No, he's saying that Stein is not a good candidate because she has no experience, in anything, of any relevancy to the government. She is only slightly more prepared for the job of president than I am, and much less prepared than Johnson, Clinton, or maybe even Trump.
Exactly, and the fact that the discussion then immediately then turns to Clinton kind of proves my point. It's not very hard to argue for a more left version of a mainstream Democrat running for office...but we don't vote and elect parties in the abstract, we select individuals. And the individual case for Stein, in my mind, is lacking.
We know that Stein was a highly educated and successful doctor. We know she did some political activism, helped close down some dirty power plants and (unsuccessfully) fought for campaign finance reform, and then has basically spent the last decade plus running for stuff and losing.
If somebody who is relatively well known (like Stein), and has political positions like Stein, and can't win 33% of the vote for a state house seat in Massachusetts, where can they win? Why should we trust their powers of persuasion, knowing they'll need them as an elected officeholder? What are they seeing that we, nationally, do not?
I don't think that elected office experience should be the sole barometer in candidate quality. Certainly, one could argue that even in the case of Clinton, it is not universally a positive. But experience, generally, is, or at least should be, important....if not in elected office, than in crafting policy, or in management, or in running an organization, or in creating some sense of accomplishment.
Otherwise, we are left just to personalities. And then even here, perhaps we would be found wanting. Surely there is a more accomplished left-of-left candidate that could be trotted out, especially one who could have more credibility outside of the educated whites community
