Dish in a Box

O, You Didn’t Know: Experience Edition.

I’m starting a new series today.  It’s called, as you can tell from the title, “O, You Didn’t Know.”  Here’s the premise:  There’s been a lot made of Barack Obama’s campaign.  While Senator Obama gets a lot of great press, there are many misconceptions and gross inaccuracies attached to both him and his campaign.  Through these pieces, some short, some long, ok, let’s be honest, most long, I’ll do my best to dispel these misconceptions.  With that, I’ll hope to sway you to the side of the greatest grass-roots political movement seen in our country since Bobby Kennedy.  Today, I’ll tackle the greatest misconception that is most often attached to Senator Obama: Barack Obama is not experienced enough to be President. 

When trying to discredit a political candidate, experience is an easy target.  Your argument is  backed up by something that can not be argued against: Time.  The facts are these:

• Barack Obama served in the Illinois State Senate from  1996-2004, when he resigned his post after being elected to the United State Senate.
• In 2004, Senator Obama was elected to the US Senate, where he has served since.

For those of you scoring at home, he served eight years in a state with the third largest city in the United States, and has served for three years as a United States Senator.  1996-2008.  That’s twelve years of political experience.  Yes, only since January, 2005 has it been on a national level, but this is hardly an issue.

Large cities are microcosms of our country.  Every class is represented.  Every problem that faces this nation is faced by a large city like New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago.  Media coverage is no different than it is in Washington, DC.  Coverage is abundant and multi-sided, while most issues are analyzed to the most intricate detail.  A politician in Chicago faces the same scrutiny he would in Washington DC, Paris, Berlin, and London.   I ask you then, how is it that Senator Obama’s experience is an issue?  What amount of experience is acceptable, if twelve years is not?

For Republicans who say that he is inexperienced I have one name for you: Ronald Reagan.  Reagan had never held political office in his life and was elected Governor of California.  He was elected based mainly on his Holllywood fame and on his “Time for Choosing” speech.  Reagan served eight years as governor of California.  He had never held elected office before that.  Upon being elected President after two failed attempts, he served as President for eight years.  Before being elected President, he had never held a federally elected office.  He had only served the state of California for eight years.  In 1980 he was elected President of the United States.  After serving eight years as President, Ronald Reagan had ammassed 16 years of experience as an elected official.  If, God willing, Senator Obama is elected, if he were to serve two terms, he will have served 20 years as an elected official.

Republican retort to that last paragraph will usually include something like this: A governor is essentially the president of a state, so experience as a governor is very much like experience as a president, and much more valuable than the experience of a Senator.  I’m not arguing that a governor has a presidential type of experience.  But experience in the United States Senate is at least as valuable, if not more valuable that experience as a governor.  Inside the walls of Washington DC, Senators face issues every day that concern a nation both domestic and foreign.  A governor only faces state issues.  While a governor may travel to foreign contries as a representative of our country, they are doing it as just that: a representative, or figurehead.  They, out of their own state, have no power to make  decisions.  Only to talk to whoever they’re there to talk to, and report back to whomever it is they’re reporting to.  A Senator, because he/she needs support of his/her colleagues, needs to be able to argue and persuade others to see the value in their ideas.  Is this not the same as what a governor does when he/she presents a bill to the state legislature?

Democrats supporting Senator Hillary Clinton have also cited Senator Obama’s experience as an issue.  I can do nothing but laugh at this, as their main argument is something along the lines of: Hillary Clinton was essentially President from 1992-2000.  This is so far from the truth it’s ridiculous.  The First Lady, while often sent out as a figurehead of our country, is never deep in the trenches like the President is.  She is often out cutting ribbons, reading books to school children, and speaking to people about drugs, literacy, and health care, while never being able to do anything about any of those things, other than try to get the ear of her husband.  If you don’t count her years as First Lady, which most people do not, Hillary Clinton has  served eight years in the US Senate.  However, the means by which she served them is something I would strongly consider as a voter.

For all that has been made of President Bill Clilnton’s character (I for one was, and still am a huge fan of President Clinton),  Hillary’s should be taken into serious consideration as well.  You need look no further than her run for New Yorks Senate seat in 2000 to see her true character.  About to leave the White House after eight years as First Lady, Hillary did some perusing of the landscape.  Clearly thinking about a run of her own for the Oval Office one day, Hillary set her sites on an open senate seat that could catipult her into the national spotlight.  She found that seat in New York.  Having never lived a day of her life in New York, Hillary and Bill bought a house in Chappaqua, and the campaign was on.  Doesn’t this make her a carpetbagger?  Is this the type of person you want serving you as President?  Someone who has no care whatsoever for the people that she serves, other than to serve the people who will best further her career?

I don’t mean to bring up a sore subject, but Hillary Clinton is also a woman who “stood by her man” through two affairs.  Those two affairs are the public ones.  Who’s to say how many more times he’s cheated on her?  Furthermore, isn’t it a bit conspicuous that Hillary stayed with him?  After all, he was President.  By her side, he can stump for her, he can support her, and he can possibly get her elected.  Again, Hillary Clinton made a decision based on what would be best for his career.  To her, love does not matter here.  All that matters is her agenda.  Much like Ronald Reagan chose his career over his marital vows (surprising for someone of such deep moral fiber, isn’t it?) when he divorced Jane Wyman, Hillary chose her career by staying with President Clinton.

In November, we all have a choice to make.  George W Bush will have no way of staying in the White House.  He’s going to have to leave come January 20th, 2009.  We can kick W out but keep his policies in place by voting for John McCain.  We can kick W out but leave special interests and hidden agendas in by voting for Hillary.  Or we can vote for the one presidential candidate who will change Washington for the better, Senator Barack Obama.

The pundits like to slice-and-dice our country into Red States and Blue States; Red States for Republicans, Blue States for Democrats. But I’ve got news for them, too. We worship an awesome God in the Blue States, and we don’t like federal agents poking around our libraries in the Red States. We coach Little League in the Blue States and have gay friends in the Red States. There are patriots who opposed the war in Iraq and patriots who supported it. We are one people, all of us pledging allegiance to the stars and stripes, all of us defending the United States of America.  -Senator Barack Obama