Monday, December 17, 2007
Since the beginning of the campaign season Hillary Clinton has been raising questions about Barack Obama’s lack of experience in government. He had been in the Senate for only one year before he began his run for the presidency.
Senator Obama has tried to counter that charge by pointing to his experience as a legislator, a law professor, and a member of the Illinois legislature. He also referred to a statement made by Bill Clinton in 1992 to the effect that experience per se was not necessarily a plus. Some people have a lot of experience doing the wrong thing time after time. (Think of Dick Cheney.) Not having been part of the Washington games for very long, Obama can bring a fresh insight to the presidency.
Evidently the Boston Globe agrees with him. They endorsed the Illinois senator, saying, ''It is true that all the other Democratic contenders have more conventional resumes, and have spent more time in Washington. But that exposure has tended to give them a sense of government’s constraints. Obama is more open to its possibilities.''
We certainly agree with that sentiment. When it comes to Washington-style politics, the less experience, the better qualified the candidate. If you want to see a candidate with a minimum of Washington experience, you couldn’t find anyone better than Dr. Carl Perrin. He has never even to Washington. What could be better than that?