Steve Benen challenges Matt Bai‘s assertion that Barack Obama “would set a new precedent for inexperience in the White House.”
In fact, he believes Obama “fares quite well when compared to his 2008 rivals” and provides this table for years in elected office by next November:
* Obama: 11 years (7 state Senate, 4 U.S. Senate)
* Clinton: 8 years (8 U.S. Senate)
* Edwards: 6 years (6 U.S. Senate)
* Giuliani: 8 years (two, four-year mayoral terms)
* Romney: 4 years (one four-year gubernatorial term)
* McCain: 26 years (4 U.S. House, 22 U.S. Senate)
* Thompson: 8 years (8 U.S. Senate)[…]
Kevin Drum, not too long ago, tallied the number of years of political experience each president since FDR had before he became president (up until Bush): 22, 23, 0, 14, 26, 18, 26, 14, 14, 22, 16. (The zero was Eisenhower.) By this standard, practically all of the major 2008 contenders are relatively inexperienced. (If we include Clinton’s eight years as First Lady, her tally is far more impressive and in line with historical precedent, but I’m inclined not to count it.)
It seems to me that this is a rather silly way to count “experience.” Dwight Eisenhower’s years running an international military coalition, as Army chief of staff, and NATO commander aren’t significant preparation for the presidency? Yet 7 years in the Illinois state senate are? Surely, that’s not reasonable.
Rudy Giuliani clerked for a federal judge and served in various appointed positions in the executive branch, including stints as a U.S. Attorney and Associate Attorney General. I can’t imagine that’s not much more useful preparation for running the executive branch than service in a state legislature. Running the Olympics and a multi-million dollar business, as Romney did, should count for something, I should think, although I’m honestly not sure how much.
And, frankly, I’m very much inclined to include Clinton’s eight years in her husband’s White House. Aside from perhaps the vice presidency, there’s probably not much better vantage point from which to observe the day-to-day responsibilities of the job. While the charge that she was effectively her husband’s “co-president” is exaggerated, she was certainly a key advisor on policy issues.
I’d also disagree with Steve’s assertion that Obama has more relevant experience than the current occupant had when he was elected. It’s true that six years as governor of a state that doesn’t give its governor a lot of power is a rather thin resume. Still, it’s better preparation than four years as a junior senator, two of which were as a member of the minority party.
Generally speaking, legislative experience just isn’t that relevant for executive office. The skill sets are almost entirely without overlap. I don’t consider Thompson and Edwards to have much relevant experience at all. On the other hand, John McCain, Joe Biden, and Chris Dodd have been in the Senate long enough to have chaired major committees and developed substantial policy expertise. How well that translates into executive decision-making, though, is unclear.
The voters seem to share my skepticism: They haven’t elected a Member of Congress to the presidency since John F. Kennedy in 1960 and hadn’t done it before that since Warren Harding in 1920. The vice presidency and large state governorships are much more likely paths to election.
That said, we’re dealing with a very small N. Only 40 men have been president, fewer still in the modern era. I’m not sure we can pinpoint what the best preparation is. We’ve had lousy presidents and good ones who have come up from the vice presidency, the Congress, the cabinet, governorships, and the military. Obama has almost exactly the same political resume as Abraham Lincoln, almost universally considered among the greats and Edwards has about as much experience as John Kennedy. (Insert your own Lloyd Benson joke here.)
