The Truth About Experience

[HappyWarrior]

What is with all of these people saying "experience" makes Obama a bad candidate?  Isn't it true that most of our greatest presidents were inexperienced in government?  Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington, and Eisenhower were all thought of as inexperienced.  The fact is experience does'nt make a person a great president, it just gives them baggage.  A person only needs good ideas rather than experience.  Clinton is full of bad ideas and experience while Obama isn't so strong on experience but he has some of the greatest ideas I have ever seen.  Which would you rather have, experience or true progress?

[Alcon]

Clinton is full of bad ideas

Which of Clinton's ideas are different enough from Obama's to be bad, while his aren't?

[exopolitician]

Clinton is full of bad ideas

Which of Clinton's ideas are different enough from Obama's to be bad, while his aren't?

Healthcare, Foreign Policy....just a few I can really think of. Everything else they are pretty much equal on.

[Verily]

Clinton is full of bad ideas

Which of Clinton's ideas are different enough from Obama's to be bad, while his aren't?

Healthcare, Foreign Policy....just a few I can really think of. Everything else they are pretty much equal on.

There's also ethics legislation. Clinton's never actively opposed it, but she's also never supported it.

[TheresNoMoney]

Kerry's many years of experience only hurt him in the 2004 general election.

I'll take judgement over experience anyday.

[Beet]

Clinton is full of bad ideas

Which of Clinton's ideas are different enough from Obama's to be bad, while his aren't?

Healthcare, Foreign Policy....just a few I can really think of. Everything else they are pretty much equal on.

There's also ethics legislation. Clinton's never actively opposed it, but she's also never supported it.

Voting for it is not supporting it? That's new.

The last two Presidents have come in with no 'Washington experience' and they've both paid for it.

[exopolitician]

Clinton is full of bad ideas

Which of Clinton's ideas are different enough from Obama's to be bad, while his aren't?

Healthcare, Foreign Policy....just a few I can really think of. Everything else they are pretty much equal on.

There's also ethics legislation. Clinton's never actively opposed it, but she's also never supported it.

Is that one of those instances where she voted FOR it but ultimately wanted it to not pass?

[Jake]

What is with all of these people saying "experience" makes Obama a bad candidate?  Isn't it true that most of our greatest presidents were inexperienced in government?

In some cases that's true. "Experience" is pretty hard to define too. Most would consider a 24 year Senator to be experienced, but what if he's spent his four terms voting party line, pulling home the pork, and doing nothing else. I would argue such a person is less experienced than someone who's been in the Senate for a short period and gotten some legislation passed. My problem with Obama's experience is that he doesn't really have any experience dealing with substantive foreign policy decisions (Much the same as Bush II BTW). In this way he's particularly vulnerable to being manipulated by his advisers (as Bush II was talked into Iraq by Perle and Co.).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Washington surely was not inexperienced in politics. He had served much of his adult life in Virginia's legislature and had dealt with Congress for the entire Revolution as C-in-C and then chaired the Constitutional Convention. Teddy Roosevelt and Eisenhower also had stints as executives commanding military forces, and especially in Eisenhower's case, dealing with many different factions of the Allied Forces. I would agree that both Kennedy and Lincoln were inexperienced in executive office; both made some very key decisions to save the country.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a pretty ridiculous claim to make. Learning to build consensus, but at the same time achieve your end goals and learning to make good decisions is not "baggage"; it's essential to leadership.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which ideas of Obama's are you so excited about? How do they substantially differ from what Clinton's proposing?

From everything I've seen, both Obama and Clinton are calling plays from the same playbook. They promise universal healthcare, solutions to global warming, more money for education, etc. Obama just makes it sound better because he's been able to make himself somehow appear above politics. Remember, Obama's entire candidacy is built around the idea that only he can bring America together in an atmosphere of bipartisanship. How that's going to happen when he's basically your standard Democrat with some charisma has yet to be revealed.

[Verily]

Clinton is full of bad ideas

Which of Clinton's ideas are different enough from Obama's to be bad, while his aren't?

Healthcare, Foreign Policy....just a few I can really think of. Everything else they are pretty much equal on.

There's also ethics legislation. Clinton's never actively opposed it, but she's also never supported it.

Voting for it is not supporting it? That's new.

She has made no commitments to expanding it. That's code for only supporting ethics legislation when politically convenient (and I would call anyone on it).

[Bay Ridge, Bklyn! Born and Bred]

What is with all of these people saying "experience" makes Obama a bad candidate?  Isn't it true that most of our greatest presidents were inexperienced in government?  Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington, and Eisenhower were all thought of as inexperienced.  The fact is experience does'nt make a person a great president, it just gives them baggage.  A person only needs good ideas rather than experience.  Clinton is full of bad ideas and experience while Obama isn't so strong on experience but he has some of the greatest ideas I have ever seen.  Which would you rather have, experience or true progress?

Teddy Roosevelt:  Governor of NY, scientist, adventurerer, Assistant Secretary of the Navy

Washington:  you gotta be kidding, right?

Kennedy:  8 years in the senate, war-hero, pulitzer-prize winning author.

Obama:  2 years in the senate,....and, thats really all about it.  Oh, but he can dance to hip-hop.

Your comparisons are idiotic, and only prove as time goes on that Obama supporters are really not that bright.

[perdedor]

I couldn't agree more whole heartedly. Experience is nothing short of doublespeak for "I've spent more time contributing to a broken system than my opponent". Ideas are certainly what matters.

[Joe Kakistocracy]

Your comparisons are idiotic, and only prove as time goes on that Obama supporters are really not that bright.

The other day you posted that you intended to vote for Obama in the Potomac primaries.

[Beet]

Democrats are in a bad way because Republicans are a lot smarter than them when it comes to the political game.

The very idea that a guy like Obama-- basically a made over collection of corporate slogans and inspirational sermons-- could cause such a frenzy among the Democratic party proves just how inane most Democrats are.

In 2004, an overwhelming majority of Democrats backed John Kerry because they thought he was "most electable", compared to John Edwards.

Republicans are obviously supporting Obama because they either judge that he would be easier to beat in the fall (based on his weakness among key groups women, blue collar workers, southerners, Catholics, Latinos) or he would be equally hard to beat but they dislike Hillary more. Of course, they will lie to Democrats and say they would support Obama, and Democrats will believe them.

Now that the primaries are over Rasmussen is coming out with GE polls showing Clinton doing as well as Obama. Never during primary season did I hear mention of a Democrat saying that Scott Rasmussen is a Republican and maybe we should be leery of his head-to-heads. Democrats lapped it up and lapped up the RCP averages that Rasmussen heavily influenced like a bunch of sheep, even while Gallup and Bloomberg were showing both Clinton and Obama doing about the same- Clinton sometimes a bit better- prior to Obama's primary bounce.

[Gustaf]

Obama has some of the greatest ideas you've ever seen? So, what are those "greatest ideas we've ever seen"?

It's funny how Obama supporters keep making this claim, because one of the things they often bring up as a counter to the experience argument is "Well, Rumsfeld was experienced". Yet, the past 8 years has shown exactly what can happen when the president has no experience at all in a field. He has to rely on advisors who's competence we cannot certify. And he can hire all the wrong people. And Obama isn't just inexperienced he hasn't really shown much judgement either. In fact, a great part of experience is precisely that it allows you to learn from mistakes and get good judgement.

[opebo]

The very idea that a guy like Obama... could cause such a frenzy among the Democratic party proves just how inane most Democrats are.

Come on, in fairness, its all down to ideology - a centrist party like the Democrats have nothing to run on, while an extremist ideological party like the Republicans have a much easier time.

[Duke 🇺🇸]

Democrats are in a bad way because Republicans are a lot smarter than them when it comes to the political game.

The very idea that a guy like Obama-- basically a made over collection of corporate slogans and inspirational sermons-- could cause such a frenzy among the Democratic party proves just how inane most Democrats are.

In 2004, an overwhelming majority of Democrats backed John Kerry because they thought he was "most electable", compared to John Edwards.

Republicans are obviously supporting Obama because they either judge that he would be easier to beat in the fall (based on his weakness among key groups women, blue collar workers, southerners, Catholics, Latinos) or he would be equally hard to beat but they dislike Hillary more. Of course, they will lie to Democrats and say they would support Obama, and Democrats will believe them.

Now that the primaries are over Rasmussen is coming out with GE polls showing Clinton doing as well as Obama. Never during primary season did I hear mention of a Democrat saying that Scott Rasmussen is a Republican and maybe we should be leery of his head-to-heads. Democrats lapped it up and lapped up the RCP averages that Rasmussen heavily influenced like a bunch of sheep, even while Gallup and Bloomberg were showing both Clinton and Obama doing about the same- Clinton sometimes a bit better- prior to Obama's primary bounce.

With Hillary, the Democrats would be guaranteed pickups in Arkansas and West Virginia. With Obama, he weakens their chances at New Mexico, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisonsin. The demographics don't match up with him.

I know that now, he is polling much better than Clinton, but that's because he is the candidate of the hour. Huckabee was polling better in moderate states than Giuliani after Rudy was in free-fall. I don't think Huckabee would do better in Pennsylvania than Rudy, but at that time he was because it seemed like he was the stronger candidate.

The Republicans will slowly pick apart Obama's record and the Democrats will be shocked at how people leave his camp in favor of McCain's.

[Alcon]

Obama has some of the greatest ideas you've ever seen? So, what are those "greatest ideas we've ever seen"?

It's funny how Obama supporters keep making this claim, because one of the things they often bring up as a counter to the experience argument is "Well, Rumsfeld was experienced". Yet, the past 8 years has shown exactly what can happen when the president has no experience at all in a field. He has to rely on advisors who's competence we cannot certify. And he can hire all the wrong people. And Obama isn't just inexperienced he hasn't really shown much judgement either. In fact, a great part of experience is precisely that it allows you to learn from mistakes and get good judgement.

Every president in the history of the country has relied on advisers for specialized information.  Clinton has had a degree of more direct experience, because the First Lady, in that she has seen day-by-day presidential operations.  The common Obama supporter rebuke is not that experience is a bad thing, but that correlation and causation are not the same.  And, indeed, there's a good argument that there is no correlation - some of the country's best presidents were not exactly experienced, and some of its worst were.

I'm not saying that the experience argument isn't a good one, but it's not as conclusive and final as you are making it.

[Beet]

Democrats are in a bad way because Republicans are a lot smarter than them when it comes to the political game.

The very idea that a guy like Obama-- basically a made over collection of corporate slogans and inspirational sermons-- could cause such a frenzy among the Democratic party proves just how inane most Democrats are.

In 2004, an overwhelming majority of Democrats backed John Kerry because they thought he was "most electable", compared to John Edwards.

Republicans are obviously supporting Obama because they either judge that he would be easier to beat in the fall (based on his weakness among key groups women, blue collar workers, southerners, Catholics, Latinos) or he would be equally hard to beat but they dislike Hillary more. Of course, they will lie to Democrats and say they would support Obama, and Democrats will believe them.

Now that the primaries are over Rasmussen is coming out with GE polls showing Clinton doing as well as Obama. Never during primary season did I hear mention of a Democrat saying that Scott Rasmussen is a Republican and maybe we should be leery of his head-to-heads. Democrats lapped it up and lapped up the RCP averages that Rasmussen heavily influenced like a bunch of sheep, even while Gallup and Bloomberg were showing both Clinton and Obama doing about the same- Clinton sometimes a bit better- prior to Obama's primary bounce.

With Hillary, the Democrats would be guaranteed pickups in Arkansas and West Virginia. With Obama, he weakens their chances at New Mexico, Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Wisonsin. The demographics don't match up with him.

I know that now, he is polling much better than Clinton, but that's because he is the candidate of the hour. Huckabee was polling better in moderate states than Giuliani after Rudy was in free-fall. I don't think Huckabee would do better in Pennsylvania than Rudy, but at that time he was because it seemed like he was the stronger candidate.

The Republicans will slowly pick apart Obama's record and the Democrats will be shocked at how people leave his camp in favor of McCain's.

Well, I will say this praise to Obama-- if he can make this election not about demographics and wedge issues but about ideas-- and I know it's going to be especially hard on sites like this were we just love to look at maps and polls and do breakdowns-- , if he can actually somehow push through his message, then he can win, and accomplish something pretty impressive. I'm very skeptical, but I don't think it's impossible.

[Gustaf]

Obama has some of the greatest ideas you've ever seen? So, what are those "greatest ideas we've ever seen"?

It's funny how Obama supporters keep making this claim, because one of the things they often bring up as a counter to the experience argument is "Well, Rumsfeld was experienced". Yet, the past 8 years has shown exactly what can happen when the president has no experience at all in a field. He has to rely on advisors who's competence we cannot certify. And he can hire all the wrong people. And Obama isn't just inexperienced he hasn't really shown much judgement either. In fact, a great part of experience is precisely that it allows you to learn from mistakes and get good judgement.

Every president in the history of the country has relied on advisers for specialized information.  Clinton has had a degree of more direct experience, because the First Lady, in that she has seen day-by-day presidential operations.  The common Obama supporter rebuke is not that experience is a bad thing, but that correlation and causation are not the same.  And, indeed, there's a good argument that there is no correlation - some of the country's best presidents were not exactly experienced, and some of its worst were.

I'm not saying that the experience argument isn't a good one, but it's not as conclusive and final as you are making it.

I'm not sure where your interpretation is coming from. I said "the past 8 years has shown exactly what can happen when the president has no experience at all in a field" and "a great part of experience is precisely that it allows you to learn from mistakes and get good judgement". I don't see how that is the same as saying that the experience argument is conclusive and final?

As for your points, I resent the first one because it seems to imply I'm a complete idiot, so I hope you didn't mean it. Of course I know all presidents have to use experts. Having some personal knowledge and insight still makes the difference between being in the hands of those experts and simply using them for input. Furthermore, there are areas where the preisdent's personal knowledge is more important, either because he/she has more power (i.e. foreign policy) or because the stakes are much higher (i.e. foreign policy).

Secondly, the correlation-causation argument I honestly never heard in this case. Would it be that being a good president creates past experiences or what? At the moment, I can't really envision how it would run.

As for there not being correlation, presidential performance is affected by many issues. I guess that's the "not final and conclusive" thing you're getting to at the end of your post. I would argue that some of the worse presidents have been bad because they've lacked experience. Carter and Bush are good examples of this. Also, experience can come in many forms. It doesn't necessarily have to be senate experience and so on. But with Obama I really see nothing in him which indicates that he would be a good president. He hasn't, like some of the other examples mentioned shown great talent in some other field. He's charismatic and he can deliver speeches. This certainly makes him a great politician and a great candidate, but that's another issue.

[Alcon]

I'm not sure where your interpretation is coming from. I said "the past 8 years has shown exactly what can happen when the president has no experience at all in a field" and "a great part of experience is precisely that it allows you to learn from mistakes and get good judgement". I don't see how that is the same as saying that the experience argument is conclusive and final?

It wasn't exclusively a reference to this topic, although I think I'm confusing something Beet said with you, so feel free to ignore that part.

As for your points, I resent the first one because it seems to imply I'm a complete idiot, so I hope you didn't mean it.

I think it's well-established that you're not an idiot. 

Of course I know all presidents have to use experts. Having some personal knowledge and insight still makes the difference between being in the hands of those experts and simply using them for input. Furthermore, there are areas where the preisdent's personal knowledge is more important, either because he/she has more power (i.e. foreign policy) or because the stakes are much higher (i.e. foreign policy).

And you believe that being First Lady makes for more foreign policy knowledge than being a U.S. Senator who actively sought information on foreign policy (e.g., from Colin Powell)?

Secondly, the correlation-causation argument I honestly never heard in this case. Would it be that being a good president creates past experiences or what? At the moment, I can't really envision how it would run.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying.

As for there not being correlation, presidential performance is affected by many issues. I guess that's the "not final and conclusive" thing you're getting to at the end of your post. I would argue that some of the worse presidents have been bad because they've lacked experience. Carter and Bush are good examples of this. Also, experience can come in many forms. It doesn't necessarily have to be senate experience and so on.

Then exactly who are you comparing Obama with, here?  Clinton?  McCain?

But with Obama I really see nothing in him which indicates that he would be a good president. He hasn't, like some of the other examples mentioned shown great talent in some other field.

You don't think he's displayed rather extensive competence in his life?  Well, hmm...

[12th Doctor]

What is with all of these people saying "experience" makes Obama a bad candidate?  Isn't it true that most of our greatest presidents were inexperienced in government?  Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington, and Eisenhower were all thought of as inexperienced.  The fact is experience does'nt make a person a great president, it just gives them baggage.  A person only needs good ideas rather than experience.  Clinton is full of bad ideas and experience while Obama isn't so strong on experience but he has some of the greatest ideas I have ever seen.  Which would you rather have, experience or true progress?

No, a person does not only need good ideas, they need to have the knowledge and wisdom to be able to enact them, and to do so properly.  Lots of intellectuals have lots of good ideas, but they are 100% socially braindead and thus can't really go anywhere with them.  Likewise, not having any experience with the process of getting things done in government, Obama would be left stranded by his lack of experience.  Obama doesn't even have the experience to know who advice he should take.

[Gustaf]

Alcon, we're discussing two parallell issues which is creating some confusion. In my post I was MOSTLY making a general point on experience. Your post seems primarily occupied with this year's presidential election. This is why I mentioned experience from other fields than the senate (I was thinking Eisenhower, etc).

You said that Obama supporters would argue that correlation does not equal causation. I never heard of that being used in this case. Basically, someone can say "A correlates with B, so A causes B" The "correlation does not equal causation"-argument will usually say that it is equally or more plausible that B causes A or perhaps that C causes both A and B. And I have a hard time seeing how that would be applied in this case since expereince usually precedes performance. The argument against the correlation itself is valid though.

Now, coming to your defenses of Obama.

1. I didn't know that he had chatted with Colin Powell. I don't really think it makes him a foreign policy expert though. I think it's reasonably established that Obama is not very well versed when it comes to foriegn policy. Again, I wasn't necessarily comparing him with other candidates this year. I was making a more general point. If you're interested though I'd say that I consider McCain more experienced in this field than Obama. As for Clinton, I'd also suspect so. Being a First Lady probably brings more experience when it comes to foreign policy than in most other political fields. But more generally I feel Clinton takes issues and facts more seriously than Obama. But that is more a feeling I get than any objective fact of course.

2. I don't know what competence you're referring to. He's been a Democratic State Senator in Illinois, he's been a US Senator for 4 years. From what I can tell neither tenure seems very eventful. He managed to beat Alan Keyes. He visited his dad's family in Kenya. He's moved around a bit. I'll admit I don't know terribly much about Obama's history. But given how crowded this forum is with Obama supporters and from what I've read in the papers or on his website I figured any major achievements would have come to my knowledge. Feel free to share.

[J. J.]

What is with all of these people saying "experience" makes Obama a bad candidate?  Isn't it true that most of our greatest presidents were inexperienced in government?  Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt, Lincoln, Washington, and Eisenhower were all thought of as inexperienced.  The fact is experience does'nt make a person a great president, it just gives them baggage.  A person only needs good ideas rather than experience.  Clinton is full of bad ideas and experience while Obama isn't so strong on experience but he has some of the greatest ideas I have ever seen.  Which would you rather have, experience or true progress?

In terms of experience at the time, possibly excepting Lincoln, all the others had substantially more experience than Obama does now.

Even Washington had huge administrative experience at the time of his election.

[Alcon]

Alcon, we're discussing two parallell issues which is creating some confusion. In my post I was MOSTLY making a general point on experience. Your post seems primarily occupied with this year's presidential election. This is why I mentioned experience from other fields than the senate (I was thinking Eisenhower, etc).

Fair enough, but I still fundamentally dispute your idea that more experienced presidents (before their election) have been better presidents.  We elected an inexperienced president in 2000, and then re-elected that then-experienced president in 2004.  Was he any better?

You said that Obama supporters would argue that correlation does not equal causation. I never heard of that being used in this case. Basically, someone can say "A correlates with B, so A causes B"

One would be mistaken.

1. I didn't know that he had chatted with Colin Powell. I don't really think it makes him a foreign policy expert though. I think it's reasonably established that Obama is not very well versed when it comes to foriegn policy. Again, I wasn't necessarily comparing him with other candidates this year. I was making a more general point. If you're interested though I'd say that I consider McCain more experienced in this field than Obama. As for Clinton, I'd also suspect so. Being a First Lady probably brings more experience when it comes to foreign policy than in most other political fields.

But let's not kid ourselves.  Clinton and Obama are in the same place -- they both would be crippled without an adviser.  The difference, in practical terms, between Clinton and Obama on this meter is so minor as to almost be semantic. 

2. I don't know what competence you're referring to. He's been a Democratic State Senator in Illinois, he's been a US Senator for 4 years. From what I can tell neither tenure seems very eventful. He managed to beat Alan Keyes. He visited his dad's family in Kenya. He's moved around a bit. I'll admit I don't know terribly much about Obama's history. But given how crowded this forum is with Obama supporters and from what I've read in the papers or on his website I figured any major achievements would have come to my knowledge. Feel free to share.

I find both Obama and Clinton's accomplishments both equally impressive, considering their tenures -- not especially remarkable in either way.  I think Verily has done a good job in the past of showing that Obama has hardly been idle in the Senate, even if he has not passed blockbuster legislation (not that we've had much blockbuster legislation since Obama was elected anyway).

Competence and accomplishment are different matters.  You've compared Obama to George W. Bush; do you really think that Obama has a record of competence equal to only Bush's?

[Gustaf]

My argument here is in three steps. First, I'm saying that the experience argument in general is a valid argument. Second, I'm saying that it applies to Obama (i.e. he's inexperienced). And third I'm saying that he hasn't really showed enough strength to make up for it.

The first one we've pretty much covered. I will try one more time to explain what I was saying on correlation anc causation since your reply "one would be mistaken" didn't really seem to adress that very thoroughly. If someone says that we have a study showing, for instance, that there is a correlation between high levels of watching TV and alzheimers and that this suggests watching TV increases the risk of alzheimers you can argue against it from the grounds of "correlation does not equal causation". The argument would then usually claim EITHER something like people who have alzheimers probably can't do much but watch TV, hence it's alsheimers causing TV watching, not the other way around, OR people who are a bit fudgy in the brain will tend to slouch in front of the TV and also develop alzheimers, so there is a 3rd factor causing both. I don't see either one of those being a good fit when it comes to experience and presidential performance.

I'd say Bush's second term has been an enormous improvement on his first. Most of his major mistakes was from the first term. The same is largely true of Bill Clinton, imo. Again, because the number of variables involved are so many and the sample is really small (n=43) neither one of us will have a very sold case based on empirical evidence here. But in general in life it seems true that experience goes a long way to help you deal with things.

However, we seem to have a fundamental disagreement over the value of experience that I doubt we can get over. I do think that a basic grasp of facts is a tremendous help in making decisions, even if there are many things involved where you have to rely on specialists. I don't think it's a minor difference at all.

On the 3rd point I'm arguing I never claimed Clinton was a super-competent legislator. I'd say McCain has them both beat in experience and legislative achievement, but that also isn't really my point. My point is this: people counter the inexperience-argument with saying things like "well, Obama may be inexpereinced but he has such amazing talents that he will sweep into the Oval Office and accomplish great things anyway". And I'm pointing out that it didn't happen during those past 4 years in the Senate. If Clinton ties him on that and beats him in experience that's still a "win" for her overall, if you see what I mean.