Obama’s experience
February 29th, 2008 at 8:04 am by David FarrarI think Obama’s experience, or lack of it, is going to become more of a factor. It got me wondering if any other President (I am assuming he becomes the candidate) has had as little experience at federal or state executive level. Obama has to date had just three years in the Senate – one of which was mainly campaigning. And the Senate is about legislating not governing. He’s so new he won’t even have chaired a committee.
Bush had only six years as Governor of Texas. Mind you Texas has GSP of US1.1 trillion, so that is no small economy.
Clinton has a massive 12 years as Governor of Arkansas and a further two years as State Attorney-General.
Bush 41 was Vice-President for eight years, CIA Director for a year, Ambassador to the UN for two years, and a Congressman for four years.
Ronald Reagan served eight years as Governor of California, which has a GSP of $1.73 trillion.
Jimmy Carter served four years as Governor of Georgia with a GSP of $380 billion.
Gerald Ford had nine months as VP, but previously 25 years in Congress including nine years as House Minority Leader.
Nixon was VP for eight years, a Senator for two years and a Congressman for four years.
LBJ was VP for almost three years, a Senator for 12 years and Senate Majority Leader for six years. Also in the House for 12 years before that.
JFK was a Senator for eight years and in the House for six years before that.
Eisenhower had never held elected office, but as Supreme Allied Commander in Europe for WWII displayed considerable executive ability.
Truman was VP for a few months, but a Senator for 10 years before that.
And finally FDR had been Governor of New York (GSP $1.1 trillion) for four years. He also had been Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and a VP candidate before he became President.
I like Obama, but I really do wish he was standing in 2012 not 2008. Apart from arguably Eisenhower I don’t think we have had such an inexperienced candidate. And going from the Illinois State Senate to Leader of the Free World in just four years may just be asking too much. Time will tell.
February 29th, 2008 at 8:08 am
You know, that is the first time I’ve seen that written down. I knew people talked about his inexperience, but I don’t think I’d ever heard that he has only 4 years as a senator. What was he doing before that? You know that you are inviting comparisons to Key, don’t you?
[DPF: We don't have as many nukes
]
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Bush six years as texas governnor ( lets not take out HIS year of campaigning).
Vote:But the office of Governor in texas is one of the weakest of all the states.
he cant even give pardons like most other governors, and it is mostly a ceremonial office.
There was his time in texas air national guard which could have an indicator , but for some reason selective records seem to have dissapeared
February 29th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Key is just a figurehead for the hawks behind him, and so would Obama be as he increasingly needs to rely on hawk advice to run his slightly larger country.
There is a glaring difference, however, between Obama and Key – an awwwwwwwwwwwful lot of guns, big and small but also with the power to turn small countries into banana republics, which is where Key can once again be compared with Obama, when he drops the wages if he gets in.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 8:26 am
I think that could be seen as part of the attraction. Americans in general are sick of Washington and the way U.S. politics in general has been conducted since the mid-1990s (if not before), and Obama has had little or no part in that.
This is why it is possible to be credible when he says “Let’s change America” because to many he is the personal embodiment of that change.
I am absolutely sure that an Obama cabinet and White House would be full of a mix of talented, youthful, and experienced Democrat staffers.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 8:32 am
It is not about experience it is character. Some of the most successful presidents notably Abraham Lincoln had very little experience and some of the most experienced namely Richard Nixon or Lyndon Johnson (post 1965) were very unsuccessful. Furthermore why is it the an experienced President in the second term is often not considered to be that successful. For instance Clinton’s character fault of ill discipline over his personal life became glaringly obvious in the second term as an experienced President. So the big question is who has the best temperament to be President. McCain can be quite ill disciplined even impetuous take the “bomb bomb bomb Iran” remark. As for Hillary her stubborness and lack of finesse was glaringly revealed in the mismanagement of Health reform in 1993 probably delayed a worthwhile reform for over 15 years. Nothing much has changed so far as that fault is concerned. So it gets down to character in my view. And to me Obama is by far the best of the 3 on offer. PS I did read the Time article and I took the point.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 8:35 am
I agree with Policy Parrot. ‘Experience’ often comes with a hell of a lot of baggage, particularly when people are generally disatisfied with the way things have been done. The Democratic candidates with the most executive experience, Bill Richardson and Tom Vilsack, bombed out extremely rapidly. The Republican candidates with similarly good executive experience, Huckabee, Guiliani (although it’s questionable whether being a Mayor, even of a huge city, compares to being a Governor) and Romney all failed.
And if we are (as you did, DPF) disqualify Senate experience due to it being about ‘legislating not governing’, we must see that McCain has no executive experience either.
But I don’t think Senate experience can be discounted, because being a President is as much about producing legislation as it is about making executive decisions. With that in mind, yes, Obama is inexperienced, although not totally devoid of experience. In 1940 the Republican candidate, Wendell Wilkie, had never held a political office beforehand.
[DPF: I don't 100% discount Senate experience. It gets you knowledgable about federal issues. And if you Chair a Committee you can get to be a real expert in some areas. But a year as a Cabinet Secretary or a Governor counts more to me than a year in the Senate. And Wilkie was a pillock
]
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 8:42 am
The lust for power can be found in both the young and the old.
Vote:As for an Obama cabinet and White House being “..full of a mix of talented, youthful, and experienced Democrat staffers.”- I think someone watched far too much of the West Wing. Being absolutely sure of anything in politics, as Hillary’s rapid decline has shown, is not really possible.
PS could someone please explain, with examples how Obama will ‘change America’? Easy for him to say, but what the blue blazes does he mean?
February 29th, 2008 at 8:43 am
I think McCain will wear him down and be the next President of the United States. Obama makes a big deal about reaching across the divide to Republicans, well hold the phone he has not got involved in any of the bi-partisan groups and ad hoc committees in the current Senate. And talking of the Senate he has one of most liberal voting records, that’s hardly going to give the GOP the warm fuzzies.
One area McCain the the GOP will put the heat on him is foreign policy. This is a political minefield of which he is a total novice (so was George W Bush and look where it got him). Going around Europe, Asia, and the Middle East babbling on about “hope” and “change” and repeating the “yes we can” mantra to foreign leaders like Putin won’t cut the mustard. He needs to answer some specific questions like “If Iran attacks Israel what will he do”?
What does he know about public administration of large economies? as DPF points out he’s never run anything of note.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 8:48 am
To bring the experience argument closer to home two of the most successful Prime Ministers (namely Kirk and Savage) had very little experience and some of our least successful namely Muldoon were among the worst. It comes down to character. As for John Key he has been tested in a very high powered positions and his character appears to be very sound, the rest is staff-work.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 8:50 am
Well put. It’s well worth reading Spengler on Obama. The intro notes:
“The public knows less about Barack Obama than any other presidential hopeful in American history. His career bears no trace of his character. But there is a real Barack Obama – a man shaped by the imprint of an impassioned mother, and the influence of a brilliant wife. Ultimately, the probable next president is a mother’s revenge against the America she despised.”
Spengler is one of my must-read contributors. He has let slip in the past thast he owns a terrier, is familiar with Africa in the ’70′s, and of course his pen-name is that of Oswald Spengler – you know, ‘Decline of the West’.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 8:53 am
“I am absolutely sure that an Obama cabinet and White House would be full of a mix of talented, youthful, and experienced Democrat staffers.”
This is true. He’s got a lot of very good people advising him. Many of them worked for Bill Clinton. His rhetoric doesn’t do it for me and on issues Hillary has an edge in my opinion but his supposed lack of experience isn’t a concern for me. And his apparent freshness is a big part of his appeal which is understandable. I’m coming around, reluctantly, to the view that his personal narrative could be an advantage on the world stage.
“If Iran attacks Israel what will he do”? Bomb Iran, just like any other US president would. This exchange is worth reading –
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/26/obamas_ohio_grilling.html#more
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 9:00 am
My read is McCain will be President, but regarding Obama if he chooses someone like Joe Biden for VP I think the inexperience is a dead duck & anyway all he has to do is point to GW’s experience & how useful that was.
Vote:In the end though you’ll have two candidates who are not Washington “insiders” the GOP maverick & a freshman Dem, that says an aweful lot for how much American’s want change.
February 29th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Did you paste that out of a Clinton press release? It’s the ‘Leader of the Free World’ phrase that gives it away — haven’t heard it since the 80′s ; )
[DPF: Nope. I use quotes generally if I do that. I did the research myself]
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 9:11 am
But a year as a Cabinet Secretary or a Governor counts more to me than a year in the Senate. And Wilkie was a pillock
So, could you remind us of the GSP of the state of Illinois? Here’s what gets me about the ‘inexperience’ meme: Obama spent seven years as a state senator (which neither Clinton nor McCain has, as far as I know) but that doesn’t count.
Well, folks, I don’t see how you can have it both ways.
I’d also note that Teddy Roosevelt (less than a year as Governor of New York, and a little over six months as Vice-President before the assassination of McKinley) and his cousin Franklin (three years as Governor of New York, and no other elected office) were certainly lightweights on the ‘executive experience’ front. But somehow, they’re still consistently rated as among the best tennants of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in American history.
I’m also willing to argue that it was a damn good thing the least “experienced” candidate on the ballot (a single two-year term as an unpopular and ineffectual Congressman) won the nomination of the fledgling Republican party in 1860, then went on to win the general election. You might recognise his name: Abraham Lincoln.
[DPF: Claiming State Senate experience as training for US President, is like my appalling speeches at Otago in 1986 when I tried to get elected to OUSA Exec on the basis of my School Council experience.]
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 9:18 am
I read the Spengler piece and thougth it was garbage. Obama’s mother sounds like a great personality.
“His career bears no trace of his character.” BS basically. Much like this piece on Kosovo -http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ID17Ak01.html
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 9:30 am
There is no particular experience distinction between the the senators (Obama, Clinton, and McCain) other than time in office. Were one to refer to http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/al16.html, Abraham Lincoln’s biography at the Whitehouse, you’d find that his political experience might be considered inferior to all three, winning the (then) Republican Party nomination on debating strength and oratory. The distinction perhaps being that of strength of character.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 9:36 am
I’m surprised that more people in NZ aren’t talking about Obama’s position on trade. Especially given that free trade is important for our exporters and that trade is the one US policy area that directly affects us in NZ. Obama’s “shut up shop” mentality does not inspire me with confidence.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 9:47 am
This leads to a question nobody seems to be asking yet – who would the Presidential wannabes bring into Cabinet with them? I presume Clinton would bring in a lot of people from her husband’s administration and a few other Clintonistas – Evan Bayh and Tom Vilsack, for instance. McCain would probably likewise retain most of Bush’s Cabinet, although bring in some mates of his like Phil Gramm and Chuck Hagel. But Obama? The only people I can think of are Paul Axelrod, his political guru, and Kent Conrad, his mentor in the Senate. It’s possible he might let John Kerry in as a ‘thank-you’ for his endorsement, and Deval Patrick might get the nod, although he’s only had two years to run Massachusetts so he might prefer to stay in Boston for now.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Um, I am not nitpicking but Hillary Clinton has never been Governor of Arkansas, to my knowledge. Nor can I find reference to her having been State Attorney General. Bill of course held both these posts. You wouldn’t have your Clintons mixed up, by any chance? Or perhaps you meant Bill, in which case you should have said “had a massive 12 years…”
OK I am nitpicking
[DPF: As JamesP points out it is a list of Presidents. HC is almost out of it]
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 10:05 am
cathi – I think it’s pretty clear that the list is of past presidents and that he is referring to Bill. Hillary is dismissed in the second sentence when David says that he is assuming Obama gets the nod. There is not much point in talking about Hillary, and her lack of direct experience, when it is clear that only a minor miracle will make her the candidate. And the present tense is fine because he is still alive.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Of course, given that experience can be a liability as well as a boon, it’s worth noting that while no successful Presidential candidate (except for Eisenhower, who gets a special pass IMO due to his war heroism) has had as little experience as Obama, none has ever had as much as McCain. It will be easy for McCain to criticise Obama for being inexperienced, but it will also be easy for Obama to criticise McCain for having been in Washington for too long and not done enough to change it while he was there.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 10:33 am
John Key – currency shark until 2002, now leader of the opposition and saying anything he can to become the prime minister in 2008. Only has six years experience. Has never been in cabinet. Has never even chaired a select committee. Not ready for the top job. I think this will become an issue as the year goes on…:)
[DPF: Generally it is desirable for a PM to have been a Cabinet Minister, but sometimes it just isn't possible when someone rises to the top quickly. Lange is an example. Norman Kirk was never a Minister first also.]
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Conor,
The topic is Obama’s credentials to be the US President. The Prime Ministership of NZ has nothing to do with it.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 11:29 am
“Did you paste that out of a Clinton press release? It’s the ‘Leader of the Free World’ phrase that gives it away — haven’t heard it since the 80’s ; )
[DPF: Nope. I use quotes generally if I do that. I did the research myself]”
Yeah just pulling your leg.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Bring it on Conor, and I will shoot you down with Micky Savage and Kirk. It comes down to character. Who do you want Clark (with all her issues) or John Key. And who do you trust.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Conor, National have been out of power for 9 years. Of course he hasn’t been in cabinet. Are you a fool?
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
I agree with the people who have said that experience (which implies competence) isn’t that big a deal when choosing a candidate so long as the candidate we has a competent team behind them. i.e. Bush senior, as vice president, is widely regarded to have been more influential than Regan (who was in the early stages of Alzheimer’s) was as president, whilst Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Rove have guided the intellectually challenged Bush through his two-term presidency.
Obama, as former president of Harvard law review clearly the intelligence to learn the role in short time, and will probably be a more competent president after two months than GW was after 7 years.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
The “experience” argument against Obama isn’t actually much chop. If he is as bad on being elected as Republican sympathisers suggest, he won’t be re-elected and will likely face a Republican Congress two years into his Presidency.
The purpose of American Constitution arrangements is to prevent Politicians from doing too much. Less so in foreign policy. Of course a future Republican Congress is likely to be less subservient to a Democrat in the White House who wants to be radical in foreign policy than they were when faced with Bush’s radicalism.
What we can discern is that Obama is bright and measured and a quick learner – and one doesn’t do Harvard law without having a tidy mind. I think like most Presidents, on election he will be focused on (among other things) his re-election.
Nor do I put much stock in the “Obama has demons – hippy fellow traveller Mother who rejected America and hated it, Marxist drunk abusive father who abandoned his family, the white family he rejects; the searingly ambitious wife who is bright but haunted by the family ghosts of slavery …. blah blah.”
Most successful politicians are like everyone else; flawed. Often the demons are larger look at Clinton. But this isn’t an ideological or party political thing.
Many conservatives highlight the character flaws they say are evident in McCain. They say he is cranky, vain, precious, quick tempered, and is both establishment and anti establishment at the same time blah blah.
The most interesting thing about DPF’s post is that politics and political campaigns aren’t about perfect timing, or the ideal, gosh if only we could construct an alternative political reality.
So let’s test Dr Farrar’s “the time isn’t quite right … wait and learn to earn your turn young man.” Political success is often the ‘happy’ coincidence of being in the right place at the right time. Hard work, focus and ambition is necessary but not sufficient; one needs the ‘sweet spot.’ Obama happens to be there. I am not sure he would be in 2012. I suspect any previous deferral would probably act to rule him out in 2012. Like Maurice Williamson he would be the perpetual “up and coming thing” for too long.
If Dr Farrar were taking Obama campaign coin, would he be advising a ‘wait your turn so as to learn’ or a ‘Carpe diem’ strategy?
[DPF: Oh Obama would be mad not to take the opportunity that has presented itself. You are right you can not choose the perfect timing and never say no to a good opportunity while waiting for a perfect one. My comments on his inexperience are more to do with whether people should vote him into the top job]
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Roger Nome, you’ve repeatedly stated that it’s ‘widely known’ (or some variation) that Bush Snr was holding Reagan’s puppet strings, but I don’t think that’s the case at all.
I do agree that a good team can make up for a President’s weaknesses (and no President is without weaknesses)
But your crap about BUsh being ‘intellectually challenged’ is just bullshit.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
dpf said..”..
[DPF: Claiming State Senate experience as training for US President, is like my appalling speeches at Otago in 1986 when I tried to get elected to OUSA Exec on the basis of my School Council experience.].”
do you really really really..
wannabe a matty mp..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Pardon me for being blunt, DPF, but that’s a crap analogy. Illinois’s GSP in 2006 was US$528 billion, the fifth largest in the United States; a population of 12.8 million. Now, the elected members of the Illinois State Legislature may spend their days screwing interns, taking bribes and avoiding doing any actual work to the best of their ability. But that’s not the impression I’ve got reading reports of Obama’s term in the Illinois legislature.
And I stand by my main point, if folks want to run the ‘experience’ argument it’s a legitimate line to run. But not when you’re shifting the goalposts whenever it becomes inconvenient.
[DPF: Well my scepticism about state senate experience is shared my many in the US it seems. Saw on one of the TV shows, journos saying they were going to throw something if Obama held up his experience there as particularly relevant again. We'll agree to disagree (once again)]
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 2:43 pm
“I’m surprised that more people in NZ aren’t talking about Obama’s position on trade.”
That’s a good point – he’s a critic of NAFTA which was one of Bill Clinton’s core achievements. But that sort of protectionist position could be more about his “fresh and new” image (it was one way of getting at the Clintons and looking pro-worker), once in office things might be different.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
But your crap about BUsh being ‘intellectually challenged’ is just bullshit.
If GW’s record of failed business (despite having millions dumped in has lap by daddy) is anything to go by, the guy is indeed intellectually challenged.
http://alaric3rh.home.sprynet.com/science/bceo.html
His father, similarly had millions dumped in his lap by his wife’s father, but at least he had the smarts to use it. Then of course, there’s his inability to articulate a grammatically correct sentence, coupled with his academic record in which he registers a ‘C’ average! Yes, everything points to Bush junior being an absolute dolt.
The point is that you don’t have to be overly competent to be a president if you’re just going to be a figure-head. So my argument is that Obama’s record shows he has more than what it takes to do the job.
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
Can’t you find something more authoritative (hint: reputable website) to support your argument?
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Nice one POC – answer that rogered? Are you posting rubbish links again gnomer?
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
My tuppenyworth…
Clinton would beat McCain.
McCain will beat Obama
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 4:46 pm
DPF: “My comments on his inexperience are more to do with whether people should vote him into the top job”
Mmmm the problem is that there is no objective link between experience and being a good President. The reputation of a President depends so much on circumstances.
And because the US Presidency is at the nexus of complex global politics and robust domestic politics, temperament and character and judgement are as important as experience.
Jimmy Carter was a successful governor of Georgia, a remarkable tactician in the Democratic primaries and on the whole a poor President, regarded as so then and now.
JFK was experienced in that his Father brought him public officeholding. At the time of his assassination his Presidency was in trouble. He had been a cold war hawk indistinguishable from Nixon in this regard. What in his unremarkable Senate experience prepared him for the Cuban missile crisis?
Truman did nothing as VP to Roosevelt, was hugely politically experienced in a backroom sort of way and left the White House deeply unpopular – history has treated him more kindly (there might be lesson for Bush II here if Iraq works) Truman’s temperament was far more important than his pre White House experience.
And even if I were to concede an objective link between a good Presidency and prior experience what does it matter – as Mike Moore used to say “the voters are right even when they are wrong.”
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
hawk..
“..My tuppenyworth…
Clinton would beat McCain.
McCain will beat Obama..”
um..!..any logic/reason behind that..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Cough,cough;phul knows logic and reason???
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
David Brooks has written nicely on the Obama phenomenon:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/opinion/19brooks.html
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
“..For the past few months, the lovable house conservative of the New York Times and satirical sociologist has been taking a beating.
In April, Philadelphia’s Sasha Issenberg fact-checked Brooks’ articles about divided America and discovered that Brooks exaggerated and distorted differences between Red and Blue states to make his pop sociology even fizzier.
And since Brooks’ new book, On Paradise Drive, hit bookstores this month, Brooks’ erstwhile liberal friends have been thumping it—and him. In the New York Times Book Review, Brooks’ pal (and Slate founding editor) Michael Kinsley jabbed Brooks’ supposed sociology as mere comic shtick.
In Salon, Laura Miller wrote that Brooks has made a “brief, ignominious, muddy slide” from “amusing to annoying,”
and reviewers in the Nation and the Washington Post Book Review likewise swung baseball bats at his kneecaps..”
(you have been warned..!..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:February 29th, 2008 at 11:06 pm
Obama is posing as the man to end the involvement in Iraq, he will portray McCain as continuing Bush’s war. I suspect at some point, he will paint MCain as trying to win the Vietnam war in Iraq – as if his motives speak to the baggage of a former generation of Americans, a generation not ready to meet the challenges of the 21st century.
He may win.
If he does, in 2012 he may well relive the issues of the 1980 election. A Presidency of enduring stagflation (economic weakness) and foreign policy/defence weakness – symbolised by the “loss” of a ME country (Iraq this time rather than Iran). He could be thus be a one term President.
It will be some performance to sustain support for change, while American power is in decline (the unipolar super power days are fading fast) – this because it will have to based on working within a new reality that much of America will struggle with. The Republicans might exploit this to win back power – if on the basis that maintaining the illusion that all is well can only be sustained by their doing so. Thus maintaining some nominal respect for the USA as a world leader.
Vote: