Inexperience

"Obama," writes Matt Bai in The New York Times Magazine, "would set a new precedent for inexperience in the White House; he was a state senator only three years ago, when he delivered the keynote address at the Democratic convention, and before that he was a community organizer."

Really?

If Obama is elected to the White House, he will have served eight years in the Illinois State Senate and four years in the United States Senate. In the twentieth century, I count Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, Jimmy Carter, and Ronald Reagan as all having served fewer than 12 years in public office before assuming the Presidency and I count exactly twelve for Warren Harding. To find a President with as few as six years of public office under his belt before becoming President, you need to go all the way back to . . . the current President of the United States so it's not like you need to be a historian to figure this out.

Now arguably some of these people were "more experienced" than Obama along other metrics than a raw count of years would indicate, but there's still no obvious sense in which Obama is a precedent-shattering figure. At a minimum, Carter and Abraham Lincoln were unambiguously less experienced.

Comments

He also somehow managed to imply that Hillary Clinton was "inexperienced". I am no fan of Hillary but her re-election to the Senate on top of her First Spouse duties in the White House and Arkasas gives her a wealth of relevent experience. I cannot possibly see how he came up with that one.

Cranky

Posted by Cranky Observer | July 15, 2007 6:40 PM

Wow, 'new precedent'. When the current occupant was governor of a state with some crazy rules in which the LG actually has a lot of power.

The paper of record.

Posted by Andruw | July 15, 2007 6:41 PM

Nice example of contentious rhetoric in this snippet:

"Obama," writes Matt Bai in The New York Times Magazine, "would set a new precedent for inexperience in the White House; he was a state senator only three years ago, when he delivered the keynote address at the Democratic convention, and before that he was a community organizer."

The only number Bai mentions here is three, in the phrase "only three years ago." A quick read might suggest that Obama was state senator for "only three years"; "before that" (which sounds in context like "before giving the address at the convention") he was a community organizer. But the true and relevant numbers here, as Matt notes, are eight and four. Three years describes no period of time that is relevant to anything in particular.

Did Hillary's staff write this article, or just pay for it?

Posted by lampwick | July 15, 2007 6:43 PM

I am not an expert at this and I don't even know how it is measured but....

I understand that the governor of Texas is one of the weakest, if not the weakest, executive of all 50 states. I have also heard that New Jersey is the strongest. So, I would argue that Governor Corzine has significantly more experience that Governor Bush had.

Does this make any sense? Do I have my facts right or have I made a misteak?

Posted by neil wilson | July 15, 2007 6:49 PM

It seems like these kinds of statements about Obama rest on the understanding that his state senate experience doesn't 'count' in some way. This, in turn, assumes that time spent working in the U.S. senate prepares candidates for the job of the presidency, which seems far from clear to me.

Posted by craig | July 15, 2007 6:58 PM

The value of "experience" depends on a number of factors, not least of all the position sought. All things being equal, you would probably want a more experienced plumber, computer programmer or lawyer, simply because they are more likely to have dealt with whatever problem you need them for.

A president's job, however, is to set priorities and execute them, and his most important skill is the ability to weigh and judge competing means of accomplishing those priorities, which includes -- of course -- judging the skills of the people whose job it will be to get the job done. This skill is not something that 12 or 18 years in the Senate will necessarily increase.

With that standard, I have no difficulty supporting Obama. I trust his priorities and judgment, and if a particular assignment requires a particularly high degree of skill and experience, I trust him to find the most-qualified person.

Posted by Ryan Scott | July 15, 2007 7:21 PM

You also have to go back almost 50 years to find a sitting Senator that got elected as President. Clearly, this means that Gov. Richardson is now the Dem favorite, right?

This whole 'Obama is inexperienced' thing is garbage. One-term governors get elected (Carter, Bush), and we aren't hearing howls about Mitt's mere 4 years in elected office, etc.

It's hard not to be cynical about this meme being applied to this candidate.

Posted by brad L | July 15, 2007 7:22 PM

Honestly, as an Obama supporter, I don't really count his state senate experience. We're worlds away from Lincoln-Douglas debates here.

Years in public office should not be the metric, at all. It should be years in relevant public offices. For the President, that particularly means public executive positions: mayor, governor, cabinet official, etc. By this standard two terms as governor of California blows away even an infinite number of years in the Illinois State Senate. On the other hand, one could plausibly argue that state legislative experience is more applicable to the U.S. Senate than a governorship would be. It all depends on what position you're running for.

I don't count Hillary's role as First Lady as relevant experience, for anything. Being the wife of the President is very different from being the President. What institution has Hillary successfully managed? Maybe she's really a terrible executive manager--indeed, there is some evidence for this, as seen in the 1994 Health Care debacle. Who knows? There's no record by which we can judge her possible competence.

I would say that Abraham Lincoln succeeded in spite of his inexperience, and not because of it.

Posted by Korha | July 15, 2007 7:23 PM

I don't think a lack of experience is very important. But then, I personally feel simple luck has a lot to do with the success of a President.

Failure is easier to assign. A President can produce a mess himself.

But even if he chooses good policies they may appear to be bad during his time in office. Or they may be thwarted by ineptness or malice in others which could not have reasonably been foreseen or countered by the wisest person.

Posted by K | July 15, 2007 7:39 PM

Romney was only governor for four years. Before that, he was a businessman. So has less experience than Obama, but he has more experience as an executive. To a lot of people, that makes a big difference.

You'd almost wish that opinion makers of various kinds would get together, decide on a preferred level of experience for people coming from different branches and levels of government, and then be done with it. It wouldn't be legal, of course, but it take away a lot of the useless arguing.

I think some experience in government is nice, but if I saw a person who was successful in another way who ran, I wouldn't automatically rule this person out. For me, what is most important is that this person appears engaged in what he's doing and has an active mind.

Posted by Brian | July 15, 2007 7:54 PM

How about Eisenhower? He served exactly zero years in public office before becoming President. (Not to make light of his status as Supreme Allied Commander, of course.)

Posted by Jaquandor | July 15, 2007 8:08 PM

N.B., by the time he was elected to his second term as president, Bush had four years of experience in the most relevant position of all, and we all know know how well that's turned out in the last three years.

Sorry about heavy-handed irony, but honestly this--Matt Bai's piece--looks less like an attempt to think about how and what ways experience of what kind might matter--which could be an interesting question to pursue--than an effort to think up something that could be used against a Democratic candidate with the appearance of plausiblity--a novel break from the pattern of repeating Republican talking points by trying to think some up.

Posted by J | July 15, 2007 8:21 PM

Article was patently retarded. Choice quotes:

"...candidates for presidency could generally boast of distinguished careers in statewide or federal office. Ronald Reagan served two terms as California’s governor before he was finally elected president..."

then, next sentence, we get:

"There have been exceptions, of course, most notably Jimmy Carter, whose paltry experience — a single term as governor of Georgia"

So, one term as governor is "paltry" while a second is "distinguished" ??

Posted by Daniel Chait | July 15, 2007 9:15 PM

Legislative experience cannot be compared to executive experience, if you are choosing an executive.

But it is important to remember that a record of executive experience is evidence of a capacity to enact one's agenda, but it tells us nothing of the merit of one's agenda.

For instance, the Bush/Cheney administration has been enormously successful in enacting its agenda:

1. Tax cuts? Check.
2. Invading Iraq? Check.
3. Politicizing federal government, including the DOJ? Check.
4. Degulation and removal of government oversight of businesses? Check.
5. Dismanting barriers between church and state? Check.
6. Ignoring environmental issues, including global climate change? Check.
7. Making the county safe for pharmaceutical companies? Check.

Other than Social Security "reform", and to a lesser extent immigration, I can't think of too many instances where the present administration hasn't gotten its way.

I can almost guarantee you that a Democratic administration -- any Democratic administration, but a Obama or Clinton administration in particular -- wouldn't be half as successful as the Bush administration in implementing their desired policies. But because I generally agree with their agendas,getting 40% of what they want is vastly preferable to Bush getting 99% of what he wants.

Posted by space | July 15, 2007 10:22 PM

Matt, thank you. for the life of me I cannot understand how being the first lady accounts as actual and practical experience in being a serious contender for the presidency but, being a state senator for 8 years is discounted and belittled and not seems to count at all in experience.
On top of that. While first lady, hillary, totally trashed any chance of universal health care for 15 years, Sen. Obama worked successfully on a health care plan that covers those under 18 in Illinois and did it with a republican controlled State senate.
Underneath all the packaging the consultants have given Hillary you have someone who has not proved to have leadership or judgement skills. and really lacks substance.
Yet, with all the policy and a best seller addressing issues, Obama is still discounted as not having substance.

Posted by vwcat | July 15, 2007 11:02 PM

Matt Bai makes it sound as if Obama held only two jobs before coming to the Senate. How is it that he overlooked Obama's years as a civil rights lawyer and his experience teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago. (Yes, it would be nice to have a President who understood and valued our Constitution!)

Posted by CeeCee | July 16, 2007 12:24 AM

Matt Bai is a moron.
I find it mindboggling that Matt Bai would characterize Hillary Clinton as lacking Washington experience. Hillary Clinton is running for president based on her 8 years as first lady where she was a full partner and number one advisor in her husband`s administration. Although first ladies traditionally have their offices in the East Wing of the White House Mrs. Clinton`s offices were in the West Wing-where the excecutive offices- are because of her status in her huband`s administration. The reason Senator Clinton is such a controversial a figure is because of the power she wielded as first lady. Senator Clinon would not be running for president if she were just the junior Senator from New York. The fact is Mrs. Clinton has more relevant experience than any of the candidates from both parties running for president.

Posted by Reba Shimansky | July 16, 2007 1:03 AM

Matt Bai is a moron.
I find it mindboggling that Matt Bai would characterize Hillary Clinton as lacking Washington experience. Hillary Clinton is running for president based on her 8 years as first lady where she was a full partner and number one advisor in her husband`s administration. Although first ladies traditionally have their offices in the East Wing of the White House Mrs. Clinton`s offices were in the West Wing-where the excecutive offices- are because of her status in her huband`s administration. The reason Senator Clinton is such a controversial a figure is because of the power she wielded as first lady. Senator Clinon would not be running for president if she were just the junior Senator from New York. The fact is Mrs. Clinton has more relevant experience than any of the candidates from both parties running for president.

Posted by Reba Shimansky | July 16, 2007 1:03 AM

Lincoln had 10 years of legislative experience going into the White House: 8 consecutive years in the Illinois House of Representatives and 2 years in the US House of Representatives. He also had 14 years of acting as a political organizer for the Whig, then Republican party. In addition to practicing law for decades. (And he's the only president to patent something.)

Posted by John Biles | July 16, 2007 1:33 AM

Damn, another GOP talking point dismissed. What's next on the list?... He smoked dope (or maybe mentioning that will backfire?)

Posted by People in the Sun | July 16, 2007 1:56 AM

Count me among those who claim that experience in elected office is most useful as a way of gauging a politician's priorities and competence as opposed to viewing that sort of experience as an end in itself. I believe that while experience in a level above the state legislature should be necessary for candidates for office (unless they have distinguished themselves otherwise like Eisenhower), that experience should still be considered in evaluating his priorities and competence.

Posted by Wido Incognitus | July 16, 2007 2:27 AM

How should one value Hillary's "experience" as a First Lady? I'll admit that it is a difficult question and one's answer will probably reflect one's preconceptions about her. For those who already think she'd make a great President, there is evidence that she took a leading role in the WH.

But for those, like me, who don't support her, there is plenty of evidence indicating that she would be a poor Executive:

1. The Clinton WH was not a shining example of political deftness. From Bill blubbering that he was "still relevant" to the impeachment on nonsense, the Clinton WH played defense for 8 straight years, even though the public largely supported their policies. The Bill Clinton WH in many ways resembled the management at Apple Computer before Steve Jobs took over again. Most people liked what they about, but few people thought that they could deliver.

2. Hillary may have ben more involved than most First Ladies, but that isn't saying much. "More qualified than Laura Bush" is not something I would put on my resume for President. At best (and I really think this is a stretch) her experience rivaled that of a senior advisor or cabinet official. But I don't hear too many calls for Paul Begala, Donna Shalala, or David Gergen to run.

3. Hillary's most relevant experience was clearly that of her Health Care debacle. Once again, I am forced to quote Brad DeLong on the subject:

"My two cents' worth--and I think it is the two cents' worth of everybody who worked for the Clinton Administration health care reform effort of 1993-1994--is that Hillary Rodham Clinton needs to be kept very far away from the White House for the rest of her life. Heading up health-care reform was the only major administrative job she has ever tried to do. And she was a complete flop at it. She had neither the grasp of policy substance, the managerial skills, nor the political smarts to do the job she was then given. And she wasn't smart enough to realize that she was in over her head and had to get out of the Health Care Czar role quickly."

It is hard -- very, very hard -- to discount such an assessment.

Posted by space | July 16, 2007 5:09 AM

I like to mention two names to anyone questioning Obama's level of experience: Abraham Lincoln and Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was governor of New Jersey less than 2 years when he was elected president. Before that he had no public office at all.

Posted by Philly Dude | July 16, 2007 6:46 AM

I've heard numerous comments from Republican and Democrat elected officials and from bloggers that despite what you think about her views, HRC is very well informed. They said it shows up on the campaign trail, among other places. Perhaps she was in over her head when she tried to reform health care--she did fail, after all--but does that necessarily mean she's a lightweight in all areas and will always remain that way? Then again, Brad DeLong has worked with her.

Posted by Brian | July 16, 2007 8:03 AM

Hillary has spent much of her life being Bill Clinton's housewife.

Not that I think a housewife shouldn't be President -- I just happen to think we have probably 90 Million of them who are better qualified than Hillary.

Character and strength of will count. Given that Hillary was a doormat for Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky,etc etc I don't see her as having the strength to stand up to Haim Saban and her other wealthy supporters.

We have already suffered 8 years of living under one puppet of rich men --do we really want 4 more years of the same?

Yes, Hillary has served in the Senate seat that was purchased for her -- where she dutifully voted to support Bush's invasion of Iraq. The major liability of Republicans in 2008 will be the waste and deaths of the unnecessary Iraq War -- but Hillary is THE Democratic candidate who is in NO position to criticize Republicans for that war.

Posted by Don Williams | July 16, 2007 8:47 AM

No checklist of experience will be the be-all and end-all. My personal list of things to look for is:

* Do they understand legislation at the national level (not just local state issues, but federal agencies, foreign relations and national trade issues, etc.)? It's nice to have US Senate or US House experience

* Have they run any large organizations? (Governors have good experience here. Someone who has been a hands-on manager at a large company may also).

* Do they have negotiating skills? (Any legislator probably does. Anyone with Ambassadorial experience probably does. A Governor really should, unless they're from Texas *g*)

* Do they have some other "real-life" experience that will inform their decisions? (Military experience, career experience where they have come into contact with "real" problems)

When I evaluate a candidate, I look for any of the above, and take my own gut check about how effective they have been in that role, and how it has (or has not) shaped them. Nobody has every kind of experience.

So the questions become, Has Obama gotten enough grounding in national issues for me to trust him to run the show, in addition to his eloquence and legislative acumen? Has Clinton's time on the world stage given her the right kind of background, in addition to her skills as a deal-maker and her legal skills? Have Edwards' years as a successful plaintiff's lawyer given him the kind of "real world" background that will enable him to be successful?

It's never a cut and dried question.

Posted by zmulls | July 16, 2007 9:01 AM

Yes, Hillary has served in the Senate seat that was purchased for her...

if only the 19M people in New York state could think for themselves.

Posted by cleek | July 16, 2007 9:23 AM

space,I would compare Bush's success at getting his agenda through Congress to Lyndon Johnson's. Neither Bush nor Johnson, it should be noted, had "executive experience" in the traditional sense. Rather, both were arm-twisting deal-makers.

One could argue that there is some validity to executive experienc (I think Clinton had it-- it relates to good management and ability to attract good personnel in the executive branch agencies, something Bush lacks in spades), but your examples do not point to that.

Posted by Tyro | July 16, 2007 9:29 AM

Tyro:

If Hillary had shown the masterful Senatorial leadership skills that LBJ did, I'd take that into account. I don't see a whole lot of evidence for it.

Bush may have surrounded himself with a bunch of policy dolts and psychopaths, but he has also surrounded himself with experts in D.C. infighting, who are also loyal to him. Bill Clinton never did. In his first term, Clinton hired a bunch of naive greenhorns. In his second term he brought in savvier advisors and cabinet officials, like Gergen and Rubin, but they lacked loyalty to either Clinton or a Democratic agenda.

Posted by space | July 16, 2007 12:04 PM

space, Bush's choice of experts in DC infighting was orthogonal to his "executive experience," which is the point I was trying to make. Though I think Clinton's choice of Gergen was a good move and an example of how he wizened up.

It's just a bit odd that we're using "executive experience" as shorthand for "able to deal with legislative deal-making." If you mean "Bush was good at dealing with congress and candidate X won't be," then say that. Don't just use the shorthand of "candidate X doesn't have executive experience." Well, neither did Bush, but he had something else.

The point is we need to separate the executive management skils, which may or may not be necessary, from the legislative deal-making skills, which you're trying to focus on.

Posted by Tyro | July 16, 2007 12:30 PM

Re "The point is we need to separate the executive management skils, which may or may not be necessary, from the legislative deal-making skills, which you're trying to focus on."
----------
No we don't --because dealing with the legislation is part of the executive management skills.

Corporate CEOs don't have a free hand -- whatever strategic plan they have has to be sold to second-guessers -- to the Board of Directors and to major shareholders.

Its all part of Leadership -- of developing a plan which will be supported and carried out by those you are leading --because you've convinced them you are competent, can be trusted, and have their best interests in mind.

Aside from Bill Richardson, I don't see any Democratic candidates with Executive experience.

One of the worst problems of the Democratic Leadership is that THEY are not leaders. If they were, they would have been speaking to the people of this country for the past 5 years, showing the self-serving nature of Bush and describing a better way.

Instead, Democrats are afflicted with the Harvard disease -- thinking that scoring trival, smart-ass, obscure debating points will inspire people to support them.

Posted by Don Williams | July 16, 2007 1:13 PM

Experience is only so relevant if you dont have the judgment that comes along with it. all one has to do is look at their stances on Iraq to know who is better qualified to be President.

Posted by Bob | July 16, 2007 2:21 PM

I don't know why you're wasting time with an argument here. All you need to know is the article's author. Matt Bai hates Democrats. He will always write articles that try to make Dems look bad, even if he has to ignore inconvenient facts (like Bush' extreme lack of experience) to do so. There's nothing more that needs to be said.

Posted by beckya57 | July 16, 2007 3:18 PM