills and experience, but had my youth, fresh ideas, and determination that I could apply my knowledge, compassion and eagerness to serve our clientele far better than any other. (And I genuinely thought that at the time, too.) I got the job, and was told that it was because of those exact qualities that I was chosen over other candidates, some of whom had actually scored higher in some areas of the required tests.

I encountered extreme apathy and chaos in this job, and I was determined to make a difference. I am no longer employed with this agency for a variety of reasons, but not because I didn't succeed or didn't make some difference. On the contrary, I accomplished a great deal in the short time I spent there, gaining an independent position in a satellite office servicing a specific need base within just a couple of years. (I provided a much needed service to persons with severe mental illness and I hope I made a positive impact on their lives.) I'd like to think I injected some new vigor and vitality to the stayed bureaucracy.

Of course, my naivete about what I was asking for in vying for this position is a whole different story. I learned a lot on-the-job from trial and error and not without the help of a lot of the old-timers working there. And not without some impact on my own family, as it was very stressful. In retrospect, I have the utmost respect for all those cronies and then short-timers. They earned their place and I understood why they were tired. Nevertheless, I lit a fire under their asses -- I once called my boss complacent to his face ... in a respectful manner. I drove some people nuts with questions about why they continued to do things a certain way when I could see better alternatives. I tried new and different approaches rather than apply the same old and tired methods that the folks I worked with had been accustomed to.

Anyway, you get the point.

I often think of my own experience, albeit quite different than running for president, when I look at these candidates. Sometimes, it's not the most experienced person that is needed for a particular job.

He was an agent for change. He did it too.

Has the whole motherfucker been upended now?

It was Bush who really screwed America and her Future...

thanks for that but it's not exactly the picture I was trying to paint here.

we need someone who hits the ground running, not someone who is learning to walk.

Regardless of the winner, there will be a learning curve.

And last I looked, they were all capable of walking, and likely running for that matter. ;)

as far as many policies go, and that she had much more influence than the elected President that didn't assume office Al Gore.

We need Dennis Kucinich Emit, we need to implement most of his platform.

Hadn't thought of it that way.

I agree about Kucinich.

:hi:

And look at what a great job they've done. :puke:

Sometimes it's much better to have a new and inexperienced person to do the job.

They don't have to unlearn bad work habits and past mistakes. ;) They're usually eager to learn too!

Age is a state of mind. I am 51 and I continue to learn and grow as a person every day. Oh, and some advice from an "old dog" many other "older" people will resent being called old and/or old dogs.

:P

it seems to be used by entrenched incumbents with a lifetime of power. Certainly the 4 term incumbent that we defeated in my district had far more experience being a Congressman than the newbie we elected, but I sure was glad to see that lying Republican idiot get tossed out.

I think what all of these politicians need is the "experience" of living life like ordinary Americans do, and the longer they are in office, the more they forget what real life is like. My favorite example was the time Henry Kissinger visited Milwaukee. The limo broke down so he had to ride in a pickup truck, an experience he described as "interesting". So to him, even the ordinary American experience of riding in a car or truck was as unusual as if he had ridden on the back of a camel or in a rickshaw. God forbid the man would actually have to pump his own gas, cut his grass, or go grocery shopping.

To me, Hillary has not experienced ordinary life for decades. She joked that she "is comfortable in the kitchen" when the fact is that unlike most Americans she does not make her own meals or wash her own dishes or do her own grocery shopping. She does not have the experience of understanding our lives or our problems. She's so out of touch that she thinks $110,000 a year is "middle class". Like the moderator who thought that two professors make $200,000 a year.

"Never underestimate the ability of the human mind to rationalize".

That's what you all are doing.