Experience As A Political Weapon

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 02:55:36 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Whether fair or not, whether ultimately effective or not, if Barack Obama is the nominee, John McCain will call him inexperienced. That it has had limited effectiveness for Hillary Clinton does not mean it will not work for McCain. Obama's Media Darling status is critical here. Kevin Drum explains:

[T]he problem with Obama isn't that he's less experienced than Hillary, but that he's inexperienced, full stop. And again, like it or not, John McCain will certainly use that as an argument in the general election campaign in a way he couldn't against Hillary. Sure, he's got 25 years to her 15, but that doesn't matter. Beyond a certain point voters aren't interested in who's got more experience, and 15 years is well beyond that point. If McCain tried to paint Hillary as inexperienced, it would be a waste of breath. Nobody would buy it.

When I decided to vote for Obama in the primary I said I had decided it was worth it to roll the dice. But make no mistake: there really is a roll of the dice here. The American public hasn't elected someone with as little big-time experience as Obama in the past century (though we've come close with Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush). I don't think that will keep him from winning in November, but it's pretty clearly a real issue.

Yep.

< NAFTA Is Not Evil | Reagan's Strategy: Pick a VP Candidate Early >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Experience As A Political Weapon | 80 comments (80 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

And Obama should replay... (none / 0) (#1)
by Dadler on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:01:38 PM EST

...Well, certainly, my experience isn't engaging in highly unethical conduct like he did during Keating and at other times (mention in detail), or talking about being against torture then supporting it, or being a thug well known for trying to physically intimidate his colleagues, or claiming that the civilian controlled military now at war should be under the control of one man, David Petraeus (which is, in effect, what he has said), or, or, or...

McCain is an easy target, as long as we're willing to treat him as he deserves to be treated. He is a bully, who deserves to be bullied back and hard. McCain's psychological problems are going to be fairly easy to bring to the surface: challenge him time and time again in a very unpleasant manner. In other words, if he is the Dem nominee, then Obama better stop being the uniter and start being the fighther, because he is going to have to, whether he likes it or not. Whether he can be a SMART fighter is another question.

Only one question (none / 0) (#2)
by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:05:18 PM EST

and I don't necessarily disagree with you.
But who do you think is the bigger media darling Obama or McCain?


I don't see Obama bringing up (none / 0) (#22)
by oculus on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:47:47 PM EST

McCain's connection to Keating 5. (1) As I learned recently in NYT article, McCain was never convicted of anything in regard to Keating 5 and he has stated it was a case of poor judgment, (2) Keating 5 is to McCain as Rezko is to Obama.


: One major difference (none / 0) (#27)
by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:52:21 PM EST

is that Keating 5 has been adjudicated while the Rezko matter is pending. Obama going there would be almost as stupid as attacking McCain for the rest of his lifetime of service.
Go ahead, personally attack someone who is an acknowledged American hero with a life story out of a movie script. I can't think of a better way to guarantee a McCain landslide.

What will matter (none / 0) (#3)
by mg7505 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:07:48 PM EST

more than McCain's attacks is whether the media buys into the Right's hate-mongering. I'm not an Obama supporter, but no one deserves the kind of treatment he (or Hillary) will likely get. I was completely baffled when they did everything possible to help Bush win in 2000 and 2004. The way they have treated Clinton is also appalling. One could argue that NBC, more specifically Chris Matthews, is responsible for the past 8 years of backwardness.

: As I said (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:35:13 PM EST

Obama's Media Darling status is critical here.

Experience vs. Change (none / 0) (#4)
by Korha on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:17:49 PM EST

I'm perfectly happy to have that fight.

Could you be more specific? (none / 0) (#7)
by ding7777 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:31:16 PM EST

What is Obama going to change?


he'll try to make the same (none / 0) (#8)
by Jeralyn on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:33:06 PM EST

changes Hillary would. The question is which candidate has the better chance of effecting change?


: Theories of Change (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:34:44 PM EST

is a big issue. But candidate reception by the Media is a bigger one.

Fair enough (none / 0) (#12)
by spit on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:35:07 PM EST

but it's a tougher one in the general than it is in the primary.

FWIW, I think we are very likely to win that one, but I think it's something that is going to get pounded a lot, and I don't think it's going to be quite as simple to defuse in the general as a lot of people seem to.


Yep (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:35:52 PM EST

Obama will not ber running against Clinton in the General.

Different world altogether.


To be fair (none / 0) (#18)
by Korha on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:39:40 PM EST

Clinton is also going to run on the change narrative against McCain as well.


It's true (none / 0) (#25)
by spit on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:52:01 PM EST

and I expect it to be a good tactic, but I don't think it's a slam dunk for either of them. Against Obama, the right will try to change it from "change vs. experience" to "inexperience vs. experience", and the question is how successfully they will manage that shift -- I suspect it won't work for them on domestic policy, but it likely will to a degree on foreign policy.

Against Clinton, they'll take a different path, since she's harder to bill as "inexperienced". I'm not saying it'll be an easier one for us to deal with.


fifteen years??? (none / 0) (#78)
by diogenes on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:16:13 PM EST

You can't give Hillary credit for fifteen years until the Clintons release the White House records/appointment logs/etc. As it is she is trying to dodge what may or may not have happened with NAFTA. Strange how Al Gore, how was there at the time, hasn't appeared to clarify this.


: Not really the point (none / 0) (#79)
by spit on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 09:43:27 PM EST

it simply won't work in campaigning. Most of the public has been aware of what Hillary Clinton has been up to, well enough to think of her as "experienced", since '92 or just before. She will not be effectively painted as "inexperienced", regardless of the merits (which I find lacking, to be clear -- she was a very active first lady, and took hell for it).
I doubt the right would even try that route.

I liked (none / 0) (#5)
by Mystic55 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:25:45 PM EST

McCain a lot in 2000. He said a lot of things I liked.

McCain in 2008 is a symbol of everything I do NOT like in Washington now.

I think Obama's statement that he won't run again because Washington changes you is accurate. McCain's experience can be used against him, just as much as the enthusiasm Obama supporters have is being used against Obama now.

The key difference is, that all Obama has to do is play commercials wherein McCain fights McCain. He wouldn't even have to say ANYTHING.

Media will determine that (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:33:59 PM EST

The battle is for the Media it seems to me.


Obama also promised (none / 0) (#10)
by ivs814 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:34:23 PM EST

his constituents he wouldn't run for president. It took him less than one year to break that promise. Obama is the master flip-flopper. The biggest difference is the velocity of his flips and how far he will flop as a consequence.


Yeh, too true -- and I know (none / 0) (#19)
by Cream City on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:40:53 PM EST

some Illinois relatives still ticked about that promise so swiftly broken. First thing they say about Obama, before going on about so many missed votes since. So they also say they give little weight to Michelle Obama's threat that this is his last run for the White House.


Nonetheless, Obama got (none / 0) (#28)
by mg7505 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:53:46 PM EST

major major support from Illinois voters in the primary. The Republicans would need a whole new narrative (Obama=ambitious/phony) to make that charge effective in other states.


that's because the Hillary campaign and the (none / 0) (#33)
by Florida Resident on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:59:22 PM EST

press did not bring out issues as this Link. The Republicans are not as nice and the MSM will jump on their bandwagon for sure.
So if Obama wins the nomination he better get ready for a lot of stuff coming out to light and that's not even taking into account the smears that will come out.


Nonetheless.... (none / 0) (#36)
by ivs814 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:03:14 PM EST

It's always interesting to see how dismissive Obama fans are when their candidate's hypocrisy is highlighted. You point out that he said he will not stay in D.C. because it changes you and then when I point out that he lied about not running for the presidency, you ignore that. He is a flip-flopper and a liar and McCain with not hesitate to swat him down to size.


Flip Flopping (none / 0) (#42)
by Mystic55 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:12:29 PM EST

Is a term Democrats shouldn't use, because the ability to change your mind is a good thing.

Showing CONSISTENT chameleon like qualities is one thing, ala Romney, (or...for that matter, at this point, McCain (torture, bush, taxes etc). But changing your mind on a few things quite frankly is a GOOD sign of judgment.

If you make a stupid promise, you should not be held to it if it will cause significant harm. If Obama really believes that he would make a good president (and I think he would) then for him not to take the chance is stupid on his part.

"No new taxes" is a stupid promise to make if it means having the country fall apart. Perhaps one of the few good decisions H.W. made.

So we don't stress when people say "Obama said this and then did this" because, quite frankly, 'flip flopping' is a charge made by Republicans against Kerry.

And, quite frankly, Hillary has changed her mind many many times.


: the problem with this rationalization is... (none / 0) (#81)
by tree on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 10:38:40 PM EST

"If you make a stupid promise, you should not be held to it if it will cause significant harm. If Obama really believes that he would make a good president (and I think he would) then for him not to take the chance is stupid on his part."
...that you've then admitted that he made a stupid promise to begin with. A promise that you think it is smart to break. Then the question becomes, what is he saying now that he (or you) will later claim was a "stupid promise"? Then, can we trust anything he says now? Or will it deemed "stupid" later on and so easily cast aside? Why, then should anyone take any of his promises at face value, since they are so malleable?
And a secong point is that I'm sure that promising not to run for President so shortly after running for Senate was NOT a stupid thing to do in terms of winning a Senate seat. Voters want to believe that you'll stick around and really represent them, rather than using your office as a quick stepping stone to higher aspirations. So its only a "stupid promise" in retrospect, since he obviously was using it as a stepping stone, and was willing to lie about his promise. If he's willing t lie to the Illinois voters, why should we think that he's not willing to lie to all voters? He didn't change his mind on an important issue after much reflective thought over the pros and cons. He decided that he didn't have to keep a promise that helped him get elected in the first place. Spin away if you want, but his problem on this is much bigger than merely being a flip-flopper. It goes to trust and character.
What is the "significant harm" (other than to his ambition and ego?) for him to have honored his promise? Edwards was more progressive and had the better polling against Republicans, Clinton's positions are not that different from his, although they are marginally more progressive.

I think experience will count (none / 0) (#6)
by BarnBabe on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:26:56 PM EST

It is like going to med school. Do you know it all in 2 years or are you a better doctor in 6? I don't think the lobbying thing will kill McCains chances. Most people really don't care how you get the job done as long as it is done. They know you play games. It is politics. Progressives want to win against the DC establishments. There is such hatred against the DLC,etc and so they like Obama because he is new and Hillary is part of the current establishment. I have been around too long to know that experience counts. My first vote was for Carter. I voted for Gore. I knew GW had really no experience but I thought when he got in that maybe he wouldn't do too much damage because he had intelligent people around him. I had no choice. The Supreme Court had intervened on his behalf. Well those intelligent people around him got us into a heap of do do. I think Obama is an asset to the Democratic Party but I am concerned with his being 2 years in DC. I think he would make a better President with more time there. I think experience means something vs on the job training.

The Hillary clip that dkosers are hyperventilating (none / 0) (#15)
by andgarden on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:38:38 PM EST

over seems relevant to me.

: LEt's not touch that right now (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:05:17 PM EST

The sexism in the daily kos community is simply repulsive.

Experience is vastly overrated (none / 0) (#16)
by Tano on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:38:52 PM EST

as a quality that the people look for.

Nixon was more experienced than Kennedy, Ford more than Carter, Bush Sr. more than Clinton, Gore more than Bush Jr. And considerably so.

The American people have quite the warm spot for the notion of the outsider (seen as one of them) marching off to DC to clean out the stables. Mr. Smith goes to Washington, and all that. Its a deeply resonant theme in the American psyche.

And it is probably in play even more so this year, when the usual feelings of disgust with Washington games is at a fever pitch.

The experience argument fell flat for Hillary for a reason. The people are simply not in the mood for a candidate who can demonstrate a lot of Washington experience. The place is rather toxic in their mind. They are looking for a "new deal" from their politics, and being a veteran of the established order is just not appealing.

An assurance of competence is, however, important. So yes, Obama will be scrutinized for hints of political incompetence. But he seems to have performed well in the jobs he has had, and as a poltiical leader - if you look at the campaign he has run - he comes off as brilliantly competent.

Perhaps (none / 0) (#21)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:46:41 PM EST

Kennedy was a 2 term Senator and was a Congressman for 6 years before that.

HE barely won BTW.

Carter is one that will be used against Obama. After Watergate too. YOu think it helps your argument but Ford v. Carter is an interesting experiment if you think about it.

He was the ultimate change candidate and had a strong base on the South. Barely won.

Gore won the popular vote.

I think you thesis is flawed and your evidence actually troubling for an Obama candidacy.


if experinece were an important criterion (none / 0) (#31)
by Tano on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 03:57:16 PM EST

then Joe Biden would be our nominee.
Or Bill Richardson.
Or Chris Dodd.
Then maybe Hillary.
Or even Dennis Kucinich. He along with Richardson, actually held an executive position.

Unless you think that the Democratic electorate, polluted with all those independents and a few Republicans, is somehow in a totally different mindset that the general population, then it seems hard to understand why one wouldnt draw the conclusions that I do from this primary season.


The democratic electorate (none / 0) (#34)
by spit on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:01:36 PM EST

is not representative of the voting population as a whole. That's indisputable.

The independent and republican crossover votes are hard to gauge right now in terms of what they'll do in November after the campaigning for the general really gets underway. I'm not saying they'll all disappear, I'm saying it's hard to predict right now.

Primary election politics are very different from general election politics, and always have been. If you don't believe that, then I'm just not sure what else to say.


NO (none / 0) (#37)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:04:34 PM EST

Clinton was perceived, inaccurately, as the most expereinced.


by whom? (none / 0) (#41)
by Tano on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:09:11 PM EST

I don't agree with that. She made it the basis of her campaign, so she was loudly proclaiming it.

But anyone paying attention could obviously see that the others were more experienced.


: Paying attention is the key :-) (none / 0) (#43)
by RalphB on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:12:52 PM EST

: The voters (none / 0) (#44)
by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:12:56 PM EST

Check the polling.
Sorry, every thing is NOT determined by YOUR, or my, perception.

I disagree (none / 0) (#68)
by MichaelGale on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:50:35 PM EST

Clinton had experience and any woman who has worked her way up will tell you that. Women over 40 did not start at the top. We worked from the beginning. Take a look at her biography, see any experience there?

What is it you want in order to classify her as having experience?

I think you are discounting a life working in public service and many successes in researching, law, child protection, criminal justice, political action and that was before Bill Clinton. And she is a mother who raised a responsible and successful chld in spite of Bill Clinton.

JHC!


You overstate your case (none / 0) (#56)
by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:26:47 PM EST

Ignoring who was perceived as most experienced, it is incorrect to state that since Joe Biden is not the nominee, then experience is not "an important criterion." It only implies that it's not the only important criterion.

Voters in the Fall are a different makeup than voters in the Spring, obviously, and may tilt in a different direction on the relative importance of experience versus a fresh face.

Finally, the Bush administration is widely seen as incompetent. That means people are ready for change, yes, but they also want to know that the person who gets in can actually manage the job. I think McCain will hit hard on Obama on the experience issue, and I think we can count on a couple of orange alerts in September and October just to nudge the public along.


not sure its overstated (none / 0) (#67)
by Tano on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 04:50:03 PM EST

Given the way Biden, Richardson and Dodd performed, it is not unreasonable to conclude that experience counted for nothing at all.

I agree that McCain will hit hard on the issue, but I just don't think it will be much of a major factor.

The reappearance of the color alerts, after all this time, would, I think, be taken as a hilarious joke by everyone.


: Hopefully you're correct (none / 0) (#71)
by Democratic Cat on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:02:05 PM EST

You have more faith than I do that people will refuse to be manipulated. I hope you are correct on this one!
Here's another one I heard from inside the McCain camp-- Barack Obama: more liberal than the Socialists. (Because of his liberal senator rating compared to Bernie Sanders'.) Now, if Sen. Obama were actually liberal, this would make me laugh a little more than it did.

: One reason the (none / 0) (#72)
by mg7505 on Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 05:32:03 PM EST

Experienced Crew (Biden/Dodd/Richardson) did not perform well was because Hillary was already viewed as a frontrunner, so they had one person in the "experience" role. Obama was the only antagonist, so he got cast opposite her. Say what you will, but the media, combined with celebrity status, determined what the ultimate showdown would be. That said, Edwards and Kucinich should be commended for staying in the race so long.

topic of change is interesting. (