That Experience Thing
It's good to have, but I don't think it's that essential. I've known plenty of people who had impeccible credentials, the right training, years of experience, and all that, and just weren't that good at their jobs. It could be a lack of people skills, lack of work ethic, lack of flexibility, or whatever, but something was far more important than their experience. Conversely, I've seen many people start jobs with little to no experience in the given field but who had good people skills, work ethic, etc. and excelled (myself included--I took over a high school media center with no library experience or degree and moved into youth services with no early childhood training). Personality, intelligence, character, skills, values, and the way you approach decision making and problem solving are all more essential than experience.
And if we're talking politics, I think experience can even be a negative. Yes, it helps to have connections and know how things work, but a lot of what happens is part of a huge political machine that needs to be changed. Too many years as part of that machine can leave a person too entrenched in all of the dealings and inner workings to be able to effectively bring about change. I think we need some fresh approaches.
The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to being ranked as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow. link
posted by Degolar @ 9:09 PM
6 Comments:
. . . The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.
The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. Obama’s organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3.
In the last battleground, Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign was six days behind Mr. Obama in putting up ads and had only four campaign offices to his 11. Even as Mrs. Clinton clings to her latest firewall — the March 4 contests — she is still being outhustled. Last week she told reporters that she “had no idea” that the Texas primary system was “so bizarre” (it’s a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had “people trying to understand it as we speak.” Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama’s people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn’t file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.
This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid. . . .
The Audacity of Hopelessness
Wow, you've really drank the Obama Kool-Aid haven't you?
drunk? Worst past tense verb in the English language.
The Obama Kool-Aid. That's a good way to put it.
I've felt the charges of lack of experience have rung false since they first emerged.
The only thing I worry for Obama is his disillusionment if elected. He may be a senator and "see" how government works... But if he thinks he's going to be able to achieve all of his hopes for progressive change once elected, he will be disappointed.
Hope, I appreciate. Reality, however, is what I accept. I also worry that the boy is going to have a target pinned on him the moment he is elected. For then, all the hope, ambition, and drive could be for naught.
Post a Comment
<< Home