Experienced versus Inexperienced in American history

As many of us here have been arguing for or against Hillary on the basis of this "experience" strength, I could not help but offering a tender reminder that we are selecting American President in America. Since "experience" is something derived from the past, I thought it would at least reveal some possible guidance in American past.

Hillary has been claiming her "35-year experience" in campaign. She was born in 1947 and now 60 years old. "35-year experience" would have her start at age of 25 or 1972 to be exact, the year that she stepped down her Yale Law School Graduation Ceremony. After graduation, she then went to Little Rock's Rose Law firm and found her political fortune with a guy by the name of Bill Clinton, along with some small financial one gained from cattle futures trading. And now evidently she bundled everything she has done since her graduation up to now as presidential relevant experience. Granted.


I would not bother about Obama in detail in the area of experience. It would be fruitless effort on this site. But I suspect that there must be someone in the past that would fit the experience mold of many people here. So I went back to the past, American past, of course, so that we could all experience some "experience" we all missed and revered dearly.

A similarity could be drawn in 1860 Presidential election with Hillary and Obama. James Buchanan, the 15th US President then, incumbent, would have been easily able to put all of us in awe with his glorious and shining resume:

A college education (not small achievement in 1860s in US) ;
10 years of US House of Representative
US Ambassador to Russia
10 years of US Senate
4 years of State of Secretary
US Ambassador to Britain

Measured by this resume, Hillary, at most, would have looked like a White House intern or First intern, if I may. But in just one term, this most experienced President Buchanan in many people's eyes was ranked by historians and scholars in political society as the worst President. He did not seek re-election in 1860.

In that year, American people took their chance instead with a rookie 1-term state congressman from Obama state Illinois, a very awkward, uneducated (one grade of elementary school of formal education); ugly; poorly dressed, self-taught lawyer. This mediocre experience could hardly have compared with Obama's today. If the 1860 election choice made by the people might have looked very much like a gamble in the view of many "experience" oriented people, that bet, as shown later in history, paid off handsomely to American people, in fact so much so that they even borrowed his last name to put up a building in Washington, DC: Lincoln Memorial.


So let's not get indulged too much in the experience fantasy with American voters.

所有跟帖： 

• 需要指出的是：小O和克嫂之争根本不是经验的问题而是 -没想法- ♂ (425 bytes) () 02/21/2008 postreply 16:20:41

• Wrong in logic -huanmie- ♂ (417 bytes) () 02/21/2008 postreply 16:25:09

• you know what you said is a lie -huanmie- ♂ (92 bytes) () 02/21/2008 postreply 16:37:26

• What is right about Hillary's experience and wrong about Obama's -baiwen- ♂ (207 bytes) () 02/21/2008 postreply 16:53:07

• check the post listed hillary's achievements -huanmie- ♂ (699 bytes) () 02/21/2008 postreply 17:16:11

• History is made not on but to our experience -baiwen- ♂ (0 bytes) () 02/21/2008 postreply 17:25:11

• do me a favor. Make your idea logic first. -huanmie- ♂ (104 bytes) () 02/21/2008 postreply 17:27:39

• It seems like you cannot understand what I said -huanmie- ♂ (51 bytes) () 02/21/2008 postreply 17:29:20

• Thank you. As minority on experience issue, I am flattered -baiwen- ♂ (0 bytes) () 02/21/2008 postreply 17:21:19