Hillary, Barack, Experience

[BroncoInferno]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/op...in&oref=slogin

Hillary, Barack, Experience

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: January 20, 2008

With all the sniping from the Clinton camp about whether Barack Obama has enough experience to make a strong president, consider another presidential candidate who was far more of a novice. He had the gall to run for president even though he had served a single undistinguished term in the House of Representatives, before being hounded back to his district.

That was Abraham Lincoln.

Another successful president scorned any need for years of apprenticeship in Washington, declaring, “The same old experience is not relevant.” He suggested that the most useful training comes not from hanging around the White House and Congress but rather from experience “rooted in the real lives of real people” so that “it will bring real results if we have the courage to change.”

That was Bill Clinton running in 1992 against George H. W. Bush, who was then trumpeting his own experience over the callow youth of Mr. Clinton. That year Mr. Bush aired a television commercial urging voters to keep America “in the hands of experience.”

It might seem obvious that long service in Washington is the best preparation for the White House, but on the contrary, one lesson of American history is that length of experience in national politics is an extremely poor predictor of presidential success.

Looking at the 19 presidents since 1900, three of the greatest were among those with the fewest years in electoral politics. Teddy Roosevelt had been a governor for two years and vice president for six months; Woodrow Wilson, a governor for just two years; and Franklin Roosevelt, a governor for four years. None ever served in Congress.

They all did have executive experience (as did Mr. Clinton), actually running something larger than a Senate office. Maybe that’s something voters should think about more: governors have often made better presidents than senators. But that’s not a good Democratic talking point, because the candidates with the greatest administrative experience by far are Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and Mike Huckabee.

Alternatively, look at the five presidents since 1900 with perhaps the most political experience when taking office: William McKinley, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George H. W. Bush. They had great technical skills — but not one was among our very greatest presidents.

The point is not that experience is pointless but that it needn’t be in politics to be useful. John McCain’s years as a P.O.W. gave him an understanding of torture and a moral authority to discuss it that no amount of Senate hearings ever could have conferred.

In the same way, Mr. Obama’s years as an antipoverty organizer give him insights into one of our greatest challenges: how to end cycles of poverty. That front-line experience is one reason Mr. Obama not only favors government spending programs, like early-childhood education, but also cultural initiatives like promoting responsible fatherhood.

Then there’s Mr. Obama’s grade-school years in Indonesia. Our most serious mistakes in foreign policy, from Vietnam to Iraq, have been a blindness to other people’s nationalism and an inability to see ourselves as others see us. Mr. Obama seems to have absorbed an intuitive sensitivity to that problem. For starters, he understood back in 2002 that American troops would not be greeted in Iraq with flowers.

In politics, Mr. Obama’s preparation is indeed thin, though it’s more than Hillary Rodham Clinton acknowledges. His seven years in the Illinois State Senate aren’t heavily scrutinized, but he scored significant achievements there: a law to videotape police interrogations in capital cases; an earned income tax credit to fight poverty; an expansion of early-childhood education.

Mrs. Clinton’s strength is her mastery of the details of domestic and foreign policy, unrivaled among the candidates; she speaks fluently about what to do in Pakistan, Iraq, Darfur. Mr. Obama’s strength is his vision and charisma and the possibility that his election would heal divisions at home and around the world. John Edwards’s strength is his common touch and his leadership among the candidates in establishing detailed positions on health care, poverty and foreign aid.

Those are the meaningful distinctions in the Democratic field, not Mrs. Clinton’s spurious claim to “35 years of experience.” The Democrats with the greatest Washington expertise — Joe Biden, Chris Dodd and Bill Richardson — have already been driven from the race. And the presidential candidate left standing with the greatest experience by far is Mr. McCain; if Mrs. Clinton believes that’s the criterion for selecting the next president, she might consider backing him.

To put it another way, think which politician is most experienced today in the classic sense, and thus — according to the “experience” camp — best qualified to become the next president.

That’s Dick Cheney. And I rest my case.

[BroncoInferno]

Pretty interesting article. Just how important is experience?

[baja]

good find inferno

[Rohirrim]

I've known Abraham Lincoln for years. I served with Abraham Lincoln. Senator Obama, you are no Abraham Lincoln.

[BroncoInferno]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

I've known Abraham Lincoln for years. I served with Abraham Lincoln. Senator Obama, you are no Abraham Lincoln.

I certainly wouldn't advise using that comparison in debate. But, the gist of the article seems reasonable enough to me. Lack of legislative experience could be a detriment, but not necessarily so. By the same token, tons of experience does not necessarily correlate into competency. And, if Hillary wants to champion experience as a virtue, she will be in a lot of trouble in the general against someone like McCain. Interesting article.

[Rohirrim]

LBJ was hugely successful at moving his legislative package through Congress. Let's be honest. Obama couldn't come close to that kind of leverage on his best day.

Lately I've been reading a few Dems comparing Obama to RFK. What a joke. Wiki RFK and Obama and you see that the gap between the two is mammoth. Obama seems to be the recipient of a whole bunch of wishful thinking. The only reason he even got into the Senate is because his opponent (Ryan) dropped out three months before the election and was replaced by Alan Keyes. Alan ****ing Keyes! Give me a break.

[Bronco Bob]

If we want to be honest about it, the first few years of Lincoln's
presidency was a disaster. It was only after he had had a few
years in office did they start turning things around and ended up looking
good in the end.

I'm not sure where the author is getting Clinton didn't have much
experience. He was governor of Arkansas for 10 years.

Teddy Roosevelt was also president of the board of New York City Police
Commissioners where he led the reform of the police department,
Assistant Secretary of the Navy and had been a Colonel in the Spanish American war.

Woodrow Wilson was president of Princeton University for 8 years,
so he had that administrative experience.

Franklin Roosevelt was also an Assistant Secretary of the Navy for 7 years
in addition to being governor of New York for 4 years.

It seems the author is purposefully ignoring these people's other
accomplishments to build up Obama. What other federal or
administrative posts has Obama held prior to serving one year
as a US Senator before he decided to run for president?

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

LBJ was hugely successful at moving his legislative package through Congress. Let's be honest. Obama couldn't come close to that kind of leverage on his best day.

Lately I've been reading a few Dems comparing Obama to RFK. What a joke. Wiki RFK and Obama and you see that the gap between the two is mammoth. Obama seems to be the recipient of a whole bunch of wishful thinking. The only reason he even got into the Senate is because his opponent (Ryan) dropped out three months before the election and was replaced by Alan Keyes. Alan ****ing Keyes! Give me a break.

I think that Obama has showed himself to be a great orator and motivator. People listen when he speaks. He speaks in clear fashion and makes an effort to ensure that he addresses some pertinent issues.

He's driving the dem debate, and you have to give him credit for that.

Clinton on the other hand has looked quite unprofessional at times. She's reinforcing fears about a female president, while Obama has removed all fears of a black president.

Said a liberal female friend of mine: "I wouldnt trust Hillary to be able to handle her responsibilities if she breaks down emotionally so much during the primaries. She hasnt even hit the hard part of the election yet, much less the presidency." This was in reference to Clinton's debates and her public breakdown.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by angryllama

I think that Obama has showed himself to be a great orator and motivator. People listen when he speaks. He speaks in clear fashion and makes an effort to ensure that he addresses some pertinent issues.

He's driving the dem debate, and you have to give him credit for that.

Clinton on the other hand has looked quite unprofessional at times. She's reinforcing fears about a female president, while Obama has removed all fears of a black president.

Said a liberal female friend of mine: "I wouldnt trust Hillary to be able to handle her responsibilities if she breaks down emotionally so much during the primaries. She hasnt even hit the hard part of the election yet, much less the presidency." This was in reference to Clinton's debates and her public breakdown.

Public breakdown? Don't be a press puppet. Her eyes barely welled up. If McCain said, "I love my country" and his eyes welled up, we'd all say, What a great patriot. It's media Billary's problem is she's too adversarial. She's always looking for a fight, or an enemy to fight. Obama is a good speaker. ...crickets...

[epicSocialism4tw]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Public breakdown? Don't be a press puppet. Her eyes barely welled up. If McCain said, "I love my country" and his eyes welled up, we'd all say, What a great patriot. It's media Billary's problem is she's too adversarial. She's always looking for a fight, or an enemy to fight. Obama is a good speaker. ...crickets...

Clinton breaks down during the debates. She cant control her emotions very well. She has trouble holding her tongue. Watch her perform her "angry little dances" next time. It's actually pretty pathetic.

[sisterhellfyre]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

Public breakdown? Don't be a press puppet. Her eyes barely welled up. If McCain said, "I love my country" and his eyes welled up, we'd all say, What a great patriot. It's media Billary's problem is she's too adversarial. She's always looking for a fight, or an enemy to fight. Obama is a good speaker. ...crickets...

I'm not sure I'd agree that Hillary is too adversarial. She reminds me more of the old joke about "Have you seen my followers? I must get in front of them, for I am their leader!"

She'll take whatever position appears to be popular in the polls and focus groups, and then argue it as if she believed in it all along. Just look at her position on the Iraq war.

Hillary and Romney deserve each other in this realm of policy-switching.

Regards,
m.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by sisterhellfyre

I'm not sure I'd agree that Hillary is too adversarial. She reminds me more of the old joke about "Have you seen my followers? I must get in front of them, for I am their leader!"

She'll take whatever position appears to be popular in the polls and focus groups, and then argue it as if she believed in it all along. Just look at her position on the Iraq war.

Hillary and Romney deserve each other in this realm of policy-switching.

Regards,
m.

Yeah. Once again, after this dog and pony show is over, the only ones getting screwed will be us. You'd think, in a country as large and dynamic as ours, we'd be able to come up with a better selection. Of course, given the process, who in their right mind would want to run? I bumped into Gary Hart at the Republic Bldg. one day and asked him to run. He just chuckled and said, "No thanks." I guess his sanity returned.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

You'd think, in a country as large and dynamic as ours, we'd be able to come up with a better selection.

But "we" (the people) no longer do the selecting - that power has shifted to "we the corporations" and to the highest bidder.

[Rohirrim]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

But "we" (the people) no longer do the selecting - that power has shifted to "we the corporations" and to the highest bidder.

That's just because we lie down and take it. Look what happened when they tried to slip that Dubai port deal through. The American people went ballistic and the government went running for cover. We the people have to stand up and put the fear of God in the government, instead of remaining in fear of them. The American people have an enormous amount of power. They just never use it. In fact, they don't know how to use it. We've lost our revolutionary spirit.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Originally Posted by Rohirrim

That's just because we lie down and take it. Look what happened when they tried to slip that Dubai port deal through. The American people went ballistic and the government went running for cover. We the people have to stand up and put the fear of God in the government, instead of remaining in fear of them. The American people have an enormous amount of power. They just never use it. In fact, they don't know how to use it. We've lost our revolutionary spirit.

Correct on all counts, although I must say I have no idea what it will take for Americans to rediscover that revolutionary spirit.

I mean, how much worse do things have to get for people to wake up?

[baja]

Originally Posted by L.A. BRONCOS FAN

Correct on all counts, although I must say I have no idea what it will take for Americans to rediscover that revolutionary spirit.

I mean, how much worse do things have to get for people to wake up?

They will have to become very uncomfortable it seems.