Ever since Edward Kennedy threw his support behind Sen. Barack Obama, there has been no shortage of comparisons between the junior senator from Illinois and the young President who inspired a generation.
As one who has spent many years studying JFK, let me make this much clear: When it comes to experience, Obama is no John Kennedy. (Indeed, when distilled into the crudest terms, Obama is no Dan Quayle - who was famously branded “no Jack Kennedy”; as of 1988, Quayle had spent more than a decade on the national stage.)
But here’s the much bigger question: What does it matter? An examination of Kennedy’s own record - and of the broader sweep of history - leads us to this critical conclusion: Obama’s lack of experience shouldn’t be considered a liability. Many of our most experienced Presidents have made disastrous choices. In the long life of the republic, judgment trumps experience, almost every time. [NY Daily News, 1/31/08]
A few quick reactions: I think that Obama’s experience, while perhaps not quite as thorough as JFK’s, is nothing to sneeze at. One only need look at his record in the Illinois State Legislature and Senate to see that this guy has the chops to get things done (not to mention Ted Kennedy’s endorsement). And let’s not forget that Obama has more foreign policy experience than either President Bush or Bill Clinton had going into office.
But, that being said, I think Dallek is right. We often overlook the more important characteristic of judgment for the more easily quantifiable element of experience but judgment is really what we need in a President, and what we should be searching for. A quick example: Obama’s consistent opposition to the War in Iraq from before the authorization resolution was passed to present day. Or, Dallek provides another example:
A look at other Presidents underlines the lesson. In the four years before the Civil War, James Buchanan led the nation. He had held so many high offices over the years that he was known as “Mr. Government.” It didn’t help him or the country a jot. Buchanan failed to head off the bloodshed that would soon engulf the country, and he is now remembered as one of, if not the worst, President in our history.
Inexperienced Abraham Lincoln was, happily, another story.
Dear MN Publius,
I am getting very bored with your blog. According to your banner at the top of this blog, this blog is supposed to be about “the status MN politics.” Lately, it’s been a “hail Obama, the new messiah” site, like many others. I understand that everyone has their opinion on the presidential raise, but it cheapens your blog as a whole when you lack objectivity, and pick favorites. If I wanted to read about Obama, there are many other places I can go, and have it reported a lot better and more insightfully. Please get back on topic (MN Politics and exposing Brodkorb/MDE) if you want to stay relevant to many otherwise sympathetic Minnesotans.
Dear Concerned Reader:
Then start your own damn blog.
Maybe you missed out on the memo but the Presidential race is kind of a big deal, and while all three writers on this blog are Obama-philes we do post most anything we want (even about other candidates!). We will continue to write about Minnesota politics, which right now is largely about the outsize influence of the Presidential race.
Love always,
Sean
Thanks for standing your ground Sean. I can’t stand it when readers of a blog - which is opinionated by its very nature - write in to tell you what you ought to do or even go as far as to make demands. It’s ridiculous on its face, but even more so when it is unwarranted, as it is in this case.
Minnesota is such an important state in regard to the overall national politic, that in order to cover Minnesota politics, one has to spend a great deal of time on national political issues, not just state-level or otherwise issues.
Afterall, this is the Midwest; how candidates do here means a hell of a lot in the national.
Anyway, if you have been reading this blog for a long time, you would know that when there are things to be covered of purely local relevance, they get covered. I even have friends from outside of Minnesota who regularly read this blog for its insightful discussions. So there!
I agree that you can and should write about the presidential race, and by all means, you can show your preferences. I am just commenting on how your news-breaking and sometimes insightful blog entries have decreased and somewhat devolved into a mostly Obama love-fest. Between your blog and Andrew Sullivan’s Daily Dish blog, my choice of interesting blogs of late has decreased. It is your blog, do what you want with it. But according to the most recent poll out today (which you have yet to report on!) shows that 52% of DFLers have chosen another candidate other than Obama. Many of these people are, or have been faithful readers of this blog. Because you are so wide-read, I hold you to a higher standard. Don’t lose other Dems by being total hacks for a candidate, because we are all on the same side here come November. Hopefully, by then, your blog will be of interest to me, rather than just another spigot of Obama kool-aid.
Um, do you know how a blog works? If you disagree with something that the authors have written, you can comment on it. If you have read this blog for any length of time at all, you would know that there is a lot of disgreement and there have been a lot of enlightening (and some not-so-enlightening) debates here.
So if you don’t like Obama, explain why. Don’t complain because the authors aren’t presenting the anti-Obama case. Make it yourself.
Concerned Reader, I’m pro-Obama because I care so damn much about Minnesota, not because I’m a “hack.” For the first time in my lifetime, and in most people’s lifetime, Minnesota will actually be of relevance when caucus time comes around. I’m not sure how we could be responsible if we claimed to track Minnesota politics and did not devote a fair amount of attention to that matter. It’s odd, however, because this is an electoral process of tantamount importance in Minnesota and yet it is intra-party; that is, if we are to voice our opinion about this crucially important event, it’s going to necessarily mean picking one Democrat over another. We don’t do that in, say, the Senate race because there is a clear opponent: Norm Coleman. But don’t worry, once Feb. 5th passes we’ll certainly be devoting more of our time and resources again to that opponent instead of national issues.
For the time being, however, Obama’s name will come up often on this blog.
I was merely suggesting that there is a difference between voicing an opinion and saying things like: “Please get back on topic (MN Politics and exposing Brodkorb/MDE) if you want to stay relevant to many otherwise sympathetic Minnesotans.” You - and I and everyone else - are entitled to say what you want, but when you make such requests it’s annoying, that’s all. That’s probably the pot calling the kettle black as well.
BTW: if you are pro-Hillary or pro-Republican (same difference really, at least on trade issues), why not just advocate your point instead of bitching about the editors of this blog liking Obama?
I have no problem with the editors choice of candidates. But they are the ones who post and set the tone of the debate, here. And I am not going to waste my time debating with a bunch of blog trolls over Hillary versus Obama.
I am commenting here from the perspective that you obviously want people to read your blog … otherwise you would just be keeping a diary and stuffing it under your mattress every night. You advertise on your site, so I am commenting on things that may discourage certain readers (or I may be totally wrong and your focus on Obama draws more people and good for you if that is the case). Whatever the result, it is just my concern. These Obama posts are rarely insightful and generally just repeat something out of the MSM. Hardly worth me making the decision to check your site several times a day. I did like that you did post something about the poll, bringing in fair issues to the debate. Even reporting about Obama selling the number of tickets at the Target Center at least provides useful information. It is just frustrating for an otherwise sympathetic reader like me, when essentially every other post is about Obanma. Keep doing what you are doing, I just wanted to add some food for thought, and made my points. I am done with this debate.
With all the swearing in these posts it seems you guys have been hanging around Al Franken a little too much…….
Hey! Who can report on the debate in Plymouth last night of the 3 DFl candidates seeking endorsement in the run for Congressman Ramstad’s seat?
Guess I’ll have to go elsewhere to read about it since I’m not interested in ticket numbers for the sold-out Obama event tomorrow.