Is experience in the senate a liablity for Presidential candidates?

[Clarkie1]

Poll question: Is experience in the senate a liablity for Presidential candidates?

This thought occurs to me today because in another thread an Obama supporter (I like Obama a lot) made the point that more years in the senate could be a liablity for Obama, and his time to run is now. In my opinion, Obama would make an excellent VP candidate, and that would put him in a good place for 2016.

Also, my understanding is that the last senator to become president directly from the senate was John Kennedy (and that was a close one). Before that, I believe it was President Harrison? (correct me if I'm wrong).

So, is experience in the senate a liablility for presidential hopefuls? Are more years spent in the senate a greater liablity because anything the have said or done can and will be used against them, fairly or unfairly?

[last1standing]

1. No, but a lack of experience elsewhere is.

It's not being a senator that causes the problem, it's not having experience in an executive role such as governor. Senators have always been portrayed as weak, ineffectual consensus builders while governors or generals are able to portray themselves as already proven leaders. It may not be a fair assumption but it's definitely in the mindset of most people and will be incredibly hard to dislodge. We want strong, courageous leaders, not wimpy conciliators. Senators always seem to come out on the losing end of that statement.

[Clarkie1]

2. Good points. nt

[acmejack]

3. No, but that voting record certainly is.

[sendero]

4. Of course it is..

... look at elections for the last 40 years. America in general mistrusts the Washington crowd. And for good reason IMHO.

[wisteria]

5. To a point, because people have bought into it, but what is worse

is holding no political office at all.

[Clarkie1]

8. An assertion which has absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever.

Yes, Eisenhower was SOOOOO unelectable.

You are entitled to your opinion, but the historical record speaks for itself regarding who is most electable and who is not. Can't argue with the facts!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/de34.html

[FloridaPat]

6. JFK - senator. * - govenor. Give me a senator any day.

[Clarkie1]

7. That's just the point, a governor usually wins! nt

[sonroadera]

12. Senator McCain? Senator Frist?

Comparing JFK to Bush has nothing to do with senator vs. governor.

[FloridaPat]

21. I know. Just everytime I see * name I go nuts. And thinking of him

being a governor - and Jeb - makes me anti-governor.

[ProSense]

9. This theory doesn't fly since Gore, a Senator, won the popular vote by 500,000. n/t

[Clarkie1]

10. I think Gore being VP had more to do with that, don't you? nt

[ProSense]

14. Here is your premise:

Are more years spent in the senate a greater liablity because anything the have said or done can and will be used against them, fairly or unfairly?

So it's false!

[Clarkie1]

17. LOL. Why is it false, because you say so?

Too funny.

[ProSense]

18. No, because Gore spent years in the Senate and won the popular vote, so

it wasn't held against him!

[Clarkie1]

22. He had VP experience which overcame the senate handicap. nt

[ProSense]

19. Also,

Kerry spent years in the Senate, Edwards not as much, but both came out on top of the other candidates in the primaries, so it wasn't held against them at the primary stage. It's important to be able to make it out of the primaries; otherwise, it doesn't matter what experience one has.

[sonroadera]

11. Being a senator is a liability.

In my opinion.

[NV1962]

13. Not necessarily

I'm not too much convinced that experience in Congress (whether in the House or the Senate) is necessarily a bad thing. I would argue that experience in the Senate counts toward getting one's teeth cut in the wheeling and dealing of "politics as usual"; the pork deals, the negotiations "across the aisle", etc.

Is it possible to become "too much" entrenched in Senatorial ways, as for example has been charged by some against John Kerry in 2004? Well, yes, but I also believe that's a personal, more character or nature bound thing - not necessarily a function of seniority in the Senate.

Although other factors also come into play there, I'd think years in the House wouldn't necessarily and by themselves disqualify a candidate, either.

In fact, the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that since so many factors can come into play in defining a "feasible" or "good" candidate, that I think it'd be even petty or at least shortsighted to disqualify someone just because of experience in the Senate (or the House for that matter).

I think that in the specific case of Senator Obama, it's much more about the word "experience" than "Senate".

Take for example a look in the past: JFK came in as fairly fresh-faced guy. He (and the rest of the country) paid dearly for that in two clear cases: the Bay of Pigs, and Vietnam. In both cases, I suspect that it was mostly his lack of a "robust" experience that harnessed him against the always and ever-present attempts to arm-twist the President (Pentagon, lobbies, party, etc.) that left him more receptive, or more pliable in a more negative term, to their pressures.

Senator Barack Obama may very well have the right stuff right now to be a successful candidate in 2008; I'm not too sure, however, that he already has the right stuff to make a good President in 2009. It's that latter point for which I believe he may need a bit more time, to prepare himself for the terrible onslaught that always awaits the person to occupy the White House.

That's why I believe that in Obama's specific case, he'd do himself more good if he paved the way for a successful run a bit later, and not as soon as 2008.

But to get back at the central question here: no, I don't hold experience in Congress against someone. One's Congressional track record, however, remains a poignant witness. But that isn't the issue here, and it certainly isn't in the case of Senator Obama, either.

[geek tragedy]

15. Governors & executives have accomplishments; Senators have voting records.

'Nuff said.

[rucky]

16. Yes, but I don't know why. n/t

[FrenchieCat]

20. Executive experience and Senators....

mean managing a relatively small senate staff. That doesn't prepare one of the Presidency.

Governor means managing an entire state. That prepares one better for the task of the presidency.

Generals who have been in charge of large commands that includes hundreds of thousands of soldiers and their families are also more experienced in the art of management.