Both sides try shaping issue of experience

ST. PAUL — The Republican and Democratic presidential campaigns and their supporters are proving that “experience” is like a “good” movie — hard to define, and harder to agree on.

Since the selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) as Sen. John McCain’s (R-Ariz.) vice presidential pick, the debate over experience — hers and that of Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama — has again moved to the forefront.

{mosads}It’s clear both campaigns use the word in any way they think it can help their cause.

Obama (Ill.) has served less than a full term in the Senate, yet his campaign is questioning Palin’s credentials. The Alaska governor has been in office 18 months. Both candidates have experience down the ballot — Obama as an Illinois state senator and Palin as mayor of the small town of Wasilla, Alaska.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of McCain’s top surrogates, told The Hill on Tuesday that it does not matter how long a candidate has been in office but what they have done with their time.

He argued that Obama has actually been in the Senate “less than half” of his time in office, with campaigning consuming most of the 110th Congress. In contrast, Graham said, Palin has used her time as governor of Alaska to improve her state and take on the establishment.

The Obama campaign did not respond to requests for comment.

But Democratic National Committee spokesman Damien LaVera said, “John McCain made a hasty, politically motivated decision to pick someone who would mollify the right wing of his party and who shares his view that the economic policies of George W. Bush are working and should continue. This pick raises serious questions about John McCain’s judgment and his promise of more of the same failed Bush policies.”

Earlier this week, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) claimed that running a state with a budget of $5.5 billion for 18 months gives Palin more “executive experience” than Obama and his running mate Joe Biden (Del.), a Senate veteran of 35 years, have combined.

Boehner indicated on CNN that the Alaska governor’s executive experience is more important because “when you’re the governor you actually have to make decisions that have consequences.”

Obama has argued he has executive experience as the leader of a presidential campaign that has been running for a year and a half, is on track to raise $500 million and employs more staffers than Palin oversaw as mayor of Wasilla.

{mospagebreak}Al Felzenberg, presidential scholar and author of The Leaders We Deserved (and a Few We Didn’t): Rethinking the Presidential Rating Game, said that it makes sense that voters have historically preferred governors over senators.

“At least on domestic policies, the closest we can come to assess candidates is as governors,” Felzenberg, who served as deputy for communications at the 9/11 Commission, added. He noted that governors have to deal with many of the same issues that presidents do, including writing budgets and being a state’s chief executive.

“Senators pick their issues, but there is nothing a governor can avoid,” he stated.

{mosads}Felzenberg also noted, however, that “we have to be careful how we define ‘experience.’ “ He differentiated between the time spent in office and the kind of life experience that one can get from serving in uniform. In addition, he said, not all time spent in an elected position is equal.

Some members of Congress are “legislators of consequence,” who forcefully get things done.

“If you count experience [as the number of years served] in elected or appointed offices, then it does not determine the success of a presidency,” Felzenberg said, pointing to examples throughout history when candidates with thin résumés became great presidents while others with a lack of elected experience were failures.

Felzenberg argued that “character and vision” are the characteristics that voters should pay attention to, though he admitted that those qualities are difficult to quantify.

“Issues will change; character and vision will not,” he said.

Felzenberg points to an interview former President Bill Clinton gave to ABC News before the Democratic National Convention.

“You can argue that nobody is ready to be president. You can argue that even if you’ve been vice president for eight years, that no one can be fully ready for the pressures of the office,” Clinton said. “The Constitution sets qualification for the president. And then the people decide who they think would be the better president.”

History has shown that a president’s ability to lead the country cannot necessarily be determined ahead of that person occupying the Oval Office, according to Felzenberg.

“You’re taking a chance with whoever you elect,” he said.