a defense of Obama's experience (or lack thereof)
digster
Posts: 1,293
Throughout the campaign, there were an awful lot of conservative commentators, and liberal commentators who criticized Obama's lack of significant experience, making him unfit for the Presidency. Earlier, in another thread, it made me check about the comparable experience of past presidents, and it made me want to make a thread asking Obama's critics if the criticism of his lack of experience holds water in comparison to many of our beloved and unloved Presidents. Remember that Obama's legislative experience (we're not even counting experience other than this) is seven years as a State Senator and four years as a U.S. Senator.
The first president I thought of (the one I mentioned in the other thread) was a man who served six years in the Illinois state legislature, in comparison to Obama. Additionally, he served two years as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. The only other legislative experience he had to his name before winning the office of the Presidency was two failed Senate contests. I'm talking, of course about Abraham Lincoln.
John F. Kennedy served six years in the U.S. House of Representatives, and seven years as a U.S. Senator. Franklin D. Roosevelt served three years as a State Senator and two years as the Governor of New York. Calvin Coolidge was governor for less than two years before being elected president. Woodrow Wilson's chief attribute before he ascended to the Presidency, besides his two year stint as Governor of New Jersey, was being the Headmaster at Princeton University. Benjamin Harrison? Six years in the Senate. Chester A. Arthur had NO political experience before becoming Vice President.
There are more examples than these. I don't mean to claim that all of these presidents have less experience than Barack Obama, but surely no one would claim that there is an vast gulf between them. I'm sure others will say that many of these men were governor, which makes them more suited for the presidency, but many of these governors had two years of service before winning the White House. That is automatically superior to over a decade of public service in both state and national offices?
My point here is to wonder how one of the dominant narratives of the campaign came to be that Barack Obama is one of, if not the most inexperienced presidential candidates ever to run for the office. When arguably our greatest president had even LESS experience in public office than he, it's pretty obvious that it's a weightless argument. So I'm wondering to his critics; what makes him such an 'inexperienced' candidate in comparison to others?
The first president I thought of (the one I mentioned in the other thread) was a man who served six years in the Illinois state legislature, in comparison to Obama. Additionally, he served two years as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives. The only other legislative experience he had to his name before winning the office of the Presidency was two failed Senate contests. I'm talking, of course about Abraham Lincoln.
John F. Kennedy served six years in the U.S. House of Representatives, and seven years as a U.S. Senator. Franklin D. Roosevelt served three years as a State Senator and two years as the Governor of New York. Calvin Coolidge was governor for less than two years before being elected president. Woodrow Wilson's chief attribute before he ascended to the Presidency, besides his two year stint as Governor of New Jersey, was being the Headmaster at Princeton University. Benjamin Harrison? Six years in the Senate. Chester A. Arthur had NO political experience before becoming Vice President.
There are more examples than these. I don't mean to claim that all of these presidents have less experience than Barack Obama, but surely no one would claim that there is an vast gulf between them. I'm sure others will say that many of these men were governor, which makes them more suited for the presidency, but many of these governors had two years of service before winning the White House. That is automatically superior to over a decade of public service in both state and national offices?
My point here is to wonder how one of the dominant narratives of the campaign came to be that Barack Obama is one of, if not the most inexperienced presidential candidates ever to run for the office. When arguably our greatest president had even LESS experience in public office than he, it's pretty obvious that it's a weightless argument. So I'm wondering to his critics; what makes him such an 'inexperienced' candidate in comparison to others?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
And he who forgets, will be destined to remember...