Politics

Judgment vs. Experience

By  | 

After traveling to Afghanistan and Iraq with Barack Obama, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel had this to say:

“Each candidate has strengths and weaknesses, and experience does matter. But what matters more in my opinion is character and judgment. And judgment meaning who is it that you bring around, who is it that you listen to? Can you make the right decisions for the right reasons on behalf of your country and the world?”

Hagel expressed exactly what I think Obama has to convince swing voters to believe: that Obama’s judgment is so superior to John McCain’s that the experience gap isn’t important.

So, do you think Obama can make that point to those voters who are still on the fence? And, if so, what does he need to do?

  • kranky kritter

    The problem with this idea is that it suggests that experience and judgement are independent and not related. However, most folks will freely acknowledge in general that experience is what hones your judgement.

    That means Obama has an extremely tough sell. It is true that one MAY have vast experience and not have developed good judgement, But it is an extraordinary claim to suggest that one has such innately good judgement that they’ll make nothing but very good judgements despite a lack of relevant experience. So In order to look superior to McCain i this respect, he has to make folks think that despite McCain’s experience, McCain nevertheless has poor judgement. And that despite his lack of experience, he’ll make all or most of the perfect steps.

    IMO, the less Obama talks about this issue, the better it will go for him. McCain is pressing this issue because its a winner for him. He can even aford the luxury of talking about ways that he used to think, and say., for example, that he once shared some of Obama’s naivete, until repeated experiences taught him x, y, and z.

  • Ed

    The more McCain keeps attacking, the easier it will be for Obama to sell his judgement over experience. We are already seeing the pushback.

    In the McCain universe, the war started with the surge, and he keeps trying to force Obama to admit that the surge was successful, hardly a given considering the tenuousness of security if we returned to presurge levels. What this has done is focused attention on all of McCain’s cheerleading for war since 2002, and his own initial criticisms of the surge.

    Little by little, the truth about McCain’s 6 year history of poor judgement on Iraq and Afghanistan, and his double-talk on the surge to protect himself politically is coming to light. And it’s not pretty. But what is he supposed to do. He can’t focus on domestic issues, because he’s even worse on those.

  • kranky kritter

    As I’ve said elsewhere, McCain ought to consider going easier on the triumphalism because circumstances could indeed change, as you’ve pointed out.

    But Obama has truly dug himself a whole by denying the strong likelihood that a surge in troops was a substantial contributing factor to currently improved security conditions in Iraq. Sticking with this “view,” if you can even call it that, is embarassing. His deliberate opaqueness on this issue has created in my mind the most serious doubts I have had so far about his fundamental seriousness as someone who seeks to lead this country. I have remained undecided on my choice while defending him on more blogs that I care to count. But I’m not in his corner on this one.

  • http://www.davidortez.com David Ortez
  • fuckranky kritter Says:

    you can’t even spell hole* faggot ass nigga.. suck a nigga dick or something

  • http://www.mccainsnationalsecurity.com/ Peter

    McCain’s judgment is greatly clouded by his temperament. My children do not deserve more war.

    http://www.mccainsnationalsecurity.com/