Experience and/or change = Presidency?

Commentary:


There much talks and the theme of experience vs. change. In the battle from Presidential nomination. The résumé question has been the subject of Barack Obama. Obama is in his first term as Senator of Illinois. If history is a guide in life and this country, time in office does not translate into success in the Oval Office. You decide that when you go to the polls.


USA Today does an good analysis of past Presidents.



From USA Today:

Look at Lincoln

Lincoln's prior record looks equally puny when compared with that of the unfortunate Andrew Johnson, who came to office after Lincoln's assassination. His origins as humble as those of Lincoln, he became mayor of his hometown, Greenville, Tenn., while still in his 20s, served in both houses of the Tennessee Legislature, graduated to the U.S. House while in his 30s, won election as governor of Tennessee, United States senator and, in 1864, was elected vice president on the ticket headed by Lincoln. That such an illustrious career should have climaxed with his impeachment in 1868 offers further evidence of lack of any correlation between a weighty curriculum vitae and success in the White House.

If extensive prior office-holding can sometimes produce mediocrity in the White House, it can also be a precursor for success, if not outright greatness. Thomas Jefferson won the presidency, albeit barely, in 1800 after having been a member of Virginia's delegation to the Continental Congress during which time he wrote the Declaration of Independence. During the American Revolution, he served as governor of Virginia and later as ambassador to France, secretary of State and vice president.

Jefferson enjoyed an illustrious first term, and although his second term was less distinguished, his time in the White House would certainly place him near the top of the list of successful presidents. The most widely cited rating of presidents was composed in 1969 by historian Arthur Schlesinger, based on opinions of 32 distinguished historians and other experts. They put Jefferson at the top of a list of near-great presidents, a category that included Andrew Jackson, James Polk, Theodore Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Woodrow Wilson.

In that category of near-greats, résumés ranged in heftiness from that of Polk, who had been a member of the Tennessee Legislature, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and governor of Tennessee, to that of Woodrow Wilson, who served a single two-year term as New Jersey's governor.

Résumés of the three presidents who topped Schlesinger's list — Lincoln, Washington and Franklin D. Roosevelt — were a good deal skimpier than those of some presidents further down the list. FDR served two years in the New York state senate, seven years as assistant secretary of the Navy and four years as governor of New York. George Washington, another of the greats, was a professional soldier but had served as a Virginia delegate to both the First and Second Continental congresses and as president of the convention that gave us the Constitution. But the three pre-White House careers of these great presidents seem anemic when compared with that of William Howard Taft, whose experience included stints as solicitor general of the United States, a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals, governor of the Philippines, and secretary of War.

Taft is in the middle of the list of those presidents whom Schlesinger's raters deemed "average."

On to two term former President Bill Clinton:

Elected at 46, Bill Clinton was one year younger than Obama will be at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August. And in '92, Bill Clinton had been a government man, with no real experience in private business. Yet he ran a successful "it's the economy, stupid," campaign to confront a recession. Bill, of course, left this country with a huge surplus and growing economy and 60% approval rate in his second term despite his impeachment scandal.

Finally, on to two term President George W. Bush:

Bush was governor of Texas. Although Bush had been a government man like Clinton, Bush has no experience in the name of leadership and has left this country financially, economically, and emotionally in shambles in his two terms. He is now labeled the worst President ever. Bush may have the resume of working in government but action speaks louder than words and being a servant to the American people will determine the success in the Oval Office. In Bush's case, his fate has already been determined.