A stroll through Democratic experience
posted at 11:30 am on September 3, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | regular view
The last couple of days have provided us with a wealth of Democrats suddenly crying out for the need of experience in the second position on the national ticket, despite telling the nation for twenty months that Barack Obama’s lack of experience was an asset for a reformer. This eruption of love for a long resumé comes in reaction to John McCain’s selection of a first-term Governor in his quest to oppose a first-term Senator for the White House. We’ve addressed that particular hypocrisy in earlier posts, but let’s take a look at Democratic tickts of the last two decades to discover when this requirement arose.
- 2004: John Kerry, a 20-year veteran of the Senate with no executive experience, chooses Senator John Edwards as his running mate. Edwards was about to finish his first term in any public office, and while he sat on the Foreign Relations Committee, he missed most of its meetings during his tenure in the Senate. He spent the last third of his term running for the presidential nomination and then running for VP. Before entering the Senate in 1998, Edwards made a fortune as a personal-injury lawyer. Experience level: Zero — no executive experience, no military experience, no foreign-policy experience.
- 2000: VP Al Gore picks Senator Joe Lieberman. We’ll get to Gore in a moment, but Joe Lieberman had 15 years in the Senate, preceded by eight years as Attorney General of Connecticut, an executive position. Of course, in 2004, Democrats shrugged at Lieberman’s own bid for the presidency, opting instead for Kerry. Experience level: Good.
- 1992: Bill Clinton taps Al Gore for VP. Al Gore had been in Congress since 1977, first in the House and at the time for five years in the Senate. He had no executive experience, and indeed no experience at all in the private sector. He quit law school to run for his father’s old seat in the House at 28. Gore served in Vietnam, but had no other foreign-policy or executive experience. Experience level: Low.
- 1988: Michael Dukakis selects Lloyd Bentsen as his running mate. Bentsen went straight from World War II into Congress, where he remained for almost 40 years before joining Dukakis and beating Dan Quayle like a bongo drum in the debates. He had no executive or private-sector experience at all. Dukakis, though, had been governor for three terms in Massachusetts. Experience level: Fair, but all as a Washington insider.
Bill Clinton remarked, in defense of Barack Obama, that people thought he was too inexperienced to be President in 1992, but that sounds like a Clinton myth to me. Clinton had also served multiple terms as governor in Arkansas, plus at least one term as Attorney General. He brought plenty of executive experience to the ticket when he ran — more than the incumbent President had brought to his first campaign, in fact.
Sarah Palin has more executive experience than Obama and Biden combined. She has more overall political experience than Obama does, having been working in politics while he was still in law school. She has far more experience than John Edwards, whom the Democrats ran in the VP slot in 2004 and considered nominating this year. If the Democrats want to continue debating experience, well … as Obama says, that’s a debate we’d be thrilled to have.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
Check this out. This comment was made when Edwards was on Gore’s short list in 2000.
http://cid-716d5b31952952be.spaces.live.com/default.aspx
August 31, 2008, CNN, Wolf Blitzer:
BLITZER: We heard from John Boehner, the minority leader in the House of Representatives just moments ago, and Nancy Pfotenhauer, a senior adviser to John McCain’s campaign,that Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, McCain’s running mate, has more experience actually in running government than Barack Obama.
DASCHLE: Well, it’s actually — the choice is somewhat mystifying to me, Wolf. It’s inexplicable. John McCain, for the last year, has basically said one thing. The next president of the United States is going to have to have the ability to focus the experience and all of the resources it’s going to take to be a strong person in foreign policy and make the decisions necessary to get us through this very, very difficult challenges we face.
So who does he pick? Somebody who has absolutely no experience in that regard. The only explanation to me is that he buckled,
he knuckled under to the extreme right-wing pressures that he was feeling these last several weeks. That’s the only real explanation I
can think of.
August 6, 2000: Meet The Press, NBC:
MR. RUSSERT: North Carolina does have a Democratic governor. The Senator from there is John Edwards. He has only been
in the Senate for 17 months. Al Gore has said repeatedly that he will pick someone who could become president on a moment’s
notice. Is 17 months, just a year and a half in the U.S. Senate, adequate preparation for someone to be vice president?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, you look at the people who have become president with what limited experience they’ve had in
Washington, whether it was Ronald Reagan or Bill Clinton or any one of a number of people–now George Bush wants to be
president with absolutely no Washington experience, so I think I look at that and I’m not troubled at all. If you know John Edwards
like I do, you know what an incredible leader he is, what a remarkable opportunity he has provided all the caucus with his leadership
in the caucus and the Senate. I have no doubt that he could take the reins of responsibility. I have no doubt that he could articulate for
the nation the kind of passion, the kind of conviction, the kind of real direction that we want to take this country and the party. So I
have no doubts about his candidacy and his eligibility, should he be the person to be selected.
MR. RUSSERT: But, Senator, Ronald Reagan was governor for eight years, Bill Clinton governor for eight years, George W.
Bush governor for five years. Mr. Edwards was a trial lawyer, a personal injury lawyer before 17 months in the Senate. Is that
adequate preparation?
SEN. DASCHLE: Well, Tim, I think it’s the life experiences you bring to the job. I don’t know of anybody that has a broader
array of life experiences than John Edwards. He has been a success story. He has gone through his own personal trials. He has come
to the Senate and, right from the start, taken on leadership roles. He has demonstrated his capacity for leadership in ways that I haven’t
seen before. It’s really remarkable what he’s been able to do in a very short period of time. He’s demonstrated to me his capacity to
take on responsibility. He’ll do that again should he be the nominee. I have no doubt about that.
ninjapirate on September 3, 2008 at 11:35 AM
but Obama bin Biden still have an advantage, they have a lap dog media which will allow them to govern easier.
/msm tool
jp on September 3, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Bring it…
D2Boston on September 3, 2008 at 11:36 AM
*bows to Ed*
Everyone, print at least 1000 copies of Ed’s words of wisdom, then staple them to the foreheads of any Democrat/ media person you see.
Damiano on September 3, 2008 at 11:38 AM
The only vetting process the Democrats will accept re: Sarah Palin is to throw her in a lake and see if she floats (in which case she is clearly a witch and must be flogged, flayed and burned).
miles on September 3, 2008 at 11:39 AM
OK, everyone remembers the JFK line, but it was no lopsided event.
jgapinoy on September 3, 2008 at 11:39 AM
As poor choices for VP, no one will ever top Admiral Stockdale.
fogw on September 3, 2008 at 11:40 AM
Daschle. Ugh. A human emetic.
Beautiful juxtaposition, though.
DrSteve on September 3, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Ed, I find it interesting that of all of the Democrats you profile via bullet-point, the only one with a ‘good’ rating is the one that supports John McCain.
Coincidence?
In all seriousness though, I think that the Democrats definitely have a losing argument with the ‘experience’ factor (the GOP does as well now that McCain selected someone who undercuts that very argument), the American people will ultimately choose whomever they believe is best for the job. For many (myself included), it’s a ‘gut feeling’ that makes someone pull the lever for one candidate or another.
I do think that experience is important, but does not always decide the outcome of an election (see: Clinton Vs. Bush 41).
http://thepajamapundit.com/
thePajamaPundit on September 3, 2008 at 11:41 AM
MYTH!
Clinton was the LONGEST SERVING GOVERNOR IN ARKANSAS HISTORY, serving from 1978-1980, then from 1982-1993.
He ran for Congress and lost in 1974. By the time he ran for prez in ‘92, he had also chaired the Nat Governors thing, been a keynote speaker at the 1988 Convention, and been elected as governor SIX TERMS (terms were 2 years in arkansas back then)
*6-term governor….. yeah, even clinton was a heavyweight.
Obama? FEATHERWEIGHT.
battleoflepanto1571 on September 3, 2008 at 11:42 AM
Let’s make today the end of our legitimizing the scurrilous clutter by obsessing on defending against it… and the start of a massive counter-attack. Looking at Edwards, Kerry, Clintons, Obama, Biden, et al. is a good start. Priority #1 is regaining control of the narrative.
We cannot allow them to set the terms or frame the issues. The best defense is a good offense, and appeals to emotion can seldom (if ever) be refuted by appeals to reason.
Full speed ahead.
petefrt on September 3, 2008 at 11:42 AM
What about Ferraro? She was a lawyer, & then a representative for a few years before being picked as VP nominee.
jgapinoy on September 3, 2008 at 11:42 AM
When they attack one personally it means they haven’t a single political argument left
Margaret Thatcher
Waterboy on September 3, 2008 at 11:43 AM
What Quayle should have said, of course, was that he had more experience than Bentsen did when he first ran for President in ‘76.
Bentsen was a tough hombre. I kind of miss him.
DrSteve on September 3, 2008 at 11:44 AM
On the Democratic Menu………….. Crow.
Seven Percent Solution on September 3, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Michael Steele just said that there is a concerted and coordinated effort to get her to drop out in a week. They are coming out swinging today, new ad to come out at noon. I hope they hit back and hit back HARD.
reshas1 on September 3, 2008 at 11:46 AM
LOL – the DEMS already threw their witch under the bus. Bye bye Shrilliary.
txdoc on September 3, 2008 at 11:46 AM
Alas, the major difference is anatomical. Of course I’m referring to the fact that the frontal lobe of their brain is missing. You didn’t think I was going there did you?
The result is lack of cognitive maturity and proper judgement among other important functions. Thus a sense of fair play is not immediately available to them and the results are hypocrisy, dishonesty, hyperbole, entitlement, grandiosity, and the complete absence of a remorse.
The only cure is voting Republican.
NightmareOnKStreet on September 3, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Edwards always seemed too much of a lightweight to be in the Presidential mix given his resume, though he and Obama do have graduate degrees in law which is applicable to understanding how the government functions.
Some questioned the quality of Clinton’s experience given that Arkansas was a small state, but Alaska has far fewer people than Arkansas and fewer people than many cities.
Most of what the press is focused on today won’t matter. She’ll have some make-or-break moments when she’s grilled during a debate or in a forum like Meet The Press. Ultimately, the resume is less important than her ability to convey that she has an agile and informed mind that can cut to the center of an issue when talking to experts.
I think she’ll knock it out of the park tonight, but tonight isn’t what will matter.
dedalus on September 3, 2008 at 11:49 AM
Fact is, dems will lose.
Take a stroll through history.
Since 1964, in the last 40 years, since the time when 21 years was the age limit for voting and when 90% of blacks couldn’t vote, in the dawn of color Tv, since then….
….democrats have won exactly TWO presidents.
Carter and Clinton.
for carter, (southern governor, ‘outsider’) he was elected in 1976, 15? months after watergate, where Nixon RESIGNED. ford came back in the polls and almost beat carter.
for clinton, (southern governor, ’small town outsider’) he was elected in 1992, by virtue of Perot siphoning off 20% of the popular vote, the biggest 3rd party showing since TR in 1912, and the biggest non-ex president (other than the civil war election) in HISTORY.
….so let’s get this straight….. the dems have had 2 guys, both small town outsiders, washington governors, and they only came to power through a PRESIDENTIAL RESIGNATION and the biggest threat to the TWO PARTY SYSTEM in the HISTORY of this country….
…..
….and we are afraid that a dirty Chicago pol asking to “cling to guns and religion” who a seventh of the country believes is a ’secret muslim’ (wrongly believe, but they still believe it) and had his career launched in the home of a capitol/pentagon bomber, who is prone to gaffes and faces the backlash of messiah-worship…. we are afraid Obama will be the 3rd guy to be a dem prez???????
Gimme a break. Stay on offense, and McCain wins 320EV minimum. Siphons off Oregon, New Jersey, puts NY in play.
Seriously. What you see on tv is the idea of manhattan or hollywood. America is more than that (hence, only carter & clinton since 1964)
battleoflepanto1571 on September 3, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Funniest line:
And he just continues to accrue those life experiences. LOL!
bloggless on September 3, 2008 at 11:52 AM
Nice. Well done. Tiny Tom can pivot on a dime, can’t he? I’d love to see the RNC do something with that little compare and contrast bit.
a capella on September 3, 2008 at 11:53 AM
Barry’s currrent popularity proves this to be untrue. They will choose whomever they believe to be the most popular like they did in high school. Or the best looking, or the coolest, or the smoothest talker, or the one their friends (the MSM and Hollyweirds) like. But few of the American people will choose based on who they believe to be the best man/woman for the job. So often people can’t tell you one thing about the person they will cast a vote for. They know which party the person is from, their name, maybe their gender or color of skin and which celeb is pushing them. But what is their platform, what do they stand for and what will they do for you? Can’t answer. I’m amazed to stand in line in a store or in a waiting room at the doctors and hear the unintelligent cr*p that people spout about why they are voting for person X. Sad!!
mauioriginal on September 3, 2008 at 11:53 AM
A FYI moment:
Newt on the experience issue last night
1GooDDaDDy on September 3, 2008 at 11:55 AM
And while we’re at it, let’s not forget to point out that in 2000 Joe Lieberman was considered smart enough and experienced enough by the Democrats to be their VP choice, yet in 2006 he was summarily drummed out of the party, to be replaced by an unknown (Ned Lamont), on the grounds that he wasn’t sufficiently in tune with the party’s zeitgeist.
Of course, today, instead of referring to “Senator Lamont, D-CN”, people say “Ned who?”, because Lieberman proceeded to defeat Lamont, while running as an independent, in spite of everything the DNC did to attempt to destroy him. They managed to fool themselves, but completely failed to deceive the people of Connecticut- the very “peasants” they spend so much of their time looking down their aquiline, patrician noses at.
I think this tells you all you need to know about how much the Democratic Party values experience, knowledge, or even common sense. The latter they put an especially low premium on. Mainly, I suspect, because most of their worldview flies in the face of it, as well as contradicting reality.
I don’t think this is a debate the “progressives” should be starting. But if they want it, it would be wrong not to give it to them.
As Napoleon once said, “Never interrupt your enemy when he is busy making a mistake.”
cheers
eon
eon on September 3, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Did Daschle just call Edwards’ girlfriend a broad?
Vashta.Nerada on September 3, 2008 at 12:01 PM
And his best line when introduced to the media? “Who am I, why am I here?”
RMCS_USN on September 3, 2008 at 12:02 PM
I’ll always remember the Dana Carvey (as Perot) and Phil Hartman (as Stockdale) skit on SNL where Perot tries to dump Stockdale and then Stockdale proceeds to run as fast as Perot’s fleeing car. Hilarious!
acleaver on September 3, 2008 at 12:11 PM
He was not an appropriate pick for VP, but he was a Congressional Medal of Honor Winner. A little more respect for the man please.
HawaiiLwyr on September 3, 2008 at 12:20 PM
ninjapirate on September 3, 2008 at 11:35 AM
Great find! Why wasn’t anyone asking if John Edwards could be President with two small children and a wife with cancer? Ridiculous.
Cindy Munford on September 3, 2008 at 12:22 PM
battleoflepanto1571 on September 3, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Well done on the historical analysis
I would love to believe your conclusions, but I think you’re overly optimistic.
2 problems- 1. The Dems have been running against Bush for over 8 years. They have finally come up to a point where they’ve won that argument and they haven’t change it. This election is about getting rid of Bush, no more no less. It was similar in 1992 when people tired of the Bush brand. 2. Again, back to Clinton, you have a young, charismatic, suit that knows how to work a room and the media very well. That was all Clinton had going for him. 2. McCain, as much as I like him, is thoroughly uninteresting. The POW thing is a great story, but it’s only news. Worse, it’s a story about a war that people hated during time of another war that people hate.
I hate to admit it, but I was pretty convinced Obama had this one for no reason other than when people are down, they vote on emotion. They want a popularity contest, not an election. It make them feel better. Meanwhile the thinking people shoot themselves.
Palin is a game changer because she light up a room like the sun without even trying and can sweep up everyone in America on charm alone.
Now the down side. The average Ameican Idol mouth breathers can’t think for themselves. Liberals are nuts but most people are stupid. Palin could make them all feel fuzzy then realize McCain actually knows stuff, but with the MSM is full revolt, the idiots will spook.
God, I hope I am wrong.
Damiano on September 3, 2008 at 12:22 PM
What? You want us to risk punching holes in them to release all the stale dead air in their noggins?
MrScribbler on September 3, 2008 at 12:25 PM
Attention Democrats: If Sarah Palin is so flawed, you should be thrilled! Be happy that us dumb ol’ Republicans have stepped in it again! If she has so many troubling issues, you Dems should be boosting her! Go ahead, tell the general public that she would make a great President (which is the litmus test for a vice-President).Praise her to the heavens.
After all, your team is so excellent that the Republicans don’t stand a chance, right? Right?
Doug on September 3, 2008 at 12:35 PM
God, every time I see a picture of Silky, I just want to go out and buy nicer hair products.
CFL on September 3, 2008 at 12:41 PM
So you agree with me.
When did I diss his service to his country?
fogw on September 3, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Sorry HLwyr, thought you were addressing my post.
fogw on September 3, 2008 at 12:51 PM
Ed – I’m sure happy you wrote this. I’m sure AP would have gotten around to it before hell froze over.
Fuquay Steve on September 3, 2008 at 12:57 PM
Great find, ninja. Please DO send this to the McCain campaign. Maybe it can be worked into their website somewhere.
hoosiermama on September 3, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Barack Obama has less experience then Geraldine Ferraro had when she was nominated for VP.
Keith_Indy on September 3, 2008 at 1:21 PM
I’d love to see the McCain campaign point out that Obama only talked of Palin as the former mayor and rhetorically ask why Obama’s campaign briefed him so inadequately and left out her current position as governor. If Obama doesn’t get up to date info now from the people he picks to keep him informed, how will his judgment be better as President?
Dusty on September 3, 2008 at 1:28 PM
Ed and Allah have clearly documented that this issue does not exist in the sense of governance, and is merely a partisan political effort by frantic, horrified Dems to shore up what must suddenly seem like a potentially disastrous public comparison of the records of some unknown Alaskan Mommy, and their leftist Messiah, The One.
By itself, this is funny.
But coupled with the over-the-top insults against Palin by Dem pols and the insanely one-sided coverage by a liberal media that has been pressed into direct, unabashed advocacy for The One – it rises to the level of “High-Larious”.
Jaibones on September 3, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Quick note: John Effin Kerry was Lieutenant Governor to that modeler of grand social programs, Michael Dukakis for something like a fortnight before falling into a long-term position as junior senator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. I’m damn sure that it was a searing executive experience.
thegreatbeast on September 3, 2008 at 3:09 PM
This whole thing boils down to her home state. It wouldn’t matter if Palin had been a 5 term Governor. The Left would still cry that its Alaska and therefore, not important or relevant to the country.
Speedwagon82 on September 3, 2008 at 4:19 PM
bentsen made one smarmy nasty remark which no one, no one, would have had a decent comeback to and that’s what you remember? What version of American history do you follow, howard zinn’s?
peacenprosperity on September 3, 2008 at 5:03 PM
Time for the bumper sticker wars to begin . . .
AND … NO SKANKLES!
Trochilus on September 3, 2008 at 7:58 PM
Excellent point . . . and, let’s not forget his brief but highly illegally-ordered foreign travel experience.
Christmas in Cambodia, ‘68, courtesy of President Nixon (who was first sworn into office a few weeks later).
And, he had the experience-laden “magic hat” to prove it!
Trochilus on September 3, 2008 at 8:10 PM
Comment pages: