Does Obama's Lack Of Experience Matter?

Back on January 11, 2008 I published a post about how much discussion occurs during every presidential election cycle about the various candidates' experience or lack thereof. Each candidate positions himself or herself as having the best experience. If the candidate happens to be inexperienced, then the person runs as an "outsider."

I've been laughing recently at the attacks on Barack Obama for his lack of experience. As that rabid bulldog of conservatism (that would be Rush Limbaugh) put it the other day, Obama had only 143 work days of experience in the U.S. senate before he formed a presidential exploration committee. The bull...er...Limbaugh compared this to the 26 years in the Senate served by John McCain along with the years of military service that McCain had as well.

So just because Obama had only 143 days of experience as a senator, does this mean he is not a leader? If my memory serves me well, Abraham Lincoln had just one term, only two years, of experience as a U.S. Congressman. He lost a senate race in 1858 to Stephen Douglas, was involved in failed businesses (just like George W. Bush, by the way), and had very limited time in the Illinois state government. Yet he went on to become a brilliant leader who saw our nation through its greatest crisis.

As I posted back in January, political experience is no predictor of presidential success or failure. Some of our most experienced politicians have been failures as presidents (John Quincy Adams and James Buchanan) while some of the least experienced have gone on to greatness.

Don't fall for false arguments!