Inexperience and age?

Question

We've heard a lot about the alleged experience gap between the two mainstream presidential candidates in the upcoming U.S. election. So I thought I would take a look at the facts.

McCain clearly has much more Washington experience than Obama. 30 yrs vs 4. He is also 72 years old (and would be the oldest person ever elected to the office should he win). Obama is 47, which land him a several years short of the historical average - just a year older than Clinton was when he assumed the office.

Three of the youngest presidents we have had are: Teddy Roosevelt, John Kennedy and Bill Clinton. Though generally well-respected, all three of these presidents fit more comfortably in the 'controversial' category, and were all basically moderate (by the standards of their times) democrats.

Abe Lincoln was in and out of politics throughout most of his adult life, but only served for four years in the federal legislature prior to winning the presidency. Like Obama, Mr. Lincoln served most of his political time in the Illinois state legislature, and came to politics from a legal career.

James Buchanan - arguably the worst president in U.S. history (though it will likely be a good ten years or so before any of the recent presidents will be considered competition for this honor) had almost as much experience as McCain, and is generally considered to be the most experienced career politician the U.S. has elected to the presidency.

Gerry Ford, Richard Nixon and George H.W. Bush also rate highly in terms of Washington insider experience. Interestingly - all republicans. I won't comment on their records.

George H.W. Bush also joins Buchanan, William Henry Harrison, Reagan, Eisenhower and Truman in the list of oldest elected presidents. - A mixed bag to be sure.

George Washington, though well-known as a military and political leader throughout the revolution, had little actual experience as a politician and disliked the label.

Yes, the U.S.A. is a very different country today than it was in 18th and 19th centuries. And yes, the consolidation of power in political parties was something that most of the country's founders resisted early on. But has politics itself really changed that much?

It seems to me that age and experience are not clear-cut indicators of performance or appropriate decision-making when it comes to the executive branch.

Any thoughts?

Answer 1

You are right about it not being a clear indicator, but there are trends. Carter was an outsider who was clearly hindered by the Republicans running insider games on him while he was in office and never was able to establish control over the State Department.

Answer 2

It has been touted by the elite media that Barack Obama has much more experience in government and subsequently is much more qualified to be president than Sara Palin. On the surface, this appears to have some credence, but examining the prevailing facts reveals that this is not the case.

Obama has about 140 days experience in the Senate, much of the time only voting “present” and did not appear to take any great interest in the issues at hand during this period; neither did the rest of them, but this is not a pass for him. It can thusly be assumed that his experience equates to sitting in a chair and doing nothing. This in turn translates into about 2 days of experience repeated 70 times, thusly accruing only 2 days senate experience during which time decision making was not required giving him a zero in this category.

In contrast, Sara Palin, as mayor of her hometown and governor of Alaska had, on a near daily basis, decisions awaiting the application of her logic and keenness of aforethought, talents reserved for the great and successful personalities of the political world.

In contrast to that, Barack Obama continued to sit in his comfortable senate seat and do nothing.

As Sara Palin defined it, Obama’s ship never left the harbor while Palin’s vessel plied the wavy cesspool of political controversy and corruption. While true to form, Obama stayed in his snug harbor and as usual doing nothing.

As Palin’s vessel’s appears on the political cesspool’s horizon it creates a bow wave of excitement that has Obama’s vessel pounding against the dock and tugging at its lines; but alas the knots are old and wet and remain tightly tied. McCain’s sudden “change” in the establishment’s playbook now causes Obama much trouble coming up with a new set of slogans. His worn out rhetoric now sound hollow and void of merit, and with the exception of a few intellectually challenged liberals nobody wants to hear them anymore; too bad, too bad.

While the liberals hide deep in their dark and frightening cave of ignorance the Republicans are in the sunshine of honesty and truth working diligently to keep America free and make it prosperous again. When Palin passes in her vessel of honesty, reality and practicality the liberals sit forlornly and precariously astride their logs of failure and waste while they bob up and down in her wake and watch helplessly as their self proclaimed messiah goes down for the third time.

Answer 3

the two go hand in hand.