Obama and the X-Factor... Experience, that is.

Guest Column by Pete in Williamsburg

In December 2007, Bill Clinton said "When is the last time we elected a president based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running?"  It's a legitimate question.  However, does that kind of specific experience matter?

Hillary Clinton has seven years as a US Senator plus a slew of various commissions and public service endeavors.  Does that public service background make her more qualified?   What if a candidate never served in public office but instead founded a business that employs thousands?  What if a candidate was a popular media pundit but had never served in an elected office?  Could such a person be an effective president?  I believe the answer is yes.

I support Barack Obama.  Governor Kaine's endorsement had some influence on me.  Mostly, I like his message of unity.  Bipartisanship is barely a punchline these days.   A few candidates will say it, but I believe Obama is the only one who means it.  And, I'm beginning to think he's the only one who could actually achieve it.

Whenever I hear the suggestion that Obama does not have enough experience, I would ask you to think of it this way:

If the country called on you, fellow blog-reader, to take over as president beginning noon tomorrow, could you do it?

You're reading this blog so you probably follow current events and have a modicum of intellectual curiosity.   You don't know how to route a bill through a congressional subcommittee, but can't you learn that on the job? 

I think you could.

Comments

[republitarian]

Ben,I was wondering if Carl assaulted the LG yesterday.

If he did, I hope he got drunk first.....so he'll have an excuse......

[Not Larry Sabato]

Obama won't beat John McCain.

How about we match McCain's military experience (Vietnam) with Hillary's (Bosnia)? As Bill said when he ran- two for the price of one- and the war Hillary helped lead resulted in no American deaths.

Or we could put up Obama who could talk about his experience when Indiana tried to invade Illinois when he was in the State Senate.

[55]

I agree in theory that many could do the job without having a experience with the right advisors...but to say anyone who reads a blog could figure out the presidential thing?????

I guess one of the best presidents we ever had didn't really do much...go Calvin!

[notgretchenbulova]

Comparing Bosnia (which Hillary had nothing to do with) and Vietnam is ridiculous. McCain has more foreign policy experience, but who cares.

The question is, who will make the right decision in the future. Hillary has shown time and again they she can't or won't.

[Not Larry Sabato]

Hillary is the only candidate left who participated in a winning war.

[Irish Brigade]

The fact is that 4 years ago, Barack Obama was voting on water mains, parking tickets and commending resolutions for the Chicago Cubs. He started running for president the day he took office in the US Senate. The guy has zero experience.
For the record, I'm a McCain guy. I want Hillary to win the primary because she'd be easier to beat, but also because Barack's lack of experience is scary. At least Hillary understands the inner workings of the most complicated office in the world.

[Doug]

My first act would be to try out waterboarding on a number of folks I know. See if it's torture and get back to you.

[Doug]

Secondly I would legalize drugs- well a President can't do that but I'd do one of them there Executive Orders to not enforce Federal drug laws.

Next I'd setup a commission in the UN to settle the most tricky conflicts in the world via that WII cow flinging game. First up- Palestinians vs. Israelis. You win, you get your state. You lose, you go work on your game skilz.

[Harry Landers]

"The war Hillary helped lead"? "Hillary is the only candidate left who participated in a winning war." Huh?

I ran a marathon. My wife watched me and cheered me on. Was that the marathon that my wife helped run? Did she participate in a record-setting marathon?

What kind of tortured logic is this?

[Doug]

And speaking of smoking dope- war experience for a President- 1) Ben, you are on dope talking about bosnia, 2) what did Bill have in the way of that sort of experience in 1992? Zip. Toke. Zip.

Know what he ran on? "It's the economy, stupid."

2008: "It's the economy, stupid."

[Doug]

http://money.cnn.com/2008/01/30/news/international/okeefe_rogers.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008013103

NEW YORK (Fortune) -- You might expect Jim Rogers to be gloating a little bit. After all, the famed investor has been predicting a recession in the U.S. economy for months and shorting the shares of now-tanking Wall Street investment banks for even longer. And with fears of a recession sparking both a worldwide market sell-off and emergency action from Federal Reserve chairman Ben Bernanke, Rogers again looks prescient - just as he has over the past few years as the China-driven commodities boom he predicted almost a decade ago began kicked into high gear. But when I reached him by phone in Singapore the other day there was little hint of celebration in his voice. Instead, he took a serious tone.

"I'm extremely worried," he says. "I have been for a while, but I just see things getting much worse this time around than I expected." To Rogers, a longtime Fed critic, Bernanke's decision to ride to the market's rescue with a 75-basis-point cut in the Fed's benchmark rate only a week before its scheduled meeting (at which time they cut it another 50 basis points) is the latest sign that the central bank isn't willing to provide the fiscal discipline that he thinks the economy desperately needs.

"Conceivably we could have just had recession, hard times, sliding dollar, inflation, etc., but I'm afraid it's going to be much worse," he says. "Bernanke is printing huge amounts of money. He's out of control and the Fed is out of control. We are probably going to have one of the worst recessions we've had since the Second World War. It's not a good scene."

[NoVA Moderate]

NLS - I seriously hope Hillary doesn't roll out Bosnia compared to McCain's Vietnam experience.

First, I have very, very serious doubts that she "participated" in that war. Also, her way of "participating" seems a little limited compared with McCain's years of "service" (in every respect). I would think that you were a little more astute than this.

Bottomline is that experience as First Lady is not experience to be President. Can't we find candidates from among 300 million people whose last names are Bush or Clinton? This isn't a tinpot dictatorship where there are political dynastic families like Pakistan. And we aren't Argentina or the Philipines where the President's wife shows up as the new President in a few years.

At least I hope we're not.

McCain is weak on domestic issues and whoever the Democrats put forward now will be weak in the international arena. They can fix that with a strong VP. McCain can't.

What Hillary has that Obama doesn't is the ability to GOTV in the base - the Republican base. She is a devisive figure and that isn't good for the party or the country.

You should be able to figure that out. But you are too busy pushing her candidacy. You used to do analysis. You don't anymore. It is kinda sad.

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

Good column Pete, but I would take it even further. I think the years of Obama's life after graduating from Harvard Law are full of excellent experience--real world experience. Experience that includes some of the most noble of anyone in federal elected office today, and experience in the Illinois legislature where Barack was known as an accomplished bi-partisan legislator.

The fact is, when you stack up the experience that Hillary has, versus the experience that Barack has, they are very different types of experience.

Unquestionably, Barack's experience is better suited to lead this nation out of its current morass.

[Doug]

And just to be clear I'm not going to jump through hoops to say Hill wouldn't win on the economy issue. She would. Barry would too. Mittens would actually be harder to beat on this issue, but either way it's Barry or Hill winning in November.

[NoVA Moderate]

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/california/election_2008_california_democratic_presidential_primary

Hmm, Obama down by three points in California. Oh, includes Edwards at 9%. If Obama picks up 2/3 of Edwards votes alone, then it's a tie. Not to mention that Hillary isn't picking up too many undecideds. Momentum?

First Waldo smacks you down, now brother Harry gets in on the action. DAYUM!

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

I have to agree with Harry Landers and NoVA Moderate. For the good of the party, and the chances of us winning the election, she better not use such a stupid example for her experience! Hillary claiming she helped lead the Bosnian War would not only be a huge mistake in tactics, but it would validate all the old right-wing accusations that she was running the show in the White House, and that would NOT be a plus.

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

NoVA Moderate--it's pretty clear where the momentum is in the national primary next week.

Everywhere Barack goes he is greeted by throngs the likes of which haven't been seen since Dean, or Truman.

His poll numbers, after being down on average by 20% have pulled even, or come very close in at least CT (40-40), MA (43-37), and CA (43-40)--all must-win Hillary states. Obama has even gained significant ground in NY (45-33), only 12% behind her according to the latest poll.

The rapid closing in the polls is too unanimous and has been confirmed by multiple polling outfits at this point, so it is unquestionable.

We've got a race. And it is crystal clear who has the momentum.

All I'd like to say is that the people who called my predictions a few days ago (when the polls still had her up by margins in the neighborhood of 20-25%) "delusional" must be getting ready to eat some crow...

Arnold is highly successful Governor of CA and was an actor... See also: Ronald Regan.

Do you really need political experience to be effective? Not even remotely.

[Doug]

Maybe, ok, foreign policy experience is important. Time for my first mud-sling!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5088&en=33a4d96a239655bf&ex=1359435600&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

Late on Sept. 6, 2005, a private plane carrying the Canadian mining financier Frank Giustra touched down in Almaty, a ruggedly picturesque city in southeast Kazakhstan. Several hundred miles to the west a fortune awaited: highly coveted deposits of uranium that could fuel nuclear reactors around the world. And Mr. Giustra was in hot pursuit of an exclusive deal to tap them.

Unlike more established competitors, Mr. Giustra was a newcomer to uranium mining in Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. But what his fledgling company lacked in experience, it made up for in connections. Accompanying Mr. Giustra on his luxuriously appointed MD-87 jet that day was a former president of the United States, Bill Clinton.

...

The monster deal stunned the mining industry, turning an unknown shell company into one of the world’s largest uranium producers in a transaction ultimately worth tens of millions of dollars to Mr. Giustra, analysts said.

...

Just months after the Kazakh pact was finalized, Mr. Clinton’s charitable foundation received its own windfall: a $31.3 million donation from Mr. Giustra that had remained a secret until he acknowledged it last month.

...

I support Obama because I think he has a lot more experience than people give him credit for based on his time in the State Senate and his legal background. I think he understands that being a leader and manager means more than just keeping the lights on, it also means empowering people. I like that.

That said, I'm going to respond to your final question and say, no. I don't think I should feel confident that I could step up and be President tomorrow. I bet there are a lot of people out there who would be even less capable of doing the job than I would, but I hope for my nation's sake that there are at least a few people who are more capable. I think the job is probably harder than it looks. I bet it takes a lot more than reading the newspaper with my coffee in the morning or checking a couple of blogs that I mainly read for the same reason Denzel Washington reads the news in Training Day, i.e., because they're 90% bullshit, but at least they entertain me.

Waldo Jaquith is probably the best and most intelligent blogger around, and the last time I checked his blog, the top story was a picture of six-toed kitten. Reading that makes me more qualified to be President than my next-door neighbor?

Don't get me wrong, I'm self-confident. I think I'm a pretty intelligent guy. And I understand the current occupant's lackluster performance has (perhaps rightfully) made a lot of us think that we could at least do the job better than him. I probably would be a step up. But I also know that America deserves better than the mediocrity we aspire to when we say "how hard can it be?" so if I had to start tomorrow, then I shouldn't be President. And neither should you.

Congratulations on writing a post so ironically ill-conceived that I'm actually less certain about my support for my prefered candidate despite your endorsement of him.

[RichmondDem (Not J.C.)]

I'd turn it down. You have to be insane to want that job.

At 10:34 a.m., NLS touts that Hillary is the only candidate left who "participated in a winning war."

1. Define a "winning" war?

2. Explain Hillary's type, and degree, of "participation."

This ought to be good....

[Sam]

RichmondDem - I kind of like that thought.... Turn the presidency into a Catch-22 really... we need a sane person to be our president, but you'd have to be insane to want to be president....

[Pete in Williamsburg]

The fact that Obama was voting on water mains and school districts 4 years ago is exactly the point. Why does someone need to know the ins and outs of DC? We talk about bringing a fresh and unspoiled presence to the White House, but then lack of DC-time becomes a common attack angle.

Frankly, whether the criticism is experience or lack of military service, it's usually just a criticism of convenience. If one candidate doesn't have it, the other side crows about it while the other side diminishes the signficance. Then, they switch it up on a candidate-by-candidate basis.

Same thing here with experience.

[Doug]

Ok, military experience is important: see Al Gore and John Kerry...

[RichmondDem (Not J.C.)]

Sam-

George Washington was the last person who didn't want the job, which speaks volumes about his character.

[Sam]

Doug - while an Obama supporter, I'll accept that military experience CAN be important... however, you have to use it right. Al Gore so underused his, people barely realized he had any. John Kerry so overused his, that people thought he was running on the platform of who best knows how to beat the Viet Cong....

[notgretchenbulova]

Obama raised $32 million in Jan. Beat that Hillary.

Pete, for the love of Pet...uh, I mean for Pete's sa... oh whatever.

Your argument is ridiculous. By that same logic, if we really wanted to turn this country around, we ought to go find someone LESS experienced than Barack Obama. I know a girl named Kristin who's opinionated about things, votes regularly and works nights stocking the shelves at WalMart; should we start a Draft Kristin movement?

It's probably too late post-South Carolina, but maybe we could at least build up her profile enough so she could win the VP nomination. It'd be totally refreshing to have Obama's experienced coupled with a running mate who doesn't have any idea what she's doing.

[Doug]

Draft Kristin! She has my vote!

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

For the record, because of the early voting and the large Hispanic and female voting presence in that early vote (very much like FL) Hillary will likely still pull out a narrow win in CA. But, just like in FL, Obama will win the voters who vote on election day, the question is by how much.

All Obama needs to do is keep things close in CA, NY, MA, CT, and NJ, and the run up a huge margin in IL to cancel them out. That looks likely to happen. After that, he needs the critical states of GA, MO, CO, MN, and AZ. Barack is ahead in 3 f the 5 states in current polls there, and has just finished huge well-covered visits in the two states where he's behind.

Things are looking up for OBAMAZILLAS.

[Not Royston Jester]

I graduated from Obama's law school four years after him. I don't think I'd be qualified to be President four years from now. He is callow and speaks in generalities without specifics. I don't want to be inspired by my President -- my rabbi does that for me. I want to know what the President will do, how he/she will tackle problems, and whether he/she can get the job done. I am continually amazed how people flock to Obama and his message of hope when there is not an iota of substance behind it.

[The Richmond Democrat]

Ben is offering a false dichotomy and he knows it. He's suggesting that Hillary does better than Obama in a race with McCain over experience. The only problem with Ben's reasoning, which he is well aware of, is that a race between McCain and Obama won't be about experience: it will be about status quo and change--and the nation is overwhelming in favor of change. Obama has raised more in a single month than McCain has raised for his entire campaign.

A race between Clinton and McCain would be between two versions of the status quo, and in that context McCain's experience and war hero status will utterly trump Hillary's time as First Lady. What will Hillary do to counter McCain, swift boat him?

Along with Hillary's "experience" comes a lot of baggage. There are a lot of folks out there who are open to the idea of voting for a Democrat, but not Hillary Clinton--not under any circumstances. Remember, she hovers at 49-51% unfavorable nationwide, a number that never seems to move. Clinton has never explained how she intends to overcome her massive and apparently permanent unfavorables.

She won't be able to use an updated version of the "Southern Startegy" against McCain.

[JMU Duke]

Ben's foreign policy argument means that the blame for disasters in Rwanda, Somalia and the NAFTA Treaty fall squarely on Billary.

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

"not an iota of substance"

If you actually believe this poppycock, then you're a fool.

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

An EXCELLENT round-up of the Super Tuesday states can be found here:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/31/75516/0667/643/446831

Now that's blogging!

[Not Royston Jester]

Doug -- Have you watched Obama's victory speeches. No details on what he'll do for health care. No details on what he'll do on spending. No details on what he'll do for Iraq. It is all "hope", "we've done what they said couldn't be done", etc. At least in Clinton's and Edwards' speeches, they had lists of policy specifics.

[Pete in Williamsburg]

Anon at noon:

You're taking an extreme example to confront this argument. Kristin would still have to demonstrate an ability to debate, speak publicly, rally support and raise money. If she can do those things, she'll be able to present her vision to voters. At that point, if voters like her vision, that should be enough. Her simple lack of having been elected to previous office wouldn't be an automatic bar if she's an otherwise effective candidate.

[Pete in Williamsburg]

In addition, the president doesn't need to know nuts and bolts of how a new regulation is reviewed at the Dept of Commerce or what time of day new legislation is intruduced. There is an enormous infrastructure of bureaucrats who will implement the president's vision. It's up to the president to harness the power of the government infrastructure to carry out his or her vision.

Pete,

Kristin is incredibly articulate. She's charismatic. She hosts great parties. She's cute, although I wouldn't say beautiful, more like pretty in a non-threatening way. I think she's perfectly un-qualified to be the next President of the United States. Let's roll with it, people!

...more to the point, if public speaking, fundraising and an ability to stay on-message (things we generally qualify overarchingly as "electability") are all it takes to be President of the United States, I'm sure you'll concede that President George W. Bush, by virtue of winning both the popular vote and the electoral vote in 2004, is one hell of a President, since he has already demonstrated his electability.

Unless you happen to think that a President shouldn't merely talk about making progress, but should instead actually do something about making progress--because under that criteria he's an unmitigated failure.

Seriously. Please find a reason for supporting Obama that is better than "how hard can it be?"

[Doug in Mount Vernon]

NRJ, of course that's a VICTORY SPEECH!! When I listen to him in his multiple campaign speeches all over the place, there's TONS of substance.

Check out his web site. The charge is vaccuous.

[Pete in Williamsburg]

Kristin Supporter,

Funny you should mention GWB. Bush had no actual abilities other than the ability to rally support and raise money.

I didn't say it means that person should win or will succeed. I only suggest that a person who is a complete outsider to politics could do this job... and do it far, far better than the incumbent.

Pete,

I understand that is your assertion. It is flawed for two reasons:

1. The incumbent in question is weak politically and has not achieved a policy victory since No Child Left Behind (unless you count the botched attempt at senior healthcare through Medicare Part D). Because he has been so dramatically unsuccessful, you assume that anyone could do a better job. I will agree that a lot of people probably *could* do a better job, including anyone in the nominating process.

2. While you assert that many people could do a better job than the current occupant, you simultaneously argue that there isn't anything a President actually *does* and there are therefore no qualifications that would make one person a better President than another person. If it's up to the nebulous bureaucracy to handle all of that, then there's no reason to even CARE who gets elected, since bureaucrats aren't fired en masse between administrations. The President, in your description of the office, is primarily responsible for giving speeches and declaring when we're supposed to celebrate Thanksgiving.

But Iraq (to draw an example) is not a failure of Speechifying. It is a failure of planning and strategy. We entered the conflict confident that our military can handle any tactical challenge we put in front of it--and rightly so--but we failed to anticipate the challenges beyond the first 30 days of the campaign, didn't provide an adequate explanation of what our end-game is, and thus failed to define for the troops on the ground how we're supposed to use tactical victories to create strategic victories. And it didn't matter how many times GWB said "Stay The Course," nothing was going to change the facts on the Ground until the Decider decided from the top down that we should try something else. In the middle of a campaign about hope and change, I think it's important for us to remember that thousands of American servicemen didn't die only because the President didn't hope hard enough that things in Iraq would change. It takes more than buzzwords to be a leader.

So what all of this leaves us, then, is an argument that invites us to believe that any idiot can do a better job than the current President, so we might as well elect any idiot. By contrast, I would like to suggest that rather than attempting to persuade people into thinking that it's inconsequential that Obama is completely inexperienced, maybe it would be better to point out how the experience he does have would serve him as he attempts to lead us in a new direction?

[Dan]

Ben, thank you for the much needed laugh. So the First Lady was running the war in Bosnia?!?!?

Does this mean the first man is going to get to run foreign policy in her administration?

[I.Publius]

"How about we match McCain's military experience (Vietnam) with Hillary's (Bosnia)?"

Oh. My. God.

Just when I thought you couldn't say anything stupider, or be any more of a complete and utter fool.

Here we thought you'd hit rock bottom, but you're down there digging away.

Please don't stop. You're the most hilarious phuggtard on the net.

[old timer]

Ben, you are a racist.