There is one charge that has dogged Barack Obama since he first announced he was running for president, and that's his lack of experience in Washington. I obviously don't think too much of experience, per se, as a determining qualification for president—fortunately, voters who chose Abraham Lincoln and FDR didn't either, since they were two of the most inexperienced presidents we've had.
Far more important, in my estimation, are temperament, character, and values. Would a candidate prefer to avoid war, or rush into it? Would a candidate calmly negotiate with a foreign leader who possesed nuclear weapons, or would he or she rant and rave? Would a candidate insist that the lowliest among us deserve help, or leave residents of a flooded city to fend for themselves?
But there are people genuinely concerned about the lack of Barack Obama's experience, who perhaps can't or won't vote for him because of it. In Time magazine, Joe Klein interviews Barack Obama, and those around him, and concludes that Obama has something much more important than sheer years of experience: maturity.
Read the whole article. It starts with a telling anecdote from Obama's visit to Iraq:
Obama had a choice at that moment. He could thank Petraeus for the briefing and promise to take his views "under advisement." Or he could tell Petraeus what he really thought, a potentially contentious course of action — especially with a general not used to being confronted. Obama chose to speak his mind. "You know, if I were in your shoes, I would be making the exact same argument," he began. "Your job is to succeed in Iraq on as favorable terms as we can get. But my job as a potential Commander in Chief is to view your counsel and interests through the prism of our overall national security." Obama talked about the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the financial costs of the occupation of Iraq, the stress it was putting on the military.
A "spirited" conversation ensued, one person who was in the room told me. "It wasn't a perfunctory recitation of talking points. They were arguing their respective positions, in a respectful way." The other two Senators — Chuck Hagel and Jack Reed — told Petraeus they agreed with Obama. According to both Obama and Petraeus, the meeting — which lasted twice as long as the usual congressional briefing — ended agreeably. Petraeus said he understood that Obama's perspective was, necessarily, going to be more strategic. Obama said that the timetable obviously would have to be flexible. But the Senator from Illinois had laid down his marker: if elected President, he would be in charge. Unlike George W. Bush, who had given Petraeus complete authority over the war — an unprecedented abdication of presidential responsibility (and unlike John McCain, whose hero worship of Petraeus bordered on the unseemly) — Obama would insist on a rigorous chain of command.
Leadership. Maturity. Intellect. Three qualities I want my next president to possess, above all.
We can find plenty of candidates with experience: How about Dick Cheney, or Al Gore? Neither one of them would have had the leadership and maturity to handle the situation with Patraeus in that way.
If you haven't yet read this article by Cass Sunstein at the University of Chicago, a colleague of Barack Obama, you should. And if you haven't read Obama's own book, The Audacity of Hope, and you insist on thinking that Obama is not equipped to lead this nation, then you owe it to yourself to read it before you vote on November 4.
