It has been said that the only training ground for the presidency is the presidency itself. So if we stipulate that point, the debate about who is most qualified — in the current contest — is placed in context. Of the three candidates left standing, McCain, Clinton and Obama, it’s obvious all three have the experience it takes to get within eight months of inauguration. The others, who started at the same time, did not.
In conventional terms, Republican Sen. John McCain has the most experience on paper: A war veteran, former prisoner of war, congressman, senator, expert in foreign and military affairs. McCain’s resume seems perfect for a country at war, trying to end the war. The question this year is: Is conventional experience the kind we need or want? The enthusiasm for both Democratic candidates suggests strongly that the country is not looking for the most experienced candidate, but for a new set of instincts to replace what has been an unsettling approach.
The Right Decision
The debate over experience is the most contentious on the Democratic side where Sen. Hillary Clinton is claiming 35 years of experience in the public and private sector and Sen. Barack Obama says the debate should be about judgment. Both are demonstrating that their experience in law school has helped, since they are both trying to steer the argument in a direction that emphasizes their strengths.
The problem for Obama in arguing superior judgment is that it strongly suggests that he is promising to always make the right decision. When you have set “always being right” as the standard, you become slow to react, slow to rely on instinct and vulnerable to being out maneuvered. The premise of Obama’s superior judgment is potentially more dangerous than President Bush’s unshakeable belief in his ability to make the right decision.
On the other hand, Clinton has demonstrated a combination of judgment and instinct that has kept her campaign alive despite the baggage that she has lugged with her from her husband’s time in the White House. She has turned her personal travails into an asset. She has gone from the inevitable nominee to underdog. Even if she loses, she will still be a major force.
Workhorse Senator
The opposition to Clinton concedes she has been a workhorse senator who has won the respect of those she deals with. They have tried to minimize her role as First Lady even as she has tried to play it up as close to a co-presidency. Her claims are less exaggerated than those of her opposition.
The role of the First Lady is traditionally a ceremonial role, but any casual observer of Clinton’s time in the public spotlight must admit her approach has never been traditional. From her time at Wellesley College, to Yale Law School and as First Lady of Arkansas, she has sought to use any power she had — real or implied — to advance causes she has believed in. She has never been a disinterested observer.
When she first came to the White House in 1992, she led and failed in a historic effort to ram through a national health care plan. It’s fair to conclude that that failure of style led directly to her collegial approach to the Senate, but it never deterred her from pursuing the policy which is at the core of her politics.
On the campaign trail and on the job she acts on her beliefs, but learns from her mistakes. She has proven time and again that she will always get up to fight again, and those attributes define the experience we most need in a president.
Dean Pagani is a former gubernatorial advisor. He is V.P. of Public Affairs for Cashman and Katz Integrated Communications in Glastonbury.
