Barack Obama Lacks the Experience. What Experience?

Beginning with the presidential primary elections, we have been told for about 19 months now that Barack Obama is too inexperienced to hold the most important office in the United States of America, that of president. This line of attack continues to be the best that Obama's opponents can deliver. Some of us would rather debate the man's ideas instead.

I have a few questions for those who have convinced themselves of the seeming logic of the argument that because Obama does not have the experience he should not be elected president.

What exactly is "the experience" that Obama lacks? Is there a special set of experiences that qualify one for the presidency? If so, where does one get such an experience? From a governor's mansion? From the halls of congress? From where exactly?

Why doesn't any of Barack's life experiences count? The man earned a law degree from Harvard and served as president of the Harvard Law Review. So his educational experience does not count? Barack has been married to one woman for 16 years; there has been no charge of him cheating on his wife, which cannot be said of some of his opponents. His experience of marital fidelity doesn't count? He has been raising two daughters as a responsible father, unlike his own father, who abandoned him. Why doesn't his fatherhood experience mean anything to a nation that claims to be big on family values?

After graduating from Harvard, Barack sacrificed potential fat-cat jobs, and, instead went to Chicago to work as community organizer for the downtrodden. Why is that not experience that means much? Also, he taught constitutional law at Chicago Law School. Should we not take his teaching experience into account, though he may not have been a law professor?

Why shouldn't we take into account his experience in the Illinois legislature? Legislative experience is legislative experience whether in Illinois or Washington. Is that not true?

How could a guy who is not qualified to lead America have succeeded against all odds to defeat the well-connected first lady Mrs. Hillary Clinton, with the full political genius and machinery of her powerful husband, former President Bill Clinton, arguably the best politician alive? Keep in mind that from the get-go, Mrs. Clinton was the presumptive Democratic nominee. How in the world did this political junkie pull off this major offset? Very few politicians in our lifetime could have succeeded against the combined political force of both Clintons. Why shouldn't we be impressed by such a feat? Should we choose rather to keep underestimating this guy?

How could an unqualified man have organized and run the kind of successful grassroots movement that Obama has led, especially his inspiring thousands of young voters? Are to to look at this level of administrative skill and consider it zip? Are you kidding? And have we not seen how the just-ended Democratic convention succeeded in unifying the party rather than revealing the fatal disunity many observers and pundits were expecting? And do we not attribute at least some of this success to Barack's leadership ability? By the way, did you notice that Barack proved his doubters wrong by filling up Mile High stadium with more than 80,000 people? Are we to look that and just label it dung?

And where in the constitution of the United States does it mention "the experience" required for anyone to be elected president of this great nation? Can we prove from American history that most of America's successful presidents were the most experienced candidates prior to being elected to the highest office?

Finally, are we really saying that Barack Obama cannot do the job that Mr. George W. Bush has done for about8 years? And what has Mr. Bush's experience done for our country, our economy, our international reputation? Don't get me wrong, I used to be a big Bush fan; I shook hands with Candidate George Bush when he visited our city during his campaign, and I enthusiastically voted for Bush twice. But to say that Mr. Obama will do any less or worse than Mr. Bush has done just defies common sense.

We can keep chanting "he lacks the experience, he lacks the experience" until November 4 th , but much of what America has seen thus far of Barack Obama reveals and confirms that this man is anything but an inexperienced figurehead. Though it's kind of scary to say it, this guy is a natural leader of the rare sort. And I say that as one has been arguing with my wife a lot about Obama's ideology. Some of his beliefs and ideas give me cause for concern.

I'm not yet sure I'll actually vote Obama for president. But this "he lacks the experience" line is nothing more than a purely subjective call, an opinion that ignores Obama's amazing leadership qualities of which we now have much evidence. If on November 4 th I vote McCain instead of Obama, it will be because of either man's ideas, not his experience. After all, experienced people have done some very dumb things that have harmed America, and some of those experienced people have been our political leaders, including presidents. In my experience, experience is usually overrated. Life itself, simply sharing in the human experience, can be the best experience for any job, including that of commander-in-chief.

Let me close this piece by quoting Geoff Elliott, writer of the Abraham Lincoln Blog:

"To summarize, Lincoln was a state legislator for 8 years and a U.S. Congressman for 2 years before he was elected president. He didn't have much experience as an office-holder, but he went on to become the country's greatest president. Other men (see John Quincy Adams and James Buchanan) had far more experience than he, yet failed miserably in their presidencies. This is why in my opinion, at least, political experience is not a predictor of success or failure of a potential president."

When we overrate experience alone we are likely to underestimate other qualities.