Experience in a presidential race is more about judgment than a long résumé

Experience is relative to one's perception, especially in a presidential race. -- Chad

When we hear someone famous say something that isn't nice, we do have a tendency to protest quickly. However, even if we think that person is wrong in what they said, sometimes it helps to know why people say such things.

Those that defend the comments from Rev. Wright point out that there is a context to some of those things that he said. But is there a context to what Geraldine Ferraro said?

I'm not trying to stir up old wounds about Geraldine Ferraro, but I received some e-mails maintaining that she was right all along. I'm not going to agree with those e-mails, but since they do represent a segment of those who are likely to vote Democratic in November, is there something to learn from them?

The e-mails I get say Obama doesn't have enough experience. But what does that mean in 2008? Experience used to be the lifeblood of who ran for president. Candidates would be dismissed based on a lack of experience. But let's look at the Democratic field this year.

The top four candidates in terms of experience were Bill Richardson, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Dennis Kucinich. The bottom four candidates in terms of experience were Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Mike Gravel. Take out Gravel and you have the top three Democratic candidates in 2008. So experience wasn't the main thrust of Democratic voters.

Are voters picking based on experience? Not in the classic sense perhaps. Bill Richardson has an awesome resume and he didn't get much consideration.

John McCain has a longer resume than Obama or Clinton, but it doesn't mean I'm going to vote for him.

TIME magazine even explored this question recently, asking: "Does Experience Matter in a President?"

Many people were upset at Ferraro because they felt her comments were racist. But some of those who agree with Ferraro don't see it as racist, but see Obama as not having a lot of experience. Ferraro's comments ring hollow because of race AND because she was wrong about the experience factor.

Of the three major Democratic candidates as selected by the voters, Obama has more legislative experience than Clinton or Edwards and has had more bills (that he wrote) passed than the other two.

Someone who ran for vice president once said this in terms of having a lack of experience:

"There's not only what is on your paper resume that makes you qualified to run for or to hold office. It's how you approach problems and what your values are. I think if one is taking a look at my career they'll see that I level with the people; that I approach problems analytically; that I am able to assess the various facts with reference to a problem, and I can make the hard decisions."

Who said this brilliant statement? Why none other than Geraldine Ferraro in 1984 when she debated George H.W. Bush in a vice presidential debate. And the question came up since Geraldine Ferraro's experience level was called into question. And Ferraro had less legislative experience than Obama when she was picked as the VP nominee.

The MSM hasn't really explored the experience level of the candidates. Clinton's "35 years of experience" isn't followed up. Obama's entire legislative record has been undercovered in the press. McCain is assumed to have lots of experience by the MSM, without going into whether that's quality or longevity.

If you vote purely based on number of years of experience, McCain has your vote in November. But Democratic voters aren't deciding between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton based on experience, they are basing their vote on leadership. On that method of judgment, both Obama and Clinton leap over McCain.

Geraldine Ferraro was right. No, not in 2008, but in 1984. In her own words, it comes down to "how you approach problems and what your values are."

Bookmark/Search this post with:

buzzflash | delicious | digg | technorati