It's All About The Experience, Stupid

As the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination continues its sinewy course through the nation, I've been wondering about one of Senator Hillary Clinton's assertions: that she's more qualified than her rival, Senator Barack Obama.

It made me think: what on earth qualifies as experience, then?

I mean, a careful examination of the Senator's professional life finds her CV bereft of any political or world experience, save her term in the United States Senate. That's certainly important, but then, does that qualify one, really, to be president? Aside from the aforementioned term and a year or so in Congress, Mrs. Clinton has been an attorney and a first lady in a smallish state, and then First Lady of the United States. Somehow, perhaps by osmosis, and conversations (or sex) with a president, such good fortune of being a president's wife is counted as experience these days. By that logic, we should be just as comfortable voting for, say, Laura Bush? She was/is a first lady, and has a professional degree. Laura lacks senatorial experience but, uh...close enough, since she's actually seen more of the world during the past eight years than her concrete block-dense husband.

So, would you feel comfy voting for her as president? Probably not. So why, then, would one's best reason to consider Senator Clinton for president be her "experience?"

I do not minimize Mrs. Clinton's substantial intellect, professional accomplishment and personal capability. Those things are not in question, and quite honestly, they would be better platforms on which to run than the ephemeral "experience" plank.

And while I am loathe to mention, let alone quote, George Will of the Washington Post, he makes a good point:

"[Hillary Clinton] is 60. She left Yale Law School at age 25. Evidently she considers everything she has done since school, from her years at Little Rock's Rose Law Firm to her good fortune with cattle futures, as presidentially relevant experience."

Further, Mr. Will points out that in the comparison between the most experienced and inexperienced US presidents (in terms of holding prior office, and exposure on the international stage), James Buchanan, a former ambassador, five-term member of the House of Representatives, and Secretary of State who oversaw the expansion of the nation by a third, in just one term, secured the dubious honor of being ranked as America's worst president -- that is until George W. Bush.

In contrast, an inexperienced, former one-term congressman, and lawyer from Illinois had an easy act to follow. And this president, lacking in political heft, literally held a fractured nation together with oratory skill. Who was that man? One Abraham Lincoln.

Is history repeating itself, at least metaphorically? Might just be.

Seems like Mr. Obama might have history on his side. So perhaps it is the experience that really matters. Too much Washington experience might be bad for any person wanting to be President.