The Experience Paradox

Jeff Greenfield: Common Campaign Debate Over Experience Takes On A Bizarre Twist This Year

(CBS)  This analysis was written by CBS News senior political correspondent Jeff Greenfield.

---

"The worst news for Mr. Nixon," John Kennedy told the Al Smith dinner back in 1960, "is that the Yankees fired Casey Stengel. It shows that experience doesn't count."

The quip, a play on the Nixon campaign slogan "Experience Counts", also shows that the issue is a hardy perennial in American politics. This year, it's taken on a bizarre twist, because the respective campaigns are offering arguments that can be used with equal force against themselves. If Joe Biden's 35 years in the Senate prove he is not an agent of change, as Sarah Palin argues, then what about John McCain's 26 years in Congress? If Palin's years as mayor of Wassila are the political equivalent of small beer, what about Barack Obama's years in the Illinois State Senate?

Beyond the "so's your old man" aspect of this back-and-forth -- no offense to John McCain intended -- this debate has revealed something remarkable about the "experience" issue: it's much more likely to matter in a vice presidential choice than in a presidential choice.

It is the unique nature of American politics that someone far beyond the nation's capital, someone with no experience in matters of national statecraft, can win a party's nomination for chief executive; indeed, it's something our European cousins find inexplicable. How can a peanut farmer from Georgia oust an incumbent president; how can an actor from Hollywood oust an incumbent president? How can a governor from Dogpatch -- okay, Arkansas -- oust an incumbent president? How can a Texas governor who couldn't find Pakistan on a map defeat (more or less) an incumbent vice-president with a quarter-century of Washington experience?

Americans don't find it all that puzzling: it's the historical antipathy to "Washington insiders"; the nominating process that long ago took the power away from political professionals and put it in the hands of primary voters; the capacity of the media to transform an unknown into a hot commodity in a flash (See "Obama, Palin, Convention speeches of..."). Within this process, however, lies a curious historical fact: the more voters have turned to outsiders as their presidential choices, the more these nominees have insisted on insider experience when choosing a running mate.

Consider recent history: from 1960 onward, we've had five nominees who came from beyond the Capital: Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Michael Dukakis, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. In every case, these nominees chose running mates who were consummate Washington insiders: Carter chose Sen. Walter Mondale; Reagan picked Bush the First; Dukakis chose Sen. Lloyd Bentsen; Clinton picked Sen. Al Gore; and Bush the Second chose former Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. In fact, all of these selections were chosen because the Presidential nominees felt they had to balance their "outsiderness" with partners of unquestionable "insider" pedigree.

By contrast, only two vice-presidential nominees have not fit the "experienced insider" model. In 1968, Richard Nixon chose first-term Maryland Governor Spiro Agnew; and in 1984, Walter Mondale picked third-term Rep. Geraldine Ferraro. In both cases, the presidential nominees could argue that they were so clearly "experienced" that they did not need that quality in a running mate. And in both cases, the choices backfired: Agnew's foot-in-mouth disease resulted in the Democrats' airing an ad that featured a disembodied voice laughing hysterically at the idea of an Agnew presidency; the dicey real-estate connections of Ferraro's husband got Ferraro's historic-first nomination off to a wobbly start. (McCain's choice of first term Alaska Gov. Palin looks like a political winner, but we're not going to know this until she steps outside of the protective cocoon the McCain campaign has now erected for her)

Now take a step back from the history and ask yourself: does it make sense that presidential nominees demand more experience from their running-mates than voters demand of the presidential nominees? In a word, yes. In our long-distance campaigns, voters have months, even a couple of years, to assess the claims of the candidates. The press, the other candidates and the numberless voices across the Web, have time to examine every aspect of a candidate, from biography to friends and associates to public policy arguments. No matter how much a candidate lacks in traditional "experience", he or she will have had to come to grips with just about all the significant--and many insignificant--issues that a potential president might face.

In this sense, Rudy Giuliani's sarcastic reference to Barack Obama's "300 national security advisors" was revealing: Obama has indeed created something like his own national security apparatus within his campaign, just as George W. Bush turned to the Hoover Institute and George Schultz when preparing his own presidential run back in 2000.

This is also why, at a post-2004 gathering among operatives and the press, a top Bush campaign aide said the candidate they most feared was John Edwards. His less-than-one-Senate-term experience would not have been disabling the aide said, because the very fact of securing a major-party nomination gave that nominee credibility.

That does not apply to the vice-presidential selection process. Choosing a relative unknown means the public has to rely on the presidential nominee's standards and judgment; and that reliance is a lot easier to come by if the choice is someone the public can plausibly see as a potential president.

In choosing Sarah Palin, John McCain appears to have made the same calculation as Nixon did in 1968, and as Mondale did in 1984: "my credentials on the national stage are so clear that I can afford to pick someone the public doesn't know."

As a political calculation, that may work. The problem will come when and if voters cease to see McCain-Palin as a team, and ask themselves if they are comfortable with the idea of Palin as a potential commander-in-chief; a role five vice-presidents in the last century had to assume suddenly. If that question moves front and center, voters may decide, Casey Stengel to the contrary, that experience does count.

[mabourn]

What do all of these statements have in common?? They were all posted today Sept. 11 in response to various articles on CBS. What does it say about us as Americans if people have nothing better to do than post this stuff on a day when the country is remembering the thousands that died on 911. Spirited debate is one thing... but this is just embarrassing. You should all be ashamed.

-We call Palin Trailer Trash, because, well, she is....
-TundraBilly Barbie/McWho? 08! All the JaysusBillies are praying for McWho? to die now?
-If I were a Messiah Barbie/McWho? partisan, I ''''d be worried that the End Times were coming and that I had my Left Behind Books with me
-Obama is the disgraceful Pig... with Lipstick on the Bu-tt
-The lipsticked pig has gone back to her home wallow. I hear they have nice mud in Alaska.....
-Here''''s the sound coming from Alaska today..."Oink, Oink."
-Palin: Lipstick on a fascist.
-Obama is lucky that he is supported by Many Self-Hating & Low Self-esteem White Liberals... and Blacks who thought Obama was "really" a Black.
-Getting a religious extremist on the ticket was just what the doctor ordered. Hopefully she gets her orders from a different God than W.
-The rotten hypocrite *** and her sidekick McBush will be exposed soon enough for their lies.

[luvienne]

The Palin-mccain camp have thumbed their noses at voters who want to hear more. More on issues that confront this country. They have refused. But does this send a signal that something is up to some American voters. On the contrary. They would much rather hear a 10-15 minute recycled speech and ask for more of the same. Obama stay on message. We''re listening. Vote Nov. 08

[faizal3-2009]

This is where the war in Iraq comes in. Obama completely misunderstands what happened in Iraq -- the surge and everything that came before it.
_________________________

Obama understands that if it were not for this war of choice, their would have been no need for a surge. McCain has been in lockstep with Bush in all his policies and it''s time to put him in the dustpan of history along with Bush.

[faizal3-2009]

For months, the McCainiacs have said they will run on his judgment and experience. In his first presidential decision, John McCain has shown that he is willing to endanger his country, potentially leaving it in the hands of someone who simply has no business being a heartbeat away from the most powerful, complicated, difficult job in human history.

For a man who is 72 years old and has had four bouts with cancer to have chosen someone so completely unqualified to become president is shockingly irresponsible. Suddenly, McCain''s age and health become central issues in the campaign, as does his judgment.

McCOMA NEEDS A CHECKUP FROM THE NECK UP!!

[caliguy55]

Sen. John McCain has proved himself to be unqualified and incapable of effectively leading the United States of America into the future by, among other things, his reckless, irresponsible, impulsive, and dangerous judgment in picking Sarah Palin as his running mate. Sarah Palin is a minor distraction not even worthy of discussion. However, Sen. John McCain has shown his contempt for the intelligence of the American people by making this unequivocally cynical decision to use an unknown, untested, and corrupt, serial liar like Sarah Palin to deceive voters into believing he stands for change. Sen. John McCain also disgraced himself by demonstrating a lack of courage in his choice of Sarah Palin at the last moment over much more qualified Republican men and women simply because she appeals to the base of the Republican Party, a group of voters he was going to lose. What Sen. John McCain doesn''t understand is that by appeasing the extreme right wing of the Republican Party, he is going to lose the voters that really count, i.e., moderate and independent voters, and, in doing so, certainly lose the election. Obama/Biden 2008!!!

[abbe91]

"George W. Bush''''''''s experience with Iraq has been absolutely straight down the mainstream of American history.
Posted by John43218 at 08:19 AM : Sep 10, 2008"

Only if you start recording in 1960.

[abbe91]

"For those who do not understand economics:
Posted by john43218 at 09:04 AM : Sep 10, 2008"

which includes McSame (he admits it) and Palin.

[abbe91]

"The United States has experienced devastating setbacks in every major war. Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Truman, and Reagan were all told to quit and cut our losses. They didn''''''''t -- even when the newspapers and their political enemies screamed and yelled, walking a fine line near treason. George W. Bush''''''''s experience with Iraq has been absolutely straight down the mainstream of American history.


Posted by John43218 at 08:19 AM : Sep 10, 2008"

In some cases (Independence, WWII, ...), everybody knew what victory was about. In some other cases,
it is unclear. If you believed Bush''s "Mission accomplished", the troops should have been back a long time ago. If you know that it''s all about oil, then Bush and co have no interest to see this occupation ending. This "war" must not be won but sustained.

[powerman2001]

Hey, Palin has a new nick name...Caribou Barbie! How funny? I''ve been laughing for about 15 minutes now!

[john43218]

This is where the war in Iraq comes in. Obama completely misunderstands what happened in Iraq -- the surge and everything that came before it. That is because he believes the liberal media, which have done their best to misinform the country ever since 9/11/01. As a result, our Democratic candidate for president just doesn''''t get what turned things around for the United States, just as he doesn''''t get why we overthrew Saddam, and how the US has won its wars historically. He doesn''''t get any of our history, including the Civil War, which liberated the slaves. None of it was easy; none of it was inevitable; all of it took extraordinary self-sacrifice, courage and leadership by thousands and thousands of our forefathers and mothers.


This is not the kind of thing you can learn by cramming for the next day''''s headlines, which is what Obama has been doing -- trying to learn the ropes on the fly.


Obama should go back and look at the Arizona Memorial, and start rethinking his history.


The United States has experienced devastating setbacks in every major war. Washington, Lincoln, FDR, Truman, and Reagan were all told to quit and cut our losses. They didn''''t -- even when the newspapers and their political enemies screamed and yelled, walking a fine line near treason. George W. Bush''''s experience with Iraq has been absolutely straight down the mainstream of American history.