Ah, but I can hear some of you complaining that my inclusion of Military Experience into the totals distorts this rather vast experience gap. And you may have a point. For example, Richard Nixon served 24 years in the United States Naval Reserve [1942-66], but only four of these years [1942-46] were active duty. And his military service overlapped his years in elected office.
So. Let's remove Military Experience from the equation, and see what our new totals are:
Dole '96 --- 35
LBJ '64 --- 28
Ford '76 --- 27
McCain '08 --- 26
Gore '00 --- 24
HHH '68 --- 20
Kerry '04 --- 20
Nixon '72 --- 18
FDR '44 --- 16
Mondale '84 --- 16
Bush '92 --- 16
Clinton '96 --- 16
Truman '48 --- 14
Nixon '60 --- 14
JFK '60 --- 14
Nixon '68 --- 14
McGovern '72 --- 14
Goldwater '64 --- 12
Reagan '84 --- 12
Bush '88 --- 12
Clinton '92 --- 12
Dukakis '88 --- 10
Dubya '04 --- 10
Carter '80 --- 8
Reagan '80--- 8
Dewey '48 --- 6
Dubya '00 --- 6
Stevenson '52 --- 4
Stevenson '56 --- 4
Eisenhower '56 --- 4
Carter '76 --- 4
Obama '08 --- 4
Dewey '44 --- 2
Eisenhower '52 --- 0
As you can see, nothing fundamentally changes for this year's candidates. John McCain remains near the top of the list, and Barack Obama remains near the bottom.
The only difference that really catches the eye is that, if you remove military experience completely from the equation, Dwight D. Eisenhower's candidacy in 1952 falls to the bottom of the list. Yet one would be hard-pressed to find a knowledgeable person who would claim with a straight face that Eisenhower (Commanding General of the US Army in Europe during World War II; Chief of Staff of the US Army; NATO's Supreme Allied Commander, Europe; President of Columbia University) was somehow less-qualified than is Obama (community organizer, state legislator, university lecturer, first-term US Senator). This merely serves to demonstrate the absurdity of those who claim that military service should be dismissed as a relevant criterion upon which to judge the experience of a candidate.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Joanne Huspek
Politics is just about the only employment where you don't need any previous experience and you can be wrong.
Oh... and forecaster on the Weather Channel.
2 - Arch Conservative
C'mon RJ. Aren't you bieng a little tough on Barry?
Don't forget his experience as a community organizer in Chicago. The time he spent organizing bake sales, helping young girls obtain abortions, and starting pickup basketball games has surely prepared him to deal with Islmaic extremism, get the economy on the right track and deal with our energy issues.
3 - jubadeedoda
You said that Obama only has 4 years experience but what about his 8 years in the State legislature and 2 years in the Senate? Not sure how you came up with 4 years....
Check his record.
John McCain wins on experience but he is losing his mind.....what good is experience without a sharp enough mind (e.g. George Bush)which is required to think through complex issues and make decisions based on facts not gut for the country. Just this past week Mccain was asked about why viagara should be covered vs. birth control. He couldn't answer that softball question...It was excruciating watching him squirm and wriggle and reach for some answer which in the final analysis was ridiculous..."Ill check my record and get back to you!". I have seen this happen to him over & over.
He went through a lot being a POW. We respect & honour him for his service. I really down want to see his notoreity & character melt before our eyes.
Repubs. lost their chance; Americans need to vote in a new party.
4 - Cindy D
I want a president with more experience in science. Could you please recalculate everything based on that RJ ?
:-)
5 - Dave Nalle
This is an interesting idea, but there are some flaws in the criteria being used. As someone pointed out earlier you do need to give some consideration to state or local government experience. Being a mayor or a state legislator should count for something. You also give no credit for appointive offices, and that should certainly count. Being an ambassador or head of the CIA as GHWB was, should count for something - maybe quite a bit. And business experience ought to have some value.
You should also weight different kinds of experience. Actual executive experience as a governor or running a business or running a military base or heading a government department ought to be weighted higher than legislative experience, and because so many presidents are weak in the area, any kind of overseas experience ought to count extra, especially ambassadorships or a term as secretary of state.
Rather than being two of the least experienced, Dewey and Stevenson are really two of the MOST experienced people you have on your list. Dewey had 7 years as a successful prosecutor and as a DA followed by 11 years as governor. You have his years as governor wrong, since you say 2 and it was actually 11. Stevenson should get credit for his 14 years working in various branches of the government as well as his 4 years as governor.
Think about it. Using your criteria Teddy Roosevelt, who you might well agree was the best president of the 20th century, would get credit for 2 years as Governor of New York and 1 year as VP and then 1 year for his military service. That's 4 years. Yet he ought to be credited something for his time as Undersecretary of the Navy, his 7 years on the Civil Service Commission and his 2 years as Police Commissioner of New York. That would give him a total of 15 years of relevant experience and he ought to get bonus points for diversity.
Of course, even using my more diverse criteria, Obama still comes up as the least qualified. In fact, he'd be the least qualified for almost 150 years, going back to Lincoln with his 2 years in the militia, 2 years in the House and 4 years as a state legislator.
Dave
6 - RJ Elliott
jubadeedoda:
Obama actually has three-and-a-half years experience in the Senate (elected in November 2004; sworn in January 2005); I rounded up to get to four. (I'm a generous kinda guy, what can I say?)
And I explained in my article why I did not include service as a state legislator. I'm assuming you read my article about as closely as you did your math?
7 - Arch Conservative
Repubs. lost their chance; Americans need to vote in a new party.
I thought we did that in 2006 when we gave the Dems a mjority in Congress after they made a litany of promises.........What have they done to deliver on any of those promises?
8 - Dr Dreadful
It's interesting that using your criteria, the less qualified candidate has won in each of the last four elections. Prior to that, it was usually the more qualified man who won.
We can argue till the cows come home about whether Daddy Bush or Dole would have made a better president than Clinton, or whether Gore or Kerry would have done a better job than Dubya. But in every election since 1960 (which featured the first televised debate), it's been less about experience and more about who was able to sell themselves better to the electorate.
McCain, therefore, is in deep, deep kaka.
9 - Baritone
When it comes down to it, there really is no experience - in government, in the military, or in the private sector which truly prepares one for the American presidency.
As for the military experience you noted above, you just slid by noting Nixon's short term of active duty. Being in the reserve for several years counts as only barely hands on experience of any kind.
But, enough of that. John McCain, as juba... properly notes above has trouble remembering what he had for breakfast. He made a number of gaffs just in the last week that should put into serious question his ability to absorb and maintain an adequate level of knowledge and understanding of all the issues with which he is likely to be presented during a 4 year term in office.
While most who post and comment here take great pains to note just how much the MSM favors Obama, I find it curious that, for the most part McCain has been given a pass regarding his mis-speaks and maloprops. Are they really going to handle the old man with kid gloves in deference to his quasi-holy status as a former POW and war hero?
Obama gets dragged through the coals over a fucking flag pin. McCain gets the Green Bay Packers and the Pittsburgh Steelers confused. McCain can't deal with a question about Viagra. He can't seem to remember whether or not he knows anything about economics. He maintains Phil Graham as a policy staffer after his rather repugnant comments about our being a country of whiners and our supposed "psychological recession." I suppose from Graham's POV, if you are reasonably wealthy and the straining economy is having but little effect on your financial status, the rest of us who are feeling the brunt of job losses, home foreclosures, $4.00+ a gallon gas, and/or are reeling from the effect of recent floods and/or tornados or wild fires, do probably seem like a bunch of whiners. We should all just get over it.
Many here have concerns regarding Obama's lack of experience, and maybe - just maybe - doubts about his particular shade of skin. Concerns about having a "Harvard elitist" in the White House who just might plant a watermelon patch on the grounds.
My concern regarding McCain is that I would prefer a president who has a mind that maintains at least a nominal amount of recall, someone who has at least a nominal grasp of economics, and isn't given to scathing, angry outbursts at odd moments. McCain's age isn't an issue for me. His physical and mental health are. That's not to mention his apparent preference for maintaining the "Bush" status quo.
B-tone
10 - Dr Dreadful
Oh Archie, you really should know better...
I accept that you're unlikely to have found any of these measures palatable, but click here for a list of Democratic legislation and initiatives in the first 100 days of the 110th Congress.
11 - rhubarb1941
I don't feel experience is necessarily the most important qualification to be president. It's like going to a physician who has 30 years of experience, but has no bedside manner. Bedside manner cannot be learned, it something natural that some doctors have and others, no longer how long they've been practicing, will never have. I want someone who has self-confidence in themself, yet reassures me that they're looking out for my welfare, not for their own personal gain. All of the experience in the world, if not handled in the right way, can be the ruination of a country.
12 - RJ Elliott
Dave:
Thanks for your comments.
Everyone is certainly welcome to make their own judgments about what experience is relevant for the job of President based upon their own criteria, along with their own arbitrary weighting system.
Just how such a weighting system should work is tricky, however, and everyone is likely to have their own opinion. Five points for each year as Vice-President, three for Governor, two for Senator, one for mayor of a city with over 100,000 residents, and half a point for prosecutor or judge? Or Four points for Vice-President or Governor, Three for Senator, two for corporate CEO or House member, one for state legislator, and half a point for ambassador or city councilman?
See, I avoided going down that road precisely because such judgments would inherently be subjective, and I wanted purely objective numbers. Vice-Presidents are considered credible Presidential candidates, regardless of their other experience. Same with Governors and Senators. Occasionally, military experience is also seen as being, by itself, a qualifier for the Presidency.
But it is unheard of, at least in the modern era (WWII - present), for someone to become a major-party presidential nominee without any of the above four criteria being met. That is to say, no one in this era has gone straight from Secretary of Labor or Mayor of New York City or Ambassador to New Zealand, etc. directly to becoming the Republican or Democratic nominee for President.
That's why I considered the first four criteria qualifying experience, and ignored all the rest. I was attempting to be objective as possible.
As for Thomas Dewey, he actually served as Governor of New York for a total of 12 years. However, at the time he ran for President in 1944, he had only been Governor for two years. (Actually, a little less.)
13 - RJ Elliott
"Many here have concerns regarding Obama's lack of experience, and maybe - just maybe - doubts about his particular shade of skin."
Very classy.
14 - Lee Richards
Nixon - Terrific on experience, a paranoid fruitcake in the Oval office.
LBJ - very effective in Congress, lost as a wartime president.
Baritone in #9 well summarizes the serious concerns that McCain may not(actually, almost certainly will not)be up to the physical and mental stresses of the job. (And his choice of running mate doesn't add one thing to HIS suitability for the office.)
Obama lacks experience. More importantly, does he possess the judgement and integrity to surround himself with a capable and honorable administration?
15 - Clavos
"McCain, therefore, is in deep, deep kaka."
En español (y es palabra española), se deletrea caca.
De nada.
16 - Clavos
"his rather repugnant comments about our being a country of whiners"
Repugnant, perhaps. But also truthful.
Whiners and entitlement addicts.
17 - Baritone
My comment regarding Obama's complexion was not meant to be "classy," but to indicate that it is my belief that many of his detractors still harbour a bit (or, perhaps, a lot) of racism in their opinions.
I know Clav, these whiney bastards with no jobs, no homes, forced into bankruptcy, etc., should just suck it up and not bother the rest of us who, frankly, just don't want to hear it. It's really just too much!
As to the supposedly Dem control of Congress and their lack of accomplishments: Why do you suppose that is? Could it be owing to the fact that the Dem majority in either house is not large enough to counter the Rep's opposition to everything the Dem's have attempted to do?
I am chagrined at just how easily the Dems keep folding to the wishes of GWB. I can only hope that given a Dem president and a greater Dem majority in both houses come January, there will be far less of that kind of weak kneed response from the left side of the aisle. It might be interesting to see just how much the minority Reps suck up to a Dem president when push comes to shove.
B-tone
18 - Clavos
"I know Clav, these whiney bastards with no jobs, no homes, forced into bankruptcy, etc."
At least they have some reason to whine, B-tone, and yet most of them aren't.
No, I was referring to the people whining about Obama's remark about teaching Spanish to kids, the academic whiners who restrict the students' speech, the whiners who wring their hands and cry about the high price of gas, yet do nothing (because it's not high enough yet) to reduce their consumption, the whiners about the sad state of our schools, but who abdicate their parental responsibilities to those same schools.
Whining is a American as apple pie these days. Practically everybody whines about something and wants the government to fix it for them.
This from the most pampered, coddled, and richest society in the history of the world.
It's probably because the largest single population cohort is the boomers :>)
19 - Baronius
Good catch, Baritone. RJ's article was obviously racist. That's why he kept mentioning race, and didn't provide any numbers or systematic approach for comparing candidates' experience. But the most obvious over-the-top racism of RJ's was the watermelon comment.
20 - Baronius
No. You know what? I was going to make my little snide comment and walk away, but that's not enough.
Baritone, your accusation is shameful. Racism is a horrible thing, but you discount it by crying wolf about it. What have McCain, RJ, or I said that you can really call racist? Your fear of American anti-black racism isn't enough for you to assume that it exists.
Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine that Bob Kerrey was wearing a microphone, and said that he wanted to cut Obama's nuts off. There would be an outcry that the white man was trying to castrate the black man, and that all politics is racist. But it wasn't Kerrey; it was Jackson. The moral of the story: sometimes people are jerks who want to cut off other peoples' nuts. You can criticize a black man for reasons other than race.
I've found that the kind of people who talk about Obama's skin color are politically on the left. They're usually that particular type of liberal who sees Obama as an RFK-type. These people don't know the difference between the future and a guy who was shot 40 years ago. They also don't understand that whites don't lynch any more. And they still think they're on the cutting edge of society.