Promoted by Brendan

This just in from Newsweek: Obama may have as much relevant experience for the presidency as McCain, or perhaps even more! This insight comes courtesy of “Special Guest Columnist” Alan Ehrenhalt in his column http://www.newsweek.com/id/142892

Are You Experienced?
Why a U.S. senator might not trump a state legislator

McCain is 71 years old, graduated from the naval academy (albeit did poorly academically) and had a military career including combat and some very testing experiences (to say the least), then briefly commanded a training squadron, and soon after served as a congressman for 4 years, then a senator for the past 21 years, dealing with national security and military issues through all sorts of challenging times (the Cold War, post-Cold War uncertainties and opportunities/threats, the Gulf War, Iraq War, etc., etc.) as well as all sorts of major domestic issues (fiscal issues/choices/battles, campaign finance reform, immigration, the environment, telecommunications industry problems, reconcilition with Vietnam, etc., etc.).

Obama is 46 years old, has 8 years as a state senator and 3 ½ years as a U.S. senator, half of which he has spent mostly running for the presidency. Thus he has almost no experience at the national level grappling with international and national issues (and with the key players and processes involved in decisions on such issues), as well as having no executive experience. Almost no experience with national security, foreign policy or military issues (reminder: we are currently fighting two wars plus the ongoing general “global war on terror”). Almost no experience with national domestic issues, except insofar as his Illinois experience provides some insight into a given issue as it applies to the entire nation. He’s basically a state senator with about 2 years experience in national politics plus 1 ½ years largely as an absentee senator out on the campaign trail.

No comparison, right? Right. No one is going to imply an equivalence of the two, and assert that Obama may very well have as much or more relevant experience for the presidency, right? Wrong.

First, Ehrenhalt seeks to disarm us, to separate ourselves from our common sense reaction to his very counterintuitive assertion. Is he actually going to argue that McCain does not have more relevant experience for the presidency than Obama? Um, no, of course he’s not going to argue that, or, well, “not exactly”.

We are in the opening days of a presidential campaign that pits youth against age, the virtues of experience against the freshness and riskiness of the new arrival.

I'm not here to refute all of that: John McCain is 25 years older than Barack Obama, and he always will be. But here's something I bet you didn't know: If Obama becomes president, he will have spent more time serving as a state legislator (eight years) than anyone who has occupied the White House since Abraham Lincoln.

You're thinking that's kind of irrelevant. John McCain has been a member of the U.S. Senate since 1986; do I really mean to suggest that Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate (not the most august deliberative body, as anyone who has seen it will attest) provide the same preparation for the presidency? Well, not exactly.

Um, so what the heck is the point of his column? That the difference in relevant experience is not substantial, or not as great as we think it is, or that we just don’t have any way of knowing? Well, exactly, or sort of, or something. But at least his practical advice is clear: forget about experience when choosing for whom to vote.

for a smart, curious and hard-working young legislator—for a Barack Obama in the Illinois Senate-can we be so sure that the skill set picked up over eight years in a state Capitol is inferior as presidential preparation to two decades in the pompous, cordoned-off environment of the U.S. Senate? I seriously doubt it.

[skip]

As for the fall campaign, I am not urging anyone to vote for Obama, or against McCain, on the issue of experience. What I am suggesting is that experience itself is a slippery commodity to measure—that there is no easy way to guess what sort of political career is ideal for a president—and that we would all be better off just listening to what the candidates say and how they say it, and spending a little time looking into what sort of people they are.

Experience certainly shouldn't be the only consideration in choosing for whom to vote, nor does it ensure an effective presidency, let alone that any effectiveness will be in one's desired direction. But, no offense, Mr. Ehrenhalt, but under no circumstances am I going to pretend that experience doesn't matter, or assume that I just have no way of knowing what type and level of experience is relevant, and I'm certainly not going to think like that (and vote accordingly) while we are dealing with enormous national security issues (fighting two wars, facing the ongoing threat of terrorism, a potentially nuclear Iran, a probably nuclear North Korea, a China growing in power, a menacing Russia, etc.) and very serious domestic policy problems/issues as well.

Newsweek, the official weekly newsletter of Obama '08.

(Cross-posted at TheForvm.org)