No Experience Required

Hillary Clinton’s principal weapon against the insurgent campaign of Barack Obama is to tout her experience. She says she would be ready from day one to do the job, implying that Obama would have to learn on the job. Everyone seems to take it as an article of faith that Clinton’s years in the Senate and in the White House have prepared her for the presidency, whereas Obama brings charisma and soaring oratory, but not much substance to the table. Even Obama himself, forced onto the defensive by this charge, has responded firstly, as if it were true, and secondly, as if it mattered.

Does it? Let’s examine the record.

Obama was a community organizer and civil rights attorney in Chicago. He spent 8 years in the Illinois Senate and 3 years in the U.S. Senate, a total of 11 years accountable to voters, which is 4 years more than Clinton. Clinton did spend 8 valuable years in the White House, but after her Health Care initiative was shot down in flames, she was much more reticent, and seemed reluctant to appear to have an active role in policy decisions, although her proximity to power cannot be discounted.

Obama had a solid record in the Illinois state house. He was involved in legislation on sensitive issues such as children’s health care, racial profiling and tax credits for the working poor. In the U.S. Senate he has sponsored legislation on ethics reform, accountability for military contractors and together with Republican Richard Lugar, a bill on securing stocks of conventional weapons.

The last mentioned is worth noting, not because it is less glamorous than dealing with WMD’s, but because it demonstrates an ability to reach across the aisle to get important bills passed, a pattern which was evident in his years in the rough and tumble Illinois legislature. This is not to detract from Clinton, who has had a stellar career in the senate, where she is highly respected by members from both parties, but it does highlight the fact that Obama is not some political neophyte.

When defending himself against charges of inexperience, Obama rightly insists that judgment is more important. After all, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld have more than a half century of experience between them, but as events have shown, it made them a lot older, but not necessarily wiser. Together with George Bush, who had neither experience nor judgment, they led America into a disastrous war, one which Hillary Clinton voted for, and which Barack Obama, as a D.C. outsider in 2002, spoke against, warning, presciently, that it would distract the U.S. from domestic policy, such as the economy, and from more pressing national security policies, such as dealing with Al Qaeda and nuclear non-proliferation.

On Iran, he called for engagement and toning down belligerent rhetoric, while Clinton was encouraging the White House’s bellicose provocation by voting for an amendment declaring the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. The NIE report which stated that Iran had already stopped its nuclear weapons program, proved the wisdom of Obama’s stance. On Pakistan, Obama has consistently questioned the unqualified U.S. support for Pervez Musharraf, who has proved to be neither an effective ally against terrorism, nor a friend of democracy.

Obama was roundly excoriated by the other candidates for saying during an early debate that he would talk to Castro, but based on his record so far, who can say that he is not right on this question as well?

In the end, this race should be decided by ideas and the ability to see them through. Experience is certainly helpful up to a point, but it will be trumped by good judgment and character every time.