A lot of people (not necessarily on SD) seem to equate not supporting Obama as racism. For me, it is simple - he lacks the experience I think someone should have to be President in the 21st Century.
His political experience amounts to:
Illinois State Senator for 8 years
US Senator for 4 years
How do you address Barack Obama’s complete lack of executive (e.g. governor) and minimal federal experience when supporting him for President?
Good question Saint Cad… I’d also like to hear the answer. I agree with you that the lack of experience is a problem (and I’m a loyal Democrat).
Well, Nixon had 26 years of experience and Obama has about the same experience as Lincoln.
Executive experience: Look at how brilliantly he’s run his campaign – in the black financially, steadily on message, efficient, harmonious, no backbiting and infighting, focussed on the goal to hand both for itself and in context of the overall strategy, and highly competent in execution.
Only twelve years of legislative experience? Well, let’s look at another candidate from Illinois:
I believe one should not discount his years as a community organizer; that indeed they provide an excellent foundation for the sort of work a President must do: get to the heart of what differing factions want, help the warring sides to find common ground, and facilitate their working out of a solution that all the major players will get on board with.
Anyway, experience qua experience, to my mind, is overrated. After all, look at how much experience Cheney and Rumsfeld brought to the table, and where that got us.
I knew as I was writing this that the comparison would be made of Obama to Lincoln
(to paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen, “You, Senator are no Abraham Lincoln.”)
That is why I specifically said 21st Century since the Federal government of 2008 is radically different than 1860.
That being said, those of you that compare Obama’s experience to Lincoln’s - do you think that Obama is the next Lincoln or are you saying experience doesn’t matter in a President?
I say experience is a metric whose validity varies depending on how one defines it, also that it is by no means a sure indicator of success in the presidency. By itself, in fact, I think it’s of little value.
As to Lincoln: Do you really think anyone saw him as a towering figure when he first ran for the presidency? Isn’t a great deal of our regard for him a product of historical perspective? Wasn’t he hammering unmercifully in his own time?
I don’t mean to discount experience as one thing that a candidate should be judged on. In this case, however, we’re not talking about two candidates who are equally appealing to me except for their experience. McCain’s temper worries me, and has for years. His endorsement of torture disgusts me. And his flip-flop in the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Storage facility, with his proposed solution being, “We can just ship it off to those foreign johnnies over there,” strikes me as being short-sighted, unrealistic, and downright dangerous. And the reasons he had for changing his stance on the facility strike me as pandering of the worst sort.
He’s going to be facing a pretty stiff learning curve if he wins the election this fall. But, experience is not everything. Considering the amount of governing done by career bureaucrats, I’m not sure it’s even in the top five or ten qualities I’d consider for a candidate.
When I hear the argument that Obama has no experience, I wonder why the Republicans didn’t push for this years ago. George W. Bush had no experience before being elected as governor of Texas; and when he was elected to the White House, he had only eight years experience in government (compared to the OP, which says Obama had 12 years experience total).
Bill Clinton, similarly, had no experience as a Senator or Representative prior to being elected Governor of Arkansas in 1978.
George H.W. Bush had 4 years of experience as a Representative before being plunked on the ticket as vice-president in 1980.
Ronald Reagan had 8 years experience as governor of California prior to becoming President. I don’t believe he held an elected political position prior to becoming governor.
Jimmy Carter had 4 years experience as a governor of Georgia before becoming President.
Gerald Ford was a Representative for 24 years.
It would seem to me that previous experience is a very poor barometer for performance; the Republican spinmeisters are only trumpeting experience because, this time around, they’re trying to convince us that their man’s got it.
What executive experience has John McCain had? If “being governor” is the acid test, what was McCain governor of?
Experience/expertise is vastly overrated. An article to explain what I’m saying:
Expertise, the quality likely culled experience often leads us to make the wrong decisions. A reasoned approach to problem solving seems far more useful than experience in most cases.
Didn’t I read a proverb somewhere that says “do not make the mistake of the artisan who claims to have twenty years of experience, when he really has one year of experience repeated twenty times?”
I’d say that Obama has spent more time thinking about and acting on current events and issues, the Constitution, the modes and methods of government and solutions to our most pressing problems in the last two years alone than Bush and Cheney have spent in their entire lives.
I’m reading “The Audacity of Hope” right now and I’m amazed and humbled at the clear and unequivocal evidence, presented in his own words, that Obama cares and is genuinely worried and concerned about the state of our country. He’s been training his entire life to be a public servant, whereas Bush and Cheney and their ilk have been practicing THEIR entire lives to be public masters.
Even in the middle of an arduous primary campaign Obama has nonetheless managed to make it back to DC for Senate votes and to introduce new legislation, whereas McCain, who’s been his party’s presumptive nominee for months, hasn’t troubled himself to show his face in the Senate (you know, to do his JOB) since sometime in April.
There’s also the fact that Obama has pledged to open up offices in every single state during this campaign, which is an unprecedented move for a presidential candidate. He is quite obviously thinking way beyond getting his own foot in the White House door, he’s setting the machinery in place to increase awareness and campaigning for downline candidates as well–this is party building on an epic scale. McCain doesn’t even seem to be thinking too hard about getting elected, let alone anything outside of his own immediate sphere.
To make his 50 state strategy a reality, Obama has fundraised on an epic scale–according to the FEC he’s outdone McCain by a factor of nearly 3:1, and has done it overwhelmingly by small donations–which means the people who’ve already contributed to his campaign are nowhere near their maximum limits for donations. He’s also fundraised this amazing amount without taking PAC or lobbyist money, leaving him unbeholdened to anyone but the regular citizens who’re bankrolling his campaign. He only has to answer to us little folk–and I truly believe he wants it that way and finds that fair and right.
If this is inexperience, I say I’d rather have it by a long shot than the “experience” of our current administration and his opponent.
In addition to the responses that other people have made, I have two comments:
(1) Read this on the topic of presidential experience
(2) The benefits that do come from experience, things like an actual day-to-day knowledge of how Washington works, lots of judgments of how foreign leaders will react to various things, etc., while not irrelevant, tend to be things that you can get by hiring smart people to advise you. Charisma, integrity, “leadership”, inspiration, etc., you either have or you don’t. So if we assume for a minute that Obama > McCain for character while McCain > Obama for experience, the clear choice is Obama.
Also, is it not fair to say much of running a successful government has to do with the cabinet and other advisors a president surrounds themselves with? Certainly the president does not work in a vacuum. Likewise no one person will ever be expert in all areas necessary to make the myriad decisions required as president. They may be expert in one area and lack in another. They simply must have the aid of a small army of experts in each area to advise them.
Every candidate will have their strengths and weaknesses. To me it is the ability of a president to listen to their experts (who hopefully are not all “yes” men handing the president his preconceived notions as seems the case with the current administration). If anything it generally seems the case that people get more hidebound as they gain experience because they “know” the right answers already. This is not always true of course but that goes more to the style of the individual. Some are careful to keep an open mind, others not so much.
To quote Camille Paglia:
The part of his problem that tends not to get mentioned is his lack of executive experience. The Presidency is an executive position. He does not legislate.
Obama’s never led a formal organization, or had to make a payroll, or been in the military and experienced that kind of command chain. And his experience in national politics is, less than one term in the Senate.
Sure it does, but the ability to pick people comes with experience in putting together a team. What experience does Obama have with that? Sure, you could say he put together a winning campaign (so far) but so has every nominee. So maybe that does not distinguish him.
I’ve never understood the tendency to believe that the Presidency is an entry-level position.
Regards,
Shodan
I see that Fish has posted some great facts about former presidents that is very interesting. Good information for future discussions on this topic outside the boards. I do value experience in Washington but I value integrity and intelligence more. I value an articulated vision that seems to be consistent. As SmartAleq has said, I see Obama as a leader who truly seeks to do what is best for the nation. Someone who is smart enough to realistically judge an issue and approach it with a little more integrity than we normally see in Washington and a sincere concern for what is best for America as a whole. He is someone who does not want to be insulated from opposing opinions but welcomes intelligent opposing arguments as a source of perspective that can be used to make judgment calls. So, for me, intelligence, attitude, integrity, a clear consistent vision, outweigh any questions about experience.
A question for Saint Cad and others who entertain concern about Obama’s lack of experience. Did you do any research to discover how previous experience has been reflected in the actions of 20th century presidents? Is there any evidence to indicate that prior executive experience makes one a better POUS?
Arguably the worst president ever is a former governor as well as a couple of our best. I understand the concern, but it seems to me the next logical question is how does experience translate into being a better president?
I used to admire McCain for what I saw as his integrity. He talked about changing the way Washington works for a long time and my feeling was that he was a man who would stry from party lines to say and do what he sincerely thought was best for Americans. That’s a quality I can support. Now I think he has compromised himself and his principles too much for reasons I can’t understand. I can’t support him.
[shrug] Given the choices presented, McCain has no more executive experience than Obama has.
A highly unusual situation, in a presidential election.
I’ll ask you the same question I asked Saint Cad but first let me note that nobody has indicated that being president is an entry level position.
I’d like to see any evidence you have that executive experience is more important than character and intelligence or other qualities. If you and others are going to keep repeating this as if it’s an obvious and serious mark against Obama then perhaps you’d have the courtesy to show some evidence that your criticism is based in fact. Fish seems to have provided some facts that show it’s not true.
Let’s look at the record:
President: FDR
Background/highest previous office held: Governor of New York
Legacy: Godlike.
President: Truman
Background/highest previous office held: Senator/VPOTUS
Legacy: Give 'em Hell!
President: Eisenhower
Background/highest previous office held: General
Legacy: Meh.
President: JFK
Background/highest previous office held: Senator
Legacy: Our loins ache for him yet!
President: LBJ
Background/highest previous office held: Senator/VPOTUS
Legacy: Great achievements, great crimes.
President: Nixon
Background/highest previous office held: Senator/VPOTUS
Legacy: We may never again feel clean.
President: Ford
Background/highest previous office held: House Minority Leader/VPOTUS
Legacy: Who?
President: Carter
Background/highest previous office held: Governor of Georgia
Legacy: History’s greatest monster; best **ex-**president ever.
President: Reagan
Background/highest previous office held: Governor of California
Legacy: Homer (v.): To succeed despite idiocy.
President: Bush I
Background/highest previous office held: VPOTUS
Legacy: Less said the better.
President: Clinton
Background/highest previous office held: Governor of Arkansas
Legacy: An embarrassment at the time, but damn do we want him back!
President: Bush II
Background/highest previous office held: Governor of Texas
Legacy: Worst. President. Ever.
I’m not discerning any clear pattern here.
I don’t think that there’s a whole lot of experience, in any form, that would be all that applicable to being president The key is talent, intelligence, reasoning ability, etc.
Indeed, the most applicable experience possible would be having been the POTUS before, and yet second term presidents seem to make as many bad decisions as first-term presidents.
Relevant thread on what experience is best for a presidential candidate.
Where exactly do you think I claimed that executive experience is more important than character and intelligence?
Executive experience is one of the things to be considered in choosing a candidate for President (or any other executive position, for that matter). An advantage of considering experience is that it is objective and measurable. This is clearly not the case with “character and intelligence” - the assertion that a given candidate is clearly the superior in “character and intelligence” is generally no more than an opinion.
One of Obama’s disadvantages is that he lacks executive experience. That can be measured. It is entirely possible that some other elements of his background make him a superior candidate and outweigh his inexperience. But that is a lot more murky.
McCain and Clinton have more experience in national politics and the Senate. This is capable of objective verification - four years for Obama, twenty two years for McCain (and four in the House), eight years for Clinton. McCain has more executive experience (and arguably, Clinton). Again, this can be measured. Obama (as mentioned) has never been elected to executive office, never led as an individual, but always as a legislator. McCain is a war hero, squadron commander, etc., etc. Clinton is more problematic, but at least she was First Lady and largely responsible for Hilarycare.
This doesn’t necessarily disqualify Obama from consideration as a candidate. As mentioned, perhaps his other qualities may be able to make up for a lack of experience. But it doesn’t seem like a good idea to dismiss this as a consideration.
Regards,
Shodan