I know Barak Obama is relatively inexperienced as a politician, but lately I've come to think that there's such a thing as too much political experience. Which is why the more I read about Obama the more I like him. I hear people squawking about how he's a junior senator, 88th in seniority, a neophyte. And I hear people drawing from this fact the view that "The world is too complex and dangerous for this likeable, charismatic, African American neophyte to practice on-the-job training." (quoted in The St. Petersburg Times in Florida.) On its rhetorical face I agree with this, but I don't think that, should he win, Obama could ever really be considered a political noobie anymore. Wouldn't being elected president itself be evidence of his mastery of the American political system? But it's also naive to portray the president as solely responsible for the decisions he makes. As if Obama, like some awkward teen on his first date, is going to blurt out at a press conference "Oh shit, let's nuke Iran!" Every president surrounds himself with scores of experienced politicians who guide him, for better or worse, through the labyrinth. So I think it's misguided to criticize Obama for mere lack of experience. I'm not even convinced that political experience really distinguishes good presidents from poor ones. After all, the current president had plenty of it and look where we are now.
During his announcement speech, Obama told the crowd that "I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change." Other reform-minded candidates have said as much in past elections, but to me it sounds pretty convincing coming from an outsider like Barak.
At any rate, the real issue now should not be how seasoned he is but how he proposes doing the job. And so far I'm on board.
