Experience

In the U.S. presidential race, Hillary Clinton is claiming more experience than Obama. I wonder how useful experience is when you are president, given that every situation is completely different from the last.

I can see how experience would be useful for just about any other sort of job. If you’re getting a heart bypass, you definitely want the doctor who has done it before. But does experience really help a president?

First, there is no job that is roughly similar to being president. So no one except a president or ex-president has experience that directly fits. In that regard, Hillary does have relevant experience, in the sense that she can consult her husband more often than Obama could if he were elected.

But how often does a political issue come up for which experience helps? If it is the same issue that has come up for years – say the conflict between the Israel and the Palestinians – then the only experience anyone has is in failing to fix it. Experience in failure can be useful, but it’s not a good indicator of future success.

If an issue is something new, such as the recent mortgage problems, the president has no more experience with it than anyone else. Every war and every economic problem is completely new. If you fight a new war the way you fought the last one, you lose.

The one sort of experience I can see being useful for a presidential candidate involves public appearances, including speeches and answering questions in debates. Anyone who comes through the nomination and election process will have plenty of that experience.  The ability to influence groups is a highly relevant skill for which experience is certainly useful.

If on-the-job experience helped a president, we would expect past presidents to have far more successful second terms than first. I don’t know how you factor in the lame duck effect, but is there historic evidence that presidents get more effective the longer they are on the job?

If you look at the great achievements in history, they are usually accomplished by younger people. Those people continue to acquire relevant experience throughout their careers but their successes do not continue at the same rate. For anything important, experience probably has a strong negative correlation with success. If that weren’t true, all the hit songs, hot startups, and new inventions would be coming from geezers.

Obama is often minimized by his opponents as being little but a smart guy who is a great talker. Realistically, is there any other type of experience that is more important for the job of president than learning how to be a great talker?

Comments

[Brant]

No experience but a great talker? Er, like Ronald Reagan? What exactly qualified HIM to be Governor of California, much less President*? He wasn't a President but he played one on TV. Good enough for his handlers. Politics is an inferior form of acting, just below TV soaps and just above amateur commercials done by the owner of the business.

Apparently, Fred Thompson is no Ronald Reagan. But he could probably sell you a used car.

[George]

http://s177.photobucket.com/albums/w235/indianluvsguitar/?action=view¤t=25healy_600.jpg

[RealityCheck]

You appear to be operating under the false assumption that the president decides anything more complicated than how big his/her desk needs to be to fit an intern under it.

The president is a puppet, that much is glaringly obvious.

It's a blessing in disguise really though, just think what things would be like if that chimpanzee Bush was actually making decisions of importance.

[hogan]

Out of curiosity, why is it that people focus on what "dirt" the republicans will come up with on a dem candidate?

Yet they overlook things like Bush being a military deserter - by definition - and still getting to be commander in chief.

As far as Barack - I can't figure out how he got through childhood without his friends and/or family coming up with a nickname that would be easier to say, yell, or call to him without sounding like a crow that fell off its perch.

[Phil]

Experience doesn't seem to guarantee success for a President...look at the current incumbent. Besides, what experience do you want a President to have before s/he takes office? I thought the whole purpose of the constitution was that anyone has the right to be President.

[Frank]

One more thing:
On the other hand, no one will go along with those policies so I ask, does it really matter since we're screwed anyways?

[Frank]

Well, talk is cheap and politicians are not only liars but a dime a dozen it seems.

I'll apologize ahead of time if I repeat what anyone else said, but I don't quite care enough to read their drabble. Experience per se isn't what counts. I'd refine it to a track record. And, consequently, most of the candidates are the same stereotypical fecal smears/ politicians when it comes down to it. I'm not voting because I value my time, live in a county where my vote wouldn't mean squat, etc., but if I were to, the only one who seems to have a track record to support a position geared towards capitalist achievements would be the only consistent capitalist in the race-Ron Paul.

[Pender]

For those of you pointing out that management and presidency are almost the same thing, I find that managers who have been around a long time are the same ones who stonewall progress because "That's not the way we do things." One of our managers still can't seem to understand why we can't get quality workers when he is still offering the same entry level pay we offered 15 years ago.

[Allen Anderson]

As for Hillary trying yo use the fact that her husband was president, I honestly don't think that'll help her very much. After all, he's going down in history as the only president impeached for cheating on his wife and then lying about it. Watergate was one thing. But Clinton's impeachment is so pathetic, it was funny. And Bill Clinton's reign was at an entirely different time. We didn't have the problems back then than we do right now.

Obama would make a great president, because he's a great speaker and likewise an amazing leader. This country is going through some rough times, and I'm sure Obama can pull us together, no matter what we go through.

[BobNL]

It would just be cool to have a woman being president of the USA. The only relevant question is: do you think she'll be able to do the job? I think she will.

[caviar]

Looks like even I can get elected president of the USA :)

I have no political experience
I have limited exposure to American culture
I am young
I talk well (mostly)
I have the right hairstyle :)

[George]

Hmm...My previous comment didn't make it up here. Not sure why. Don't agree? Lost due to technology?

Lets try again...
While you make some good points, knowledge, understanding, and historical perspective (similar to experience) do count:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2007-12-30-1.html

Unfortunately, I'm still not sure which candidate is best off on those points.

[Joe Blow]

Hillary. You get two presidents for the price of one. It's a much better ROI.

My 2 cents
JB

Also ... why is
- she "Hillary", first name.
....."Clinton" too close to Bill?
- he "Obama", last name.
....."Barack" too foreign sounding?
- he "McCain", last name.
....."John" too common or too much like a "John" (a male that buys sexual favors)?

[bush Anwar]

I remember you speaking of paper/scroll like screen for phones. Well here is the beginning of it http://www.polymervision.com/frameset.php?id=&page=

[Busy Dad Mumbles]

This campaign is easy. All the candidates are saying is,"change, vote for me, since I'm not the guy in the White House now!"

Let's not let anyone have a free pass into the job that is important.

Ask lots of questions and question the answers.

[Michael]

The thing that appeals to me about Obama is not necessarily his experience... its his power to motivate people. Look at his campaign: he started out as an unknown senator from Illinois, and decided to run for nomination against probably the most well known woman in politics. And he's been very successful, raising more money than her (despite Clinton's large head start) and rapidly moving up in the polls. Not only that, the more he campaigns, the more people like him! If that doesnt speak to his ability to motivate people, then I dont know what does. Obama is not running a campaign, he's running a revolution.

Being a good leader is a quality I really want in my president, because 90% of the time, the government does shit. Congress hasn't solved terrorism, energy, health care, social security, or balancing civil liberties and security. And you know why? Because they're all in the hands of big companies, and because most people are apathetic. If there's anyone who can change that, and convince our society its time to do something about these issues, its Obama.

[Hucka-beast]

Although I agree with you on your stance that some experience is completely useless when it comes to being President, there are some things that could potentially be useful. A great characteristic that could be gained by experience is knowing how to deal with crises. Take Huckabee, for instance. After Hurricane Katrina hit, while everyone one else was running in circles not sure what to do, he took in 75,000 refugees. This experience as governor of Arkansas has proved that he can handle crises quite well. Again, in reference to education, he completely changed the face of Arkansas. At the beginning of his time a governor, the Arkansas education system was one of the worst in the country. Huckabee created what is recognized as one of the best school accountability programs in America, and now the state is one of the best in education. In another instance, Huckabee created the ARKids First program, which supplies 70,000 Arkansas children with health care. The people of Arkansas love him because he has done so much for their state. Time voted Huckabee one of the top 5 governors in America in 2005. In fact, when he was reelected in 1998, he got the most votes of any Republican nominee ever in Arkansas.

The point I'm trying to make here, is that Huckabee has shown that he is not only a good leader, but that he is an outstanding leader that makes decisions that are in the best interests of the people he represents. If not for his experience in the office of governor, that would not be evident. Isn't the most important trait a president can have the ability to make good decisions and lead well? Shouldn't we all, therefore, vote for Mike Huckabee?

People say that he's a radical religious nut, but he's not. Although he does rely on faith (a faith that encourages moral decisions. No corruption here), he has said that he has more "respect for an honest atheist than a disingenuous believer." So then, what reason is there to not vote for him?

[KiwiAtaahua]

"A smart guy who is a great talker"?

So the opposite of the guy you've got now?

[Noah Vaile]

Why are none of my comments showing up?

[Verd]

I say that the kind of experience needed to be president is what is gained by being President. However, the gradual gathering of Presidential Experience is seldom useful while serving as President. I don't have a dog in this fight, but it is mightly peculiar that Obama is the only candidate with questionable experience. Or at least in the press and what is opined by his opponents. When Edwards ran, (almost along the same course as Obama, but with no prior campaign/election experience except the US Senate race), no one questioned his experience. I wonder what that is all about. This situation is almost like the black Quarterback debate of the 70's. Obama certainly has some experience in campaigning. What a brilliant campaign it has been. I guarantee you that every wannabe-re-elected politician is taking notes. I predict Obama will exceed Reagan in taking every state in November. It's about the campaign, Stupid. That's all the experience you need. Dilbert has got it right!

[Lucy]

I can’t believe there are so many ignorant people in this country who think that they need to vote for Obama because he has no history in politics, he has a clean record among other things. I just hope that Hillary wins so you stupid people learn your lesson. If Obama gets to be President I hope he gets out of control and this country turns into a real mess…not to far from what it is now! Hillary is the safest solution, use your brain Americans!!!

[Marco]

If elected, McCain will turn 76 in his last year of office.

I have yet to meet a person age 70+ who's at the top of their game mentally.

[Joseph Bernard]

There are many interesting comments here. Politics is definitely a topic that stirs us up. If we get so fired up:
1. How come we don't get more involved?
2. How come we don't ask more questions?
3. How come we choose to blame and complain instead of taking responsibilty for the government we have now?
4. How come we have lots of opinions but lack an open mind to explore other ideas?
5. How come we feel so righteous about our own ideas and so critical of others?
6. How come we feel so powerless to make a difference?
7. How come we don't demand more from our elected officials?
8. How come we don't demand Congress to hold this administration accountable?
9. How come we let this war in Iraq even start when it was based on lies that anyone could have found out with hardly any research on the Web?

There are so many questions you and I need to ask ourselves and so much more responsibility we need to take for the mess we are in. Are you ready to be more than just opinions?

Joseph

Joseph Bernard, Ph.D.
www.ExploreLifeBlog.com
www.Peace-Together.com

[Mark]

Obama talks a great deal - and he's obviously very intelligent, given the jobs he's had. But he doesn't really talk much about his plans. Change is needed, yes, but how is he going to deliver. His speeches, while good, sound a little hollow.

Clinton doesn't have that much experience in politics over Obama - she was elected only in 2000, remember. Obama has been in politics for roughly the same amount of time. She can claim that she's lived in the White-House, but that's not political experience. However, she was on the board of Wall-Mart, and she is experienced in business. But she sounds a little to phony for me. Unlike Obama, she sounds very rehearsed.

McCain - I don't really mind him all that much. Never been a fan of the Republican party, but he's moderate. He's not a religious nutjob, and he focuses on things other than terrorism.

Honestly, I don't think any politician is really going to be a radical. I don't think any candidate is going to bring down the USA or elevate it to new heights. Realistically - change is slow. It's measured in decades. A good president can deliver change, but just don't expect the world to get better overnight because a politician got elected. And don't expect the world to fall apart either.

The only candidate I really despise is Huckabee - he's a religious wack-job and that pretty much sums him up. Glad to see he has almost no chance of winning. It's not technically impossible for him, but it's very, very low.

[carol]

Hillary has experience - do we really want the same old thing that has been going on for years? Obama - he says he is for change but not all change is good. Just what are his plans? McCain - don't trust him.

So as I see it, there are no good choices this year.

And for those who laud the experience of a CEO of a large corporation. If you want all of the US to be outsourced to India, then go ahead and elect a CEO. For me, I don't think so. I've watched too many lips say one thing and actions say another.

[loki]

the sort of experience that hilary is talking about is kind of ludicrous, but i think the sort of experience that we'd like to see is that say of a really good CEO (and there's not that many that spring to mind). takes the ong view, has fierce curiosity, a wide range of skills & interests, incredible memory, great complex problem solving skills and good people skills.

[Spockfiend]

McCain= Manchurian Candidate.

[Dick]

Scott, I hope you are just trying to stir things up with this post cuz I would hate to think you are really that stupid. Neither Billary or Obomber have much experience both are freshman senators, end of story. Either one might make a great president, but pigs may sprout wings and fly too. Just for the record - I think McCruth would make a rotten presidnt too! there is NO good choice again this year.

But to the question of Hillary's experience, if Hillary has experience, my wife is and engineer because I am a successful engineer. If experience were not necessary, small children would be the best at everything!

[Manual]

Experience:

Clinton - Watching how to (or not) get blown in the Oval office.

Obama - How to say "No" while looking good.

McCain - How to be a GOP moderate and alienate your conservative votes.

I don't like GOP, but I'd take McCain over the other two. (ok.. I'm also a secretly an Obama fan) :)

[GeoffB]

A big part of being President is losing battles (hopefully political) and pressing forward, is working with people that you've clashed with on your way up, is putting the best face on disappointments to lay the groundwork for the next step. Being President tends to age a person about twice as fast as any other job, which means you'd better be able to age gracefully.

I don't like Hillary. I don't like Obama. And frankly, I don't like McCain, though I'll be holding my nose and voting for him. But if McCain doesn't win, I'd feel a lot better about Hillary. Her eight years in the White House didn't get her experience being President. But she's had an up-close and personal look at the triumphs and disappointments being President brings and the toll the office takes. If she lacks the audacity of hope, it's because she knows better.

People have pointed to the idea that Obama has as much experience as Lincoln. But that's in terms of time served in politics. Lincoln had a lot more experience, though, in what a President needs to be able to do: Weather the storm and live to fight another day in the march toward bigger and better things. Hillary's no Abe Lincoln, to be sure. And losing on healthcare, eg, isn't the same as McCain's time as a POW, if you're comparing adversity credentials. But she's taken a punch or two in her day and still she soldiers on. What's missing in Obama's audacity of hope is what happens when the chips are down and everything's falling apart. Hillary's been there with healthcare and Monica-gate. McCain's been there, physically with Vietnam and politically with the Keating Five, which he made a launching pad for being Mr. Straight Shooter. Hell, even W at least had the story of coming back from alcoholism.

We know how high Obama can soar. We don't know how well he comes out of a tailspin and in the public eye. That's the experience difference that Hillary and McCain bring. Obama at his best may look pretty good. But in tough times, it's nice to have a leader who can still keep moving forward when things aren't all sunshine and light. Whatever you might say about McCain and Hillary, they've been through a lot and they're still very much on the political map. That should count for something.

[bcammack]

So, Shanna, Obama just sprang forth from nowhere, with nothing more than the gift of gab? Gosh, I thought he was a civil rights activist, an attorney and an Illinois legislator before being elected to the United States Senate. I guess that experience doesn't count for squat in your eyes. Probably because you prefer another candidate?

I cannot see where Hillary has any more experience suitable for the presidency than Mr. Obama. Besides living in the White House, which I'm sure the staff would help him with in short order. They've both been attorneys. They both have worked for social causes. They've both been U.S. Senators. One's clearly in the pocket of corporate lobbyists and the other might be as well. I suppose that is why they're so close in the polls right now.

I'm getting a little sour on all the choices in this game anymore. What passes for a Democratic party today is pathetic, IMO.

[Robin Lochner]

Experience is the word that is used when judgement is often the word that is meant. In theory, experience should assist with judgement.

[Shanna]

I disagree. POLITICS experience could be really useful when you are president. As Scott Adams stated, every problem will be completely different and maybe previous experience is not required to solve each problem. However, politics experience, contacts, recognition, accomplishments are required to be a good president. Hillary has accomplished many things during her political career, let's talk about Obama, can someone mention some of his achievements?!?!?! NO! He hasn't done anything...oh yeah; he gave a speech against the war a couple of years ago...how smart huh?? Of course he gave a great speech, that is the only thing he does, he just likes to talk!!!! So according to the idiot who wrote this blog anyone who knows how to be a great talker could be president. Wow, that means that we have a lot of good candidates!! Maybe we should think about this and starts the primaries all over again since nobody knew that being a great talker was the only requirement!!

[basselope]

All I can say is, Bush and Cheney had LOTS of experience and before they got into office there were nine planets... now there's only eight.

[BeckieO]

IMHO, the most useful experience would be a few years as an elementary school band director.
They are responsible for a taking a group with a wide variety of skill levels and personalities, all making a lot of racket and demanding attention, and forming them into a cohesive and productive team.
All this is done while politely fending off unsolicited advice from outsiders and constantly trying to obtain adequate funding.

Sounds like a president's job description to me.

[bbuddha]

Does Hillary really have more experience? I really don't see how having a spouse who was president somehow gives her experience. If her husband was a pilot would you let her fly a plane just because he knew how? I don't think the experience gap she keeps talking about exists.

[Adrian Rodriguez]

Hey Scott, I got a question:

Realistically, do the people need experience electing presidents?

Because, it doesn't matter if Superman is a candidate, if the people has no democratic electoral skills, they would vote for any Luthor

Don't you think, Amigo?

-Adryan

[-drew]

Her campaign needs something to differentiate itself from Obama's and this is the propoganda they came up with.

As an amateur presidential historian, it would be difficult to define "better" during the second term. Was FDR better in his second, third, and fourth terms than his first? Generally speaking, Congress and the courts tend to work less with the President in the second term.

Bottom line: no president was elected based on the amount of experience, it was the type of experience. America likes electing former governors, because they have executive experience. Neither Hillary or Obama or McCain has executive experience; they were all legislators. So, in the experience that would most closely mirror presidential experience, we have no options on a candidate.

If experience is necessary, where was George Washington's experience prior to becoming President? Abraham Lincoln? At the end of the day, Mrs. Clinton uses her propoganda machine to make the American people think that because she was First Lady, she is more experienced than Mr. Obama.

I agree with her; she has more experience being First Lady. President: nope.

[Jason Belveal]

The trouble with experience is that by the time you get it, you’re to set in your ways to use it.

[Dan]

It depends what you want. History does repeat itself. If you want someone to maintain the status quo, experience is clearly an asset.
Would anyone vote for a 21 year old candidate? He (or she) would be too much of a loose cannon. People want to be able to trust the person they are electing and know what they stand for and that they will do that.
All people fear the unknown!
People remember Bill Clinton, sex scandle, no war, better economy. A vote for Hillary is a safe bet for the country.

Obama could be an amazing president, or he could not be. Is it worth the risk?

And I think you missed the mark on hit songs. Madonna doesn't have a very good voice, and she is getting old, but she has a ton of experience with the music industry and she and other established artists have put out hit after hit while young new artists struggle.

Fame > experience > talent
(greater than sign >)

[Affiliate Confession]

Ha! (or how about LOL!...lame) The only experience Hillary has over Obama is in manipulating the system which she learned from her husband. I'd rather have someone be president that will try to change the system than manipulate it.

[Sue Dunham]

You might want to try electing a smart guy this time. The dummy sure didn't work out too well.

[Keshav Bhatt]

yes i totally agree, but eventually presidents or other heads of state are just pawns in the hands of the party and the red taped wielding bureaucrats ,so it matters none at all whether Obama is elected or Clinton. Both will be reffering to the party and in Clinton's case also her husband :)

[BigMal27]

Based on the US government structure (legislative, executive, judicial) and the copies of it in most of the US states, I would say a governor is more likely qualified than a senator, and usually has that "legislative" experience before their gubenetorial experience (maybe not quite US senator level, but similar). Many of the textbook duties of the President and relationships with other branches of government are echoed in state government. Why US Senators seem to make better candidates I can't figure out.

[Bretty]

I'm from the UK, but it seems to me that the main skill in being a president is to repay your sponsors and advisors by turning what they want into Government policy?

[fatmantheinvincible]

I would argue just the opposite: Experience matters because there is no such thing as a completely new situation.

For example, The current mortgage crisis is a lot like the S&L crisis of the late 1980's, which is a lot like the series of events that lead to Sarbanes-Oxley... which is kinda-sorta like the internet bubble, etc., ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

...and about Israel/Palestine - No conflict goes on that long without one or both parties acting in bad faith.

I love the taste of shoeleather in the morning. (filet of sole??!?!?!?). Feel free to pile on.

[EJ]

No. Actually I don't care. just would like to be first to comment for once!

[gusset]

Being a good listener perhaps?

[Tim]

Think about any memorable president. Now, think about whether the reason that they are memorable is that they gave a particular speech, or were great "talkers", or because of something,anything that actually happened during their term.

And, of course Hillary has more experience than Obama, even in the terms that you put it - she was in the White House for eight years watching what the president does. If anyone should be able to judge what presidential experience is, shouldn't it be someone who saw what the presidency constitutes?

[RUBBA]

I take it as more experience is simply more years playing politics. As experience goes, many in executive roles are great talkers, and terrible do-ers.

[E]

Then how the hell did George Bush get elected?

I think you're just blowing hot air here. If I go work for a new company I probably wont be dealing with the same problems as in the first, but its the general experience with processes etc. that counts.

No offense but your articles tend to be a tad closed-minded and unforgiving, to say the least. What worries me is the sheep effect you seem to have going. Every time I walk into an evangelical church I see someone just like you standing in the pulpit.

[Tenelus]

I agree completely, experience is what old dogs use to increase their job security, but because they are more experienced, they know best, so no one argues, especially the most experienced Pointy Haired Boss that they answer to. someone who lacks experience is able to enter a work environment and quickly point out it's flaws, and could fix them too, if it weren't for their lack of experience, but after they gain experience, they will learn to live with the faults.

And we've all seen what 'experienced' song writer madonna can do...

[Harish]

Obama it is.. Scott Adams endorses Obama in his own style...

[Anfauglir]

The only other relevant experience I can think of is the ability to accept the advice of experts. Trouble is, anyone running for high office most likely believes they know how to run the country better than anyone else, so why would they listen to anyone whose proposed solution is different from theirs?

Regarding success and lack of experience, I think its more a case of "not knowing what you cant do". The more experience you have, the more you know what has worked in the past - so the more experienced you get, the more likely you are to produce generally good, workeable solutions, but without that "wow!" factor.

[Gerd]

"is there any other type of experience that is more important for the job of president than learning how to be a great talker?"

Quite important is to not misbehave in foreign countries. Remember the war after Mao eating the donated pet of somebody. Bush jr had never been to Europe before being president. No wonder how it ended.

[JonF]

...and if experience was really the most important thing, why limit individuals to 2 terms? Roll on appointment of the King (or Queen) of the USA!

[Duncan]

If only we here in South Africa had any candidates for our upcoming election as good as the worst of the current crop of U.S. candidates.

We know who our next president will be... we know he's a crook... he's not a good talker, but he sings for his machine gun.

[J.]

I think you have made a number of good points. Among the reasons why I don't vote is that the process of selecting the candidates, most of which is largely out of the hands of everyday people, ensures that there is little meaningful difference between the remaining two candidates. I find it impossible to feel strongly enough about one over the other to actually expend the effort. My largest complaint about Hillary Clinton, for instance, is the hideous prospect of having to hear that voice condescendingly screeching away at me for at least four years. That is really only enough for a rooting interest, however, not the prospect of actually doing something.

[David S]

A President needs to know how to lead, motivate, and form sound strategies.
Hey, Coach Bob Knight is unemployed now...

[Euan]

I wonder when, "You're just being clever!", became an insult?

[Euan]

If experience matters - vote the Buddhist or Hindu; he or she will have many more lifetimes experience than someone who only gets one bite of the cherry. Since reincarnation is an evolutionary process, they will have spent a certain amount of time as pond scrum; and I can think of no more relevant experience for high political office.

(None of my previous posts have ever made it on to the forum - I'm beginning to get disheartened)

[Henrik Mårtensson]

There are plenty of jobs that are similar to being president. Being president is a management job. It is different in degree of power and responsibility, to other management jobs, but not in kind.

One thing you might expect, is for the job of president to be vastly more complex than other management jobs. After all, the president of the U.S. runs the largest, most complicated, organization (i.e. the United States) in the world. On top of that, what the president does affects not only the U.S., but can, and frequently does, affect many other countries around the world.

The expectation would be wrong. There are two reasons:

First, the further up an organization you go, the greater the level of abstraction. Thus, a president is much less concerned with details than you or I. Consequently, the job is less complex than the average person might think. (It probably is more difficult than you or I can imagine, but that is more related to the consequences of the decisions made, not to the complexity itself.)

Second, the more complexity in a system, the fewer degrees of freedom there are. That is, an organization actually becomes easier to manage the more interrelated parts there are, provided that you can identify the right root causes of the problems you want to solve. In many ways, a president has much less freedom to chose different courses of action than you or I have.

There is a science concerned with governing complex systems, Systems Thinking. It would be nice if politicians were required to be systems thinkers. That way, it would be easier for them to determine which options are available, and evaluate the probable consequences. Unfortunately, though Systems Thinking can be very effective in determining how to improve a complex system, like a country, or the world, it is rarely used that way. (Google for russel ackoff webcast if you want to want to see a very interesting lecture on systems thinking. It is the first link.)

Failure is important because it is through failure we learn. Success merely confirms what we know. People who succeed all the time are, generally speaking, people who rarely try new, difficult tasks.

When looking at the track record of a presidential candidate, I'd suggest you try to pick one who sometimes fails, but fails in a different manner every time. That would be a candidate willing to try new solutions when old solutions do not work. Note that I am _not_ advocating picking one who never wins, just that there should be a reasonable mix.

A problem with experience is that experience solving an old problem is transferable to solving a similar problem in a similar way, but not necessarily in solving new problems, or finding new ways of solving old problems.

There is a partial solution: many problems are similar, even if they do not look that way at first glance. For example, TOC practitioners can apply the same management principles to a manufacturing company, a coffee shop, and a software development team, and it works. Most people would have a hard time seeing the underlying similarities.

If you can make the correct abstractions, you can transfer experience from one area of life into another. Practical example: I use a behavior analysis method called ABC analysis to correct some of my two year old son's behaviors, like throwing forks and spoons at dinner. The experience is transferable to solving behavioral problems among workers and managers in large companies. By the way, this does not work because grown-ups behave like children, it works because children behave like grown-ups. (It is easier with children because they have much less training doing the wrong thing.)

A president could do the same thing, applying experience from one walk of life to another, provided that the right abstractions are made. Making the right abstractions is where Systems Thinking is so incredibly valuable.

As for the importance of being a great talker, yes, it is important. Talk can get a candidate into the White House. Talk is also an antecedent to action. A president who is a great talker can get people to do things, provided that the president also has a working high level strategy and tactics. (I use the Goldratt definition: Strategy is the answer to the question "what for?", i.e. it sets the objectives. Tactics answers the question "how do we accomplish our objectives". Thus, strategy and tactics are hierarchical in nature, and strategy and tactics must always occur in pairs to be useful.)

What is worrying is when getting a political office, like being president, is a goal rather than a means to an end. There are simple tools to make it clear, and easily presentable to a wide audience exactly what the goals and sub-goals of people and organizations are. Intermediate Objective Maps are one such tool, Strategy & Tactics (S&T) trees are another. It would be nice if politicians used them, or something similar. (The reasons politicians are not very interested in such tools are interesting...)

Whether presidents are more effective in their second term than in the first, would depend on what their goals are. One of the major goals during the first term, is to be re-elected for a second term. This may make a president reluctant to take action that is necessary for the country, but that will make political enemies or cost votes.

During the second term, a president has more freedom to act. That would enable a president to perform better, provided that the president has a reasonable idea of what to do.

Sorry for the length of this rant. I didn't have the time to write a shorter one.

[myself]

Ha! First comment!

[v]

quite right. plus, as obama himself says, experience is not the same thing as judgment. you can have all the experience in the world, but lack judgment.the two are very different things.
but then again, my opinion aren't exactly neutral.

[Chris]

Since when is being a great talker important for that job? You do remember who your president for the last 8 years was, right?
And there is a job that compares to president... CEO. Running a company is just like running a country. The only difference is that companies care more about their employees health & safety, because they're afraid of law suits.
Other than that, all you have to do is keep the stockholders happy, worry about PR and marketing and try to make a killing for yourself in the process...

[Varun]

I agree!

[Eugene Cox]

Yup. Hitler was a spectacular talker... See where that got his country.

[Petr]

There's experience in knowing when to talk and when to listen; knowing when to act and when to observe; knowing when to stay cool and when to panic.

A president may not be experienced in solving a recent mortgage problem, but a presindent must be experienced in evaluating how deep and how urgent it is.

Slightly off topic: It is amusing to watch the fever across the pond. You guys really do believe that you have alternatives to choose from, don't you? That the candidates differ significantly?

[sameer]

we get it that you love Obama and will most likely vote him for President. But do you really have to advocate him so much ?

I feel that both Hillay and Obama had a great chance again Romney, Huckabee or Guiliani. But defeating McCain would be difficult. He seems to be a genuinely good guy with a clean record and cleaner intentions. I am not a Republican but i would not mind it too much if McCain was elected.

Would like to see a post from you talking about pros and cons of having McCain

[BJ]

Brilliant. I've been saying this for weeks - just because you have "more experience" doesn't mean you'll do a better job.

[James]

"If you look at the great achievements in history, they are usually accomplished by younger people"

This might be true in just about every field except politics. It is extremely unusual for someone under forty to make a major political contribution. Many political greats- Ben Franklin, Charles de Gaulle, Reagan- had their biggest impact at an age when they might have just as easily gone into retirement.

On another note, if "every economic problem is completely new", why did you bother to study economics?

[Noah]

For this election if relevant experience were the most important factor, I'd have to choose a maid or garbage man. Who else is better at cleaning up other peoples' messes?

[ejmoosa]

The more experience someone has, the more willing they are only willing to work inside the box. We need more people willing to think outside the box for greater ways to do things.

Had we left this world to the experienced, we would still be playing 8-tracks one at a time rather than carrying our whole music library around on devices the size of a matchbox.

Experienced people say why would anyone want to do that? Inexperienced say why not!

[Ross]

Scott, I'm citing you next time I get in a debate over Obama. You are absolutely right.

[Vikash]

If you look at the phenomenon of dynastic democracies in Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh to name a few), they all share a common rally cry - my father/mother/husband/etc made sacrifices for the country/has served the country/had a vision/etc, so please vote for me...the qualification of the candidate is often secondary to aura of the dynasty...

...glad to see USA has something to learn from the developing nations after all!! Ms. Clinton relies more on her past as first lady than her abilities to rally people around her...I bet Chelsea must already be preparing her Presidential acceptance speech for the year 2020.

[Aervanath]

Actually, there is a job with somewhat comparable skills: governor of a state. While you may consider that it doesn't carry the economic and foreign affairs experience necessary to claim "on-the-job" experience, it does mean that they have the experience in managing a large bureaucracy and dealing with the legislative and judicial branches of a government. This way, they DON'T need to spend as much time as another candidate might in learning to be the CEO of the world's largest not-for-profit corporation, and more time thinking about how to deal with economic and foreign affairs issues. (Speaking of foreign affairs, has anyone given the thought to just admitting that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict isn't as horrible as other places in the world where people are dying in the thousands every day, and focusing on those instead?)

[car206]

I think some of more useful experiences might be how to deal with Congress as president, and how to involve others in planning. And these are things that HRC seems to have learned a lot about that whilst attempting to promote health care reform.
I find all three front-running candidates more interesting/promising than those for many an election year. But, as always, I find it hard to support anyone who _wants_ to be president.

[Joe]

Maybe you should have to be president or prime minister of a smaller country, like say Tazjikistan or New Zealand, before you can be President of the United States?

Or you could set up a special country in Hawaii that actually has no influence and run a sort of work experience program.

[wkwillis]

Experience in picking people who are smarter than you are?

[Geoffrey James, Sales Machine]

Abraham Lincoln had less experience in national government than Barack Obama.

Also, the media spin that Obama is all talk can easily be proven wrong. Go to his campaign website; it's as "content rich" with wonky policy statements as is Clinton's.

I met the guy personally. Shook his hand. He's the real deal.

[Dylan]

I would say having the experience of being solely responsible for making life-or-death decisions that affect a lot of people is highly relevant. Having been a governor, or performing some kind of executive role over say, a large corporation, could apply. In the Hillary vs McCain vs Obama (Sen vs Sen vs Sen), I don't think that criterion much matters in this election, honestly. Other than maybe having greater applied knowledge about how the higher levels of gov't work.

[Jack]

This is merely foolish. Have you heard of Churchill? Washington? Jefferson? Hardly young men when elected. Somehat successful, I'd say.
Being a "talker" may get you elected but that alone is hardly relevant to the job.
Or were you asleep during the Carter administration?

[J]

"is there historic evidence that presidents get more effective the longer they are on the job?"

Actually, our current president has been amazingly effective at getting legislation opposed by congress (and in some cases the public) passed, despite historically low poll numbers and general unpopularity. Though there will be differing opinions on whether it's a good or bad thing, in his case I'd say the answer is at least arguably yes.

[Tizzle]

I believe that president is a job like being a figurehead. It compares more with Queen of England than CEO of a company, no matter what those CEO-wannabe-presidents say. (or maybe ceos do less than I imagine).

Anyway, I think along with being a good talker, one has to project an illusion (or image) of intelligence, compassion, knowledge, and other reassuring things, so the little people can think, oh great! They've got it all under control, I can go back to reading blogs.

[Gene]

She does have experience, who do you think was running this country when Bill was in office.

[rita mae]

Commented this morning. It's 9:20 p.m. Leaving work now. Still no comments posted. I can only hope that Scott is having more fun than I am. Before I worked for accountants I worked at Creighton University and so did the ex-Marine. He worked in the Athletic Department. Hell! I thought March Madness had to do with basketball. Now I find it is tax season.

Tomorrow will be a new day. Bye, Scotty.

Rita (so tired) Mae

[Scott]

Hillary already has 8 years experience being president ;)

[theone]

I don't understand that particular line of reasoning either. It's not any of the candidates have actually had their fingers on the big red nuke button before. It's the ultimate on the job training position. Lincoln didn't have much experience and he did okay. The only thing I can think people on Hillary's side mean is that she has more experience in the washington politics side of things. She's rolled in the mud and has more experience fighting the republicans. Obama doesn't need to be an expert in everything he does, that's what effective cabinet post are for.

[Cadence Creek Equine Centre, Edmonton]

"If an issue is something new, such as the recent mortgage problems, the president has no more experience with it than anyone else."

Having an economics background however would make a huge difference. Being able to actually understand the issue is very important.

[Dave B.]

Hit songs and hot startups tend to have more to do with the likability of the people involved than actual ability. Young, attractive people have an edge up here. I wouldn't be surprised if this effect explains a lot of the accomplishments of young people. Others are simply more interested in listening to what they have to say.

[Ally Eden]

Since nobody has answered this post I will say a few comments.
First Obama has a personality that is fresh from the usual status quo types such as Hilliary. And if your creative flair seems to come natually like his does or sponaneously its not a learned conditioning and that makes him more appealing and the kind of person who wins trust. You have to be able to react to any circumstances from your own inner 'gut' or originality to come across as in command and accessment from some experience but more from internal values; judgments applied to take on sole responsibity for actions rendered. He seems to have this confidence in people and in himself that makes it work in unity building.

Ally

[D. Mented]

When people talk about expirience, they really mean "track record" - as in someone whose views and voting record and ability to work with other powerful people can be observed.
If someone has a good record to refer to, that's a great indication that the good behavior of the past will be repeated - at least whenever someone hasn't come up with a big enough bribe.
Senator Clinton, on the other hand, has shown herself to be a Bush supporter in a blue jacket, with little or no ability to bring even Democrats who want to support her together to get things done. Maybe she was just trying hard not to be seen as "too liberal", but I don't like Bush's decisions, she does, ergo, I will not vote for her.
Obama has less of a track record to point to, and sounds more like a broken record "change...bring change...bring change..." Without a past, I'd like to see some future - in the form of an actual plan.
I'm writing in Lou Dobbs for president - my vote doesn't count anyway (I'm not a delegate)so I might as well make a statement.
D. Mented

[Adrian]

Excellent point. I think Hillary is toast here. She's going to have trouble hanging on until March 4.

[RavenBlack]

"...a smart guy who is a great talker. Realistically, is there any other type of experience that is more important for the job of president than learning how to be a great talker?"

Yes, being a smart guy. (Or lady!)

[Darth Geoff]

The major, earth-shattering, catastrophic mistake the Bush administration made is treating the War on Terror as a shooting war rather than an intelligence war. The shooting war has been a disaster. Instead, they should have had thousands of CIA operatives crawling all over the Middle East and Asia quietly assassinating the troublemakers. The whole Terror thing is being driven by only a few hundred nutjobs anyway.
And what's interesting about this Mistake is that it was made by a country that successfully acquitted an intelligence war (The Cold War) and failed miserably at a shooting war (Vietnam).
Some some experience might have helped post-9/11.

[Jolest]

PS: Sorry if I multi-posted by accident. I'm still getting used to the page-scripting filter in FireFox and I'm not sure if I multi-posted some of my message by, refreshing the page while sitting on the "Post a comment" page on your web site, while simultaneously trying to get all the sites "permitted" that your "Post a comment" function requires. If so, please accept my apology.

[Your Mom]

I'm glad you're not voting, this is a pretty dumb blog post. I just hope you don't influence idiots that read your blog to vote a certain way. Creativity guides the creating of hit songs and inventions. Peak brain power has been shown to occur in humans in their 20's. However, young people often make quick decisions without thinking of the consequences. Experience makes people consider all the sides of an issue, which makes for a better final decision. Obama Osama.

[Jolest]

How about being a great listener and/or a good moderator? I'd rather have someone as president who gathers a bunch of smart people together, and can ride herd on them just enough to get good advice without turning them into a group of over-paid "yes"-people...

I do agree with your comments about "experience" not being as important as being a quick learner.

I'm really tired of the seemingly endless list of Presidents who were elected because they could give "good speech". I'd give all of them for just one with an ounce of financial common sense. When will they realize they can't tax our country into prosperity? If anyone except the US government tried to use the financial smoke-and-mirrors the congress uses on a daily basis, they'd be thrown in jail as con-men.

[Katherine]

It is impossible to be fully prepared for every eventuality. In lieu of experience I want a leader who is able to make sound decisions based on input from a diverse panel (not just toadies) of well-educated staff. None of this "I know her heart" nonsense, or decisions based on "gut instincts". The only organ involved in public policy should be the brain, thank you very much.

[Katherine]

It is impossible to be fully prepared for every eventuality. In lieu of experience I want a leader who is able to make sound decisions based on input from a diverse panel (not just toadies) of well-educated staff. None of this "I know her heart" nonsense, or decisions based on "gut instincts". The only organ involved in public policy should be the brain, thank you very much.

[Dick]

If the type of "experience" Hillary has is of any real value, the most highly recruited person in the NFL would be Olivia Manning, wife of Archie and mother of Peyton and Eli.

[Jolest]

How about being a great listener and/or a good moderator? I'd rather have someone as president who gathers a bunch of smart people together, and can ride herd on them just enough to get good advice without turning them into a group of over-paid "yes"-people...

[JimW]

Perhaps the experience is necessary more for the ability to get things done in DC, then for knowing what to do. It seems that the task of gathering political support for a new policy would be something that experience might really help with.

[Dewey]

We have had 7 years of g w bush and he came in campaigning as a Washington outsider and look at what he had done to destroy the country.

No idea of how the economy works, the deficit is at record highs. No idea of how the Constitution works - declaring signing statements saying he won't support the bills he is signing into law. Rushing into a war where he believed a few people who said the US troops will be received as heroes and ignoring the advice of the most experienced generals and sending in inadequately equipped troops in insufficient numbers.

And the list goes on and on.

None of the current crop of candidates passes mustard with me. They claim all kinds of things but don't have any evidence to back up their claims.

[Andrew]

"When you've done things right, people won't be sure you've done anything at all."

[WriterDude]

Negotiating skills. Did a lot for Reagan.

[alan]

Hillary's whitehouse experience is massive, she knows hwhere the cutlery drawer is, and Bill, he knows where the Shake and Vac is kept.

Shake and Vac, Shake and Vac, put the freshman back.

[McGurker]

You need to be a good problem solver, I guess. Diplomatic skills a plus.

[Klaus Kaan]

In unrelated news I can mention there is nothing interesting eighter :)

[Julianna]

Though so absurdly proud of democracy, Americans have this mindset that the president is a totalitarian autocrat.

If you consider that a President's job involves:
1. Delegate issues to experts
2. Evaluate experts' proposals for solutions
3. Lobby experts' proposals (on behalf of America) to legislators
4. Convince the public it's a good proposal
5. See it through

A significant part of that plan is lobbying to legislators. Experience derives from being in Congress long enough to get the support and respect that would ask for.

Yes, all issues are different. That's why we don't rely on one man to handle it, but several experts. Take the Middle East. If you can't answer the question "Why is the area once called 'The Fertile Crescent' now a desert?", then I don't want you involved in foreign policy development that concerns the Middle East.

The ideal president is comfortable with their inherent ignorance and seasoned at the dealing with congressmen.

[Julianna]

Though so absurdly proud of democracy, Americans have this mindset that the president is a totalitarian autocrat.

If you consider that a President's job involves:
1. Delegate issues to experts
2. Evaluate experts' proposals for solutions
3. Lobby experts' proposals (on behalf of America) to legislators
4. Convince the public it's a good proposal
5. See it through

A significant part of that plan is lobbying to legislators. Experience derives from being in Congress long enough to get the support and respect that would ask for.

Yes, all issues are different. That's why we don't rely on one man to handle it, but several experts. Take the Middle East. If you can't answer the question "Why is the area once called 'The Fertile Crescent' now a desert?", then I don't want you involved in foreign policy development that concerns the Middle East.

The ideal president is comfortable with their inherent ignorance and seasoned at the dealing with congressmen.

[Robert Hamilton]

Scott, here's a crazy idea, why don't you VOTE for him then? The answer is that it's safer to be able to sit back and pretend that you're too smart for the system. You know I love you man, but there is no acceptable excuse for not voting. I'm sorry.. now you've got me blubbering all over my keyboard.

[Mene Tekel]

You're right, experience has nothing to do with what a president will do. We should elect people based on their plans for the problems that are already here. I don't think any politicians have an ounce of credibility left, and I don't trust them.

[Bill Green]

It's who they hire on their staff and who they pick for the cabinet posts that will have the most bearing on their success. Reagan was not much involved in the day to day details, but he had a great team working for him. That's what really counts.

[Andrew]

Being a Governor is very similar to being the President. So is being Mayor of a large city.

[simsini]

Yes, well... I think any president should be flexible enough to do a good job with the scouts' motto "learning by doing" instead of trying to act mainly based on former experience. Naturally, obviously it doesn't hurt if he's kind of a good thinker ;-)... and also a great talker, as he is not paddling that canoe alone (to keep talking in Baden Powell's quotes *g*).
As a German, of course I do not have all the insight in the background of the candidates as you Americans do - but I follow the news quite interested.
Obama seems to be able to do a good job, "scoutwise"... while Hillary seems more as a (without doubt quite skillful & experienced) cub scout's den-mother.

[Richard]

My expectation would be that experience isn't valuable because of the way it contributes to the decision making process. Instead, experience would be important when it comes to trying to act upon that decision. Even The President needs support to get things passed through congress etc....

[Chris]

I would prefer a great thinker over a great talker. But hey. We have a studied physics scientist as a chancellor here... Angela Merkel.
Well...

[David]

Terrible talker.

[rabbi_schulman]

upload the comments, you a-hole.

[theone]

Yeah, I've been wondering about this too. Why is it such a bad thing that Obama doesn't have as much experience as Hillary? It's not like any of the candidates have actually had their fingers on the big red nuclear button before. I think the great presidents, such as Lincoln and FDR were made on the job, not molded on what experiences they had before. (Although those experiences may influence decisions) I will concede that Hillary does have more experience with the Washington politics, which is maybe what people are really talking about. She has more experience fighting the Republicans.

[J]

NO ONE COULD HAVE SAID IT BETTER, AND YET IT SADDENS ME.

[Dr Dodgy]

The only necessary thing for a President other than experience being a great talker, seems experience being a great bullshitter... But then I guess that comes under the same category really doesn't it?

Your friends & family business associates appreciate your experience in handing them contracts without due diligence & proper consultation, but that's hardly necessary, just a perk of the job.

I guess I just woke up feeling cynical today.....

[Ralph]

She might as well try to make the most of her 'experience' since she hasn't got a lot more going for her. She's a little short on like-ability, persuasion, charisma, sense of humor, looks. She was the best candidate the Dems had until a better one came along.

[John Reedy]

Hillary claims to having more experience (apparently she has been president more times?!?) and says we shouldn't vote for the smart guy... hmm... Maybe she really thinks she's already been president.

http://awritersblock.com

[jeff]

I think there's a difference between being a good talker and being a good negotiator. Talking with foreign leaders, trying to sell new foreign policy for example, is the tip of the iceberg. The negotiation that follows is where additional experience and more years holding political office might be helpful.

Being a good talker gets you elected, being a good negotiator helps when in office.

[pete]

It seems to me that a smart guy who can talk would be two huge improvements.

[Nicolás Arturi]

Scott: I'm from Argentina. I'm a great fan of Dilbert, and of this blog. Now, I'm under the impression that you support Obama for the next presidentials. Which is OK with me, because US policy regarding Argentina will be more or less the same.
However, I think that you should be more forward about it. I mean, if You back Obama, way to go! I would if I lived up there too. But this post, I think, critizices Hillary because she said that she had more experience, and I think she's right, though I hope she loses. She might not be experienced in wars or economic crisis, but she is far more expericenced in how to handle herself in the polítical arena.
I don't know if I made myself clear. Hope I did.
great job with this blog. It Is genius!
As we say here, SALUDOS

[Jim]

Being the spouse of the president means very little. Does the president discuss everything with their spouse? I think not.

If my auto mechanic quit working on cars should I ask their spouse to work on it simply because of a marital connection? Of course not. Makes about as much sense to me. Didn't see Hillary at the cabinet meetings; did she have top secret clearance? Was she at the top secret briefings? If no clearance, were laws (treason) broken by divulging top secret information? If she did have clearance, WTF?!!

This "experience" sounds good but it's smoke and mirrors once again.

[The Chief]

"Realistically, is there any other type of experience that is more important for the job of president than learning how to be a great talker?"

How about the ability to receive sexual favours from interns ?

[Andrew Denny]

Older people can be the right people at the right time.

Winston Churchill was 66 when he landed the job that was right for him - which was when Britain was against the wall, in 1940. And of course Reagan was pushing 71 when he was right for the ABC job (Anyone But Carter).

In the old days you couldn't be President if you couldn't walk upstairs to Lincoln's bedroom, but the Americans With Disabilities Act means anyone is entitled to be President these days. Especially with stairlifts (is there a stairlift in the White House?).

Of course, Churchill and Reagan were great talkers too. So was/is Nelson Mandela, elected President at 75.
And Robert Mugabe is well into his eighties, and is apparently a shoo-in for President of Zimbabwe in a few months.

[jerry w.]

A quote that fits (for a change):

No amount of sophistication is going to allay the fact
that all your knowledge is about the past, and all your
decisions are about the future.

Don't know the author, but it goes with the post.

http://boskolives.wordpress.com/

[justme]

my experience is when dad fails to get second term then son attempts a revanche... just to show them not to mess with the famiglia

hmmm maybe the current war started out of experience as well... dad experienced commanding an attack, tells son it feels good, son wants same experience... there ya go

[BuzzB]

I agree Scott. Leaders/Presidents of democratic governments seem to make all their decisions based on the advice of their advisors. The ability to communicate these decisions seems to be the main skill our political leaders need to have.

I think being a despotic leader might require different skills.

[WCE]

The primary characteristic I look for in a president is that he has common sensibilities - i.e., that he reacts to situations in the same way that normal people do.

A hyper-religious fanatic, facing a total nuclear war with a non-Christian foreign power, would tend to regard this as The Apocalypse, as predicted by the Bible as a necessary event preceding The Second Coming of Christ, and would tend to welcome it more than a normal person, who would tend to regard the likelihood of total nuclear annihiliation as something he'd rather avoid.

GWBush, when Governor of Texas, used to visit strip clubs and get drunk (and allegedly snort coke) with the strippers. *Him*, I can identify with, and with a few notable exceptions regarding how he's handled Iraq, I have few complaints.

Of the remaining viable candidates, I figure I trust McCain to have more sensibilities in common with normal people than any of the Ivy League candidates.

I'd vote for you (Scott) if you ran for president, if it weren't for the fact that you're a vegetarian.

I live off fast-food cheeseburgers, myself. I figure each cow yields about 800 pounds of beef, and at a 1/4-pound per day, my karmic debt requires me to improve the world by one cow's worth every 3200 days. That's a standard I make a conscious effort to meet, and I figure I've done OK in that regard so far.

[Chris]

hey, its not like its nucular physics, ok?

[Brian]

Especially with the talker we have right now! :-)

Dead on as usual Scott!

[Kent]

Obama's great talk will be really important when he has to actually state his policies. He has yet to really say anything except he has hope for change. Nothing will matter to any of the candidates until plans and platforms are detailed and then the pounding will begin. Obama and Hillary will both have a tough time convincing votes that socialism is the answer. It's going to get real UGLY!

[Bill Harting]

You missed a key role of the President. Yeah, their role by the Constitution is limited. But, a key job that experience really guides you in is the making of appointments. I'm sure that your ability to tell dangerous snakes from less venomous ones has to increase as you spend more years in the snake pit of Washington DC.

Presidents need to do two key things besides speak well and insprire the country a) choose the people around them well and b) select well from the choices those people present them with. No president picks their own supreme court nominee. Their horde of advisors, flunkys and staff give them a list and you pick from it. Same for cabinet officials.

Experience at the highest levels of government allows you to exercise better judgement in choosing your cronies. It doesn't ensure it, but it improves the odds.

[Lora]

OOh, more political entries. Let the sparks fly!

Second terms: usually things turn to crap. In my limited view of history, which relies more on memory than it should, in order to draw inferences.

I think it's SO funny that people keep saying "Hillary would make a good president because she has experience" and when I ask them "What experience, exactly, does she have that makes her more qualified?" a LOT of them just say, "well, she was married to the president, so she was there, involved & hearing about things."

Oh really, is that all it takes? Well, I was married to a chemist, and I lived with him for more than 10 years. This does not make me qualified to work in a lab. You do NOT want to put me in charge of making your prescription drugs.

You can love her or hate her (and most people fall into one of those extremes), come up with some other basis of "experience" that means something, but let's neither pretend that living in the vicinity of a job is the same as knowing how to do it yourself... nor that having access to someone you can ASK how they did the job is the same as having done it yourself.

[Volker Hetzer]

Hm. Maybe "experience" is campaign speak for "lack of naivete". After Bush ("I looked Mr. Putin into his eye and saw etc.") I'd say, having already played with the big guys is a valuable experience in a job that involves exactly this.
For me, Obama looks like a nice guy that's going to be eaten alive by the likes of Hu Jintao, Ahmadinejad or aforementioned Putin. A tough woman would unsettle them sufficiently to have a chance with them. (Fantasy: a Clinton-Rice team at the top...)

Anyway, Greetings from Germany, land of Angie, the chancelloress...
Volker

[Wise-acres]

Even though i am only 32, i see the value of an older guy in a networking enviroment. At work, I usually see the older guys run circles around the younger guys when it comes to dealing with people in business. The older guys know how to deal with bullies, where as the younger guys dont. They also have more contacts than anyone else. While its true that most young people do most of the work, they have a old guy in the background doing all the networking. Sherryl Crow can sing but she doesnt know jack about promoting and producing an album. She doesnt have to, cause she has some guy who has been working in the field for the last 30 years to do that for her. I do see inventions coming from older people (in there 50's) because they have more credit to startup a company in the first place.
Anyhow, my problems with Obama is that he is a wuss and that i am unfamiliar with him. We are dealing with countries that are playing for keeps. I feel better with someone like hillary or Mc Cain that i am more familiar with than some wish-washy, charlie brown clone.