Thoughts on Obama's level of experience?

[Anonymous]

So I'm still debating about my choice for dem presidential candidate. There is a lot I like about Obama, but I actually do think there is something to having had a bit more federal-level experience, and foreign policy/international diplomacy experience in particular. To the Obama supporters out there, do you have this concern and why/why not?

Not trying to bait anyone into an arguement-- just wondering what others think about this topic since it is something I'm trying to reconcile in my mind.

[Anonymous]

I am concerned about that, though I do like Obama. I've been supporting Hillary, but will proudly champion either Hillary or Obama against the Repbulicans! The country can't get much worse (especially in the international arena!) than it is now with Bush!

[Anonymous]

I believe that Obama has about the same amount of experience as John F Kennedy had when he was elected president. Although I find Clinton's experience and wonkiness impressive, I also find her fake and manipulative, while Obama seems authentic, eloquent, and super-smart.

[Anonymous]

What experience?

Certainly no military, international/foreign, or historical (he's a freshman senator after all)?

I don't know off the top of my head, but does he actually show up for votes? I know Kerry was conveniently absent for a lot of legislation awhile back.

[Anonymous]

What experience?

OP here. I don't think it is fair to imply has has NO relevant experience. I mean he has held elected office at both the state and federal levels. He has been exposed to a wide array of domestic and international issues as Senator. He has participated in several US delegations abroad and in developing legislation on some key foreign policy issues. But is that enough?

[Anonymous]

I am an Obama supporter and here is my view on the experience question: In terms of domestic policy, he has a wealth of experience on a number of critical issues (jobs, poverty, crime) from his experience as a community organizer and civil rights attorney, as well as his tenures in the Ill. legislature & U.S. Senate. He was a leader in both bodies on the issues of campaign finance and ethics reform, which are two interests personally close to my heart, and also played a lead role on the issue of death penalty reform in Illinois.

In terms of process, the way Washington works is not rocket science, and I think his time in the Senate and particularly the relationships he has forged (e.g., with senior senators such as Leahy, Kennedy & McCain) make him well-prepared on this front and certainly better prepared than many recent presidents (e.g., Carter, Clinton) who had no Washington experience at all prior to being elected President and whose early legislative initiatives went nowhere on the Hill, partially as a result of their failure to understand the system.

In terms of foreign policy, certainly there are/were other candidates with more experience--notably Biden & Dodd--but I think Senator Obama would come into office with an experience level commensurate to that of the many prior Presidents who come to the White House from a Governor's mansion. And, of course, Obama's personal story -- having spent part of his youth living abroad (Indonesia), having lots of family located abroad (Kenya) -- provides him with a unique perspective on global issues that no other candidate could bring to the White House. I think this experience will give him a leg-up on the tough but critical job of rehabilitating the U.S.'s image abroad, because foreign leaders will appreciate that he has an understanding and appreciation of other cultures and faiths.

In my own working experience, I have always seen better performance from colleagues with lots of talent and less experience than from those with nothing to offer but lots of years on the job. After all, experience will eventually be gained through doing, while the ability to lead, inspire, move people, etc., is either there or it isn't. In my view, he has that talent in a way lacking from the other candidate left in the field.

Hope this helps!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I believe that Obama has about the same amount of experience as John F Kennedy had when he was elected president. Although I find Clinton's experience and wonkiness impressive, I also find her fake and manipulative, while Obama seems authentic, eloquent, and super-smart.

I think the 15:35 poster makes an effective case for Senator Obama. However, I disagree with the PP who said Obama has about the same amount of experience as Kennedy did. (I personally don't think JFK was a particularly effective president.) However, just on the question of experience, Kennedy had been a congressman or senator for 14 years when he was elected; Obama has been in the Senate for 3 years. Before that he was an Illinois state legislator. Here are two recent columns describing the differences in the two men's experience. They also describe many of the similarities between the two:

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0801w.widmer.html
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/01/18/not_quite_the_next_jfk/

I don't believe Obama has the necessary experience to be the most effective president. As the Post editorial staff wrote on Sunday, his greatest strengths arise from "biography and personality." The editorial referred to his "inexperience in foreign affairs." However, as the Post also noted, he is the "most exciting" candidate in the race. I think Hillary would be a more effective president than Obama would be. I do think, though, that electing a biracial man with the middle name of Hussein would be important and beneficial on the world stage, particularly in a symbolic sense. Electing a woman would have some of the same effect, symbolically. New York Magazine has called the choice between Clinton and Obama as coming down to the question of whether one has a realistic or a romantic worldview in regard to the way government works. In the end, I most agree with the points made in the New York Times' endorsement of Hillary. She has my vote.

[jsteele]

The 15:35 post was excellent and did a very good job of making the most important points. Either Clinton or Obama would appoint very good people to the top foreign policy positions. There will be no Condi Rices (Soviet expert who did not predict collapse of Soviet Union and then served when there was no Soviet Union), or Rumsfeld (need I say more). Neither will marginalize the experienced and knowledgeable members of their staffs as Bush did Powell. Both will be able to evaluate the data provided by the experts, so to this extent we will undoubtably be in better hands.

What is left are the critical skills of leading and inspiring. That is where Obama is way ahead of Clinton. Obama brings a much different perspective then Clinton. He opposed the Iraq war, while Hillary voted in favor of the authorization. When the Iran resolution came up, Obama opposed it (while conveniently missing the vote), while Hillary supported it. This suggests that Clinton has not actually benefitted from her experience because she continues to make bad decisions. In addition, I think much of her experience is exaggerated. She made a big deal out of the fact that she knew Benazir Bhutto and suggested that demonstrated she was better prepared to deal with Pakistan then Obama. But, in my mind, the situation in Pakistan is so complicated that the fact that you may know a single actor (and "know" may well mean nothing more than having had a cup of tea with at one time) is of only marginal value. In past weeks, Obama has been actively involved in trying to resolve the conflict in Kenya. He is able to do that not only because of his Kenyan heritage, but because of his strength at bringing people together. I think he will do a fine job in the foreign policy arena.

But, the most important factor in my opinion, is that Obama will do a much better job of presenting the best face of America to the world. Bush will leave a big mess and the image of the US needs a lot of repair. I think Obama will speak to the World in way that Clinton can't.

[Anonymous]

Jeff: I thought of you on Saturday night. I was at the Birchmere and Susan Werner opened for John Gorka. She sang a song: Barack Obama, come on get happy . . ." and it went on about how he would win on election day. She sang something about "John Edwards doesn't have any foreign policy experience" and then she sang, "And Hillary cannot sing."

Barack Obama, come on get happy . . .

Amy

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:When the Iran resolution came up, Obama opposed it (while conveniently missing the vote), while Hillary supported it. This suggests that Clinton has not actually benefitted from her experience because she continues to make bad decisions.

What?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:When the Iran resolution came up, Obama opposed it (while conveniently missing the vote), while Hillary supported it. This suggests that Clinton has not actually benefitted from her experience because she continues to make bad decisions.

What?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15198515

[Anonymous]

Barack Obama seems like a pretty intelligent guy and I don't forsee him have much of a learning curve (he will have one, but to me it seems like he'll pick up foreign policy quickly).

I think he'll also appoint intelligent people to be his advisers and be able to make good choices because he'll have good people advising him.

Besides experience, it does seem to be important to surround yourself with the best advisers.

Or - yeah to everything Jeff said

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:When the Iran resolution came up, Obama opposed it (while conveniently missing the vote), while Hillary supported it. This suggests that Clinton has not actually benefitted from her experience because she continues to make bad decisions.

16:05 poster here. With all due respect, none of us can actually know that was a bad decision. We can be philosophically opposed to it, but we cannot know, at this point, whether it was a bad decision. I'm sure none of us would disagree that Iran's current leadership represents a form of extremism that is quite dangerous. I understand that Senator Obama opposed the Iran resolution, but the way a senator registers dissent is to vote against such a resolution. One could argue that missing the vote for the sake of a campaign appearance is opportunistic at best, and that "opposing" the resolution while failing to be there to vote against it is a little bit hollow. (I am not necessarily arguing that.) My point is that the discussion might best be carried out through simply discussing Obama's merits rather than pitting him against Hillary and arguing that she showed poor judgment in that case, or arguing against her for other reasons. The OP's question dealt quite clearly with whether Obama has the experience necessary to be a good president. In that vein, I'm still not sure how Obama's admittedly stunning alchemy translates to actual governance, and I am worried that he will seem particularly callow when running against McCain, who is the Republican nominee I worry about most (and the likely nominee, at this point).

George Packer had an excellent story on Hillary's "inspiration gap" in this week's New Yorker, BTW. That and the New York piece are two of the best I've read recently.

[Anonymous]

Obama has more experience in public office than Hillary unless she gets to cut and paste Bill's experience on to her resume by virtue of being First Lady of the US and Arkansas. After failing the DC Bar exam following graduating from Yale Law, she followed Bill to Arkansas where she actually managed to pass the bar and then she practiced law for 16 years, exploiting her husband's status as the Governor to build her Little Rock corporate legal practice with the Rose Law Firm. There are probably hundreds, maybe thousands, of women who are more qualified than Hillary, but she has the Clinton brand (just like W had the Bush brand).

Obama's inspiring message will bring out folks who haven't participated, his opposition to the war will distinguish him from McCain and his integrity and character are not weak points (as they clearly are with Hillary from any objective perspective).

In any event, a vote for a Clinton restoration is a vote for 4 more years of Republicans.

[Anonymous]

I don't know. If I had to "hire" the president (and that is sorta what we do on election day), I don't think I would be that impressed with Obama's resume.

He is a good talker and has a good persona which is appealing to many, but I think he talks a lot of rhetoric and the ideas he does actually spell out seem impractical.

Just my 2 cents...