Experience that Counts

As Senator Obama surges in Iowa, we are told that the split among the voters is about a supposed struggle between "experience" - in which case they are told Hillary Clinton is their candidate - or change, in which case Obama is the one they are looking for. This is no surprise as the American political discourse has grown to be bipolar in the sense that each time there is a debate between rivals or ideas, we are told that the debate is about a supposed struggle between two dumbed-down simple choices, both of which are equally important, each rival has a legitimate claim on one of the two factors, and hence the selection process presents a balanced trade-off. We saw an example of such neat choices presented at a recent democratic debate where Wolf Blitzer tried to force candidates to choose between idealism or realism, human rights or civil liberties, and economic growth or renewable energy with the false underlying assumption that we have to give up one to obtain the other. But a thorough analysis of the change v. experience debate shows that on both factors, Obama is simply a better candidate than Hillary Clinton.

Starting with experience, we are told that experience is one of the only two factors that matter in this election, and Hillary Clinton is the one with the most legitimate claim on that factor. And yet, very few are asking what kind of experience counts as relevant or why is experience even important. If experience is about who is the oldest, then Paul and Gravel are the most experienced. If experience is about who has been in public office longer, Senator Obama has in fact been in public office six years longer than Senator Clinton. It is true that she has been the spouse of an elected politician longer than everyone else, but since when do we count being a first lady as policy experience? Does Laura Bush have more experience now than Bill Clinton did when he became president? And while Hillary was assigned to undertake a few tasks in the 90s, the most important one of which was to bring about universal healthcare, she failed, even though the democrats controlled not only the White House but also both the House and the Senate. Furthermore, it was in part her divisiveness that energized the republicans to take control of the House and Senate in 1994.

Despite the fact that there is no definition for experience that would make Hillary the one with the most of it in this election, she has also failed to articulate why "experience" matters. Experience only counts when it leads to sound judgment. Before Cheney became Vice President, he had already served in three presidential administrations and the House of Representatives. Similarly, the beginning of Rumsfeld's public experience dates back to 1954. And yet, experience did not lead either one to develop the sound judgment necessary to refrain from pushing for the Iraq war. Similarly, regardless of how one defines experience, Hillary's didn't lead her to have the judgment to oppose the war, although if she had read the National Intelligence Estimate before her vote - which she did not - she would have seen that there was no evidence that Saddam possessed WMDs. In fact, when voting for the war resolution, she stated on the Senate floor that "my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience ... in the White House." Not only being the first lady cannot possibly be considered relevant experience, her "experience" also didn't stop her from voting for another hawkish resolution on Iran, which calls its army terrorist, without understanding the impact of that vote on the pro-western democracy movement within Iran. We are looking for a leader who can reach out and start serious diplomatic efforts with non-friendly leaders. But by voting for the legislation, Senator Clinton has managed to squander the possibility of ever having a chance of being taken seriously in diplomacy with the Iranian regime. They saw how she voted.

Finally, the main flaw in the argument of those who support Hillary for "experience" is that they act as if the nation is like a bus and we are looking for a driver, or presidency is an assembly line job for which one needs technical "on the job training." The fact is that the presidency is not a one-person job. Every president has an extensive team of experts on various matters and president, his cabinet and hundreds of policy advisors make policies together and in collaboration with Congress. In that sense, the main role of the president is to chart a course and set a vision, which requires more understanding and sound judgment than length of experience or some technical training.

For one, Obama has served in public office longer than Hillary Clinton or John Edwards. In addition, as opposed to Clinton's experience, Obama's led him to sound judgment. During his time in the Illinois Senate, he led democrats and republicans to pass the most important ethics reform in more than twenty-five years. And it was his experience that led him to strongly oppose the Iraq war from the start - again as opposed to Edwards or Clinton - even though it was a very risky and unpopular position to take and one that even Bill Clinton didn't support despite his eight years of experience as president. Obama's experience led him in 2002 to do what was right and express his view on Iraq that "I don't oppose war in all circumstances... but what I do oppose is a dumb war."

But despite Senator Clinton's limited - and failing - policy experience, she recently had the audacity to criticize Senator Obama for saying that his most important foreign policy experience was his life for four years in Indonesia. The whole value of foreign policy experience is not rooted in the number of Saudi Kings or Musharrafs one has held hands with, but ultimately, an extensive knowledge of how we are viewed around the world through the eyes of other peoples. Senator Clinton's experience in foreign policy was limited to flying to countries, getting picked up at airports and dining with officials in mansions, none of which involved meaningful contact with ordinary people and development of a thorough understanding of the cultures in those countries.

But not only has Senator Obama had extensive diplomatic experience, he also lived in Indonesia.

Most people underestimate the tremendous value that such experience will have for our next president. There are a lot of people within the State Department who are considered Iran policy "experts," but most of them have never been to Iran. While they may understand the general political structure in Iran, through my seventeen years of life in Tehran, I learned things about the Iranian society that no experts could have learned by talking to a high level Iranian leader. For instance, I learned about the nature of oppression within Iran when I saw my all-boys elementary school officials round up kids whose hair was longer than an inch and shave a "+" sign on their head as punishment for having been influenced by western culture, boys (including myself) and girls get arrested for being on a date out of marriage and religious police tell women to wipe off their make-up or cover their hair and round up those who do not comply. I also learned about the way in which teachers were forced to teach anti-American propaganda in schools. Obama has had a similar inside look at the way in which one's view toward the United States develops in Indonesia - a country with the largest Muslim population in the world - and that experience will lead him to be conscious of the impact of our foreign policy on America's image abroad.

There are other flaws in looking at the election as an isolated battle between change and experience. One is that as the most recent Washington Post/ABC news poll showed, change and new direction are simply more important to Iowans (55%) than conventional experience (33%). Another driving factor is the fact that Clinton currently is going through the cycle with the highest negative (people who say they would never vote for her) than any other candidate, and this makes her not only the most polarizing but also the one who is likely to energize the republicans the most to come out to defeat her or take back Congress. These two factors are also why in the same poll, Obama is tied with Clinton among women in Iowa, but winning independents by a margin of 2-to-1 and men by a margin of 1.5-to-1, has pulled ahead of Clinton for the first time by 3% according to Des Moines Register's new Iowa Poll and is likely to defeat all of the republicans candidates nationally according to the recent Zogby poll while Senator Clinton is trailing behind five of those republicans.

A review all of all of these factors - as opposed to just change and non-defined "experience" - should lead us to reach one conclusion, and that is the fact that Obama is simply the best choice for our party and the country, both in terms of the value of his experience and his electability.

Follow Sam Sedaei on Twitter: www.twitter.com/SamSedaei

Comments

[LizM]

Sam,

You really must check out a post from one of your fellow Huffington Post bloggers and then report back to all of us on your thoughts about who should be the next POTUS...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-biden/meeting-the-iranian-chall_b_75628.html

[LizM]

Senator Biden gave a major policy address on Iran yesterday - Meeting The Iranian Challenge - and I would be interested in hearing what everyone thinks about his strategic thinking on this issue.

He focused on two key questions concerning what US foreign policy should be toward Iran. He talked about whether war with Iran is inevitable and how to avoid an Iran armed with nuclear weapons:

http://www.joebiden.com/getinformed/speeches?id=0091

[Tellmethetruth]

When it comes to experience it is not about Obama vs Clinton as much as Obama's supporters would love this to be the case.

You simply cannot match Joe Biden's 35 experience against Obama's 2 years of experience in the Senate. I suggest everyone check out Joe Biden' Senate website and see for yourself the hundreds of bills and legistlation Biden has authored or co-authored, major legisltation that made this country a better place to live in, especially for women, single mothers (Biden was a single dad for two small children after his first wife was killed), in the area of crimes, Supreme Court appointments, the environment, and health care. He has authored more legistlation than anyone in Congress with the exception of Ted Kennedy who has 45 years in Congress. Biden is the second most powerful Senator and one whom heads of state regularly call him, and as Biden mentioned yesterday - the pity is none of these heads of states no longer bother to call George Bush.

In a mere two years in the Senate - none of this is happening to Obama.

[DMSmith]

The ordinary people you suggest she has not met with are not the ones running the world and with whom she will need to work as President. The people she met with WILL be running it.

She actually DOES have that experience.

[MRb1000]

This is the best blog I seen about the differences in the candidates. Hillary is going down. She now attacking Obama about a letter he wrote when he was in grade school K-6. How low can you go( 6 months old to 4 years old)!! She is grasping for straws.

[MRb1000]

She is attacking him about when he was in grade school he wrote a paper saying he wanted to be President of United States. We all could have wrote this same letter when we were younger!!! This is silly and petty. She is going down. Going far back to grade school to attack someone is funny. This show how strong Barrack Obama is!!!!!!!!

[nyboomer]

If actual foreign policy experience counted for anything at all in the electorate's minds, would GW Bush be in office today? Not bloody likely.

I sugest that Hillary has forgotten more about every subject than Bush ever knew. (I except sports statistics which may be vital to a president's standing in the world arenas.)

[StephenDedalus82]

Karl Rove was right... Obama hitting Clinton on experience was a mistake since he holds the weaker hand on that issue. Whatever experience the American public thinks is necessary for a president to have prior to holding this unique and supreme post, they generally agree that Clinton's time in the White House and governor's mansion counts as real experience. Being so close to the man in the job doesn't count for nothing.

The only qualifications for president involve age and citizenship status. Any questions on the necessity of experience are up for the voters to decide. I just don't think many people see Hillary Clinton as inexperien­ced--she's been on the scene for decades--at least not when compared with the relative newcomer Obama.

[altohone]

Thanks Sam.

[GuiltyByStander]

Several recent blogs that compare Senators Clinton and Obama with respect to experience are remarkably long and unconvincing. That's because arguing that either one of them has significant experience is really difficult. It's difficult because they don't.

Sam, I respect your choice of Obama -- I chose him myself before I heard Joe Biden speak -- but you are trapped in a myth.

The myth is that there are two people running for president and we have to choose one of them. This election is messy and demands that voters read and research. It was not set up for the convenience of the broadcast media who are best equipped to report everything as a two-sided competition.

We are still pre-Iowa. Don't forget who the media had anointed in 2004 at this point in the process. Oh, did you forget? Well, it wasn't the nominee.

If experience matters to us -- and it may not -- then let's compare the "front-runners" to Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Richardson. If foreign policy credentials are important to you, let's look at them point by point.

Here's a telling quote from you piece:
"We are looking for a leader who can reach out and start serious diplomatic efforts with non-friendly leaders."

Yes, Obama was right to make this point. Now tell me why Musharraf, Bhutto, Olmert all called Joe Biden rather than Barak Obama or Hilary Clinton. Biden has been having these friendly and unfriendly conversations with world leaders, good and bad, for decades. If you don't think that's important now for this hobbled country, then fine, vote for either one of the junior senators. But don't be blinded by the mythology of Clinton vs. Obama.

[YankeeCanuck]

There are more than two candidates. In 04, at this time Dean and Gephardt were the "frontrunners".

[RealBlackGirl]

This is one of the smartest articles I have read in a while. Will you please do all the Sunday shows and try to provide some common sense to the conversation.

[LeeFromVA]

Sam you are absolutely correct. And Hillary's latest attempt to paint Obama as having character flaws will definitely backfire on her. People naturally trust him and distrust her. Her attacks come across as desparate, and they probably are. She's not stupid, she knows that if Obama wins in Iowa then her whole campaign begins to unravel. I must say I'm surprised. I really thought she could run a campaign like an expert, but she is looking like an amatuer. Classic mistakes. Painting herself as inevitable? Criticising Obama's experience when hers is questionable? Complaining about mudslinging and then attacking him personally? What is she thinking? I almost feel sorry for her. She's wanted this more than anything and she won't even be the Democratic nominee. That's bad for her, but great for America.

[mouselion]

Sam, this is a very well articulated argument for Barack Obama. We're so into the dichotomy of everything, that humans have to constantly remind ourselves to get out of the black-and-white color mode, and at least get into grayscale, if not into color.

Beyond this, I have to say that one thing we need to see about Obama is that he is (or is portray as) a consensus builder. This is exemplified by his work in the Illinois senate on ethics reform. Also, in truth, so did his decision to have an anti-gay evangelical on stage in his panel of 'notable' supporters, and to insist that it was the thing to do in the face of criticism (notice the people who were in an uproar about this no longer seem to care and are back to being die-hard supporters).

This is important because, as you state, "...the main role of the president is to chart a course and set a vision, which requires more understanding and sound judgment than length of experience or some technical training."­Any president elected will have to manage a cabinet with diverse viewpoints, expertise and experience.

[lgillooly]

I personally think Biden has the record for experience and judgement.
Why do we keep saying they voted for the War. That is completely untrue. The vote was to 1.Show a united US when the Prz went before the UN and 2. Authority to use force AS A LAST RESORT.
The wrong judgement was believing the President.