Should Barack Obama play the Springfield card?

We noted in an earlier post that for John McCain, a silver lining in the new L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll that put Barack Obama solidly ahead in their presidential race was voter attitudes about which candidate has the "right experience" to serve in the Oval Office.

McCain led Obama by 20 percentage points on this question (No. 11 on this chart).

The presumptive GOP nominee and his advisors don't need a survey to be persuaded that they enjoy a big edge on the experience issue and that the more they are able to plant seeds of doubt about Obama's seasoning, the more likely McCain can overcome the prevailing political winds and win the White House.

But on Tuesday, a guest column appeared in Newsweek disputing what has been taken as a given in the campaign: McCain's experience advantage. It argues, provocatively, that the eight years Obama served in the Illinois state legislature before winning a U.S. Senate seat in 2004 might trump McCain's 22 years as a senator from Arizona.

The case is made by Alan Ehrenhalt, executive editor of Governing magazine, which trains its eyes on state and local government (and, not surprisingly, has a rather small and specialized circulation).

Ehrenhalt concedes that, at first blush, state legislative experience would strike most Americans as a "kind of irrelevant" preparation for the presidency. But he then writes that "looking back on quite a few years covering Congress, and an almost equal number of years following legislatures, I'm drawn to some slightly curmudgeonly comments about what it is that U.S. senators do, and what it is that state legislators do."

Observations that follow include:

"Twenty-first century U.S. senators are, virtually by the nature of the job, gadflies. They flit from one issue to another, generally developing little expertise on any of them; devote a large portion of their day to press conferences and other publicity opportunities; follow a daily schedule printed on a 3x5 card that a member of their staff has prepared; depend even more heavily on staff for detailed and time-consuming legislative negotiation that they are too busy to attend..."

"By contrast, what do state legislators do? ... At their best, they keep all the state's significant issues in mind; it is possible to do that in a state legislature in a way that is not possible in Washington. During the years that Obama served in Springfield, 1997-2005, he was forced to wrestle with the minutiae of healthcare policy, utility deregulation, transportation funding, school aid, and a host of other issues that are vitally important to America's coming years, but that U.S. senators are usually able to dispose of with a quick once-over. State legislators have to do this largely on their own, without ubiquitous staff guidance, because staffing is not lavish even in the more professional state capitols."

"...For a smart, curious and hard-working young legislator -- for a Barack Obama in the Illinois Senate -- can we be so sure that the skill set picked up over eight years in a state Capitol is inferior as presidential preparation to two decades in the pompous, cordoned-off environment of the U.S. Senate? I seriously doubt it."

So there.

We seriously doubt the Obama campaign is going to roll out ads anytime soon that tout Obama's time in Springfield quite like Ehrenhalt does. But his column makes for an intriguing read, nonetheless.

-- Don Frederick

Photo credit: Associated Press

    

Comments

[Greg]

OMG Let's talk about those EXACT issues in Illinois! Obama did NOTHING just like the rest of those overpaid lazy legislators in this state--we have ranked among the last in everything even remotely related to finance--oh yeah I want this Guy calling ALL the shots in Washington--move to Illinois first folks if you last a year--he's your man!!

[Bill]

I'lll take Obama's judgement over McCain's experience any day of the week.

[Titus Oates]

And as evidence of Senator Obama's hard work in Springfield, he can point to his 132 "present" votes.

[Kent]

If I were Barack's handler, I'd stay away from touting his experience as a state senator as evidence he's more experienced than McCain in running a government. Even I could do the job adequately. It's equivalent to a AA minor leagu baseball player thrust into the major league. Barack needs more seasoning in the U.S. senate before he can say he is just as experienced as McCain. Both candidates are fledglings for the presidency and whoever wins will have to learn ropes anyway.

[Libba]

Ehrenhalt takes a specious argument and stretches it so thin that I'm having trouble seeing in it any logic at all.

[Billy]

Sure, the U.S. Senators basically just flit from issue to issue, attending publicity events in a posh, cordoned-off environment (to paraphrase Ehrenhalt). But maybe that IS better preparation for the presidency. US Presidents certainly have lavish staffs, their schedules printed out for the, and flit from issue to issue while leaving others to do the actual work and make the actual decisions. I'm all for Obama, but Ehrenhalt's argument that his experience as a state legislator better prepares him to be president falls flat.

[Ralph Reetz]

I think it would be a great idea if Obama touted his experience as an Illinois state senator. It would link him to one of the most corrupt state governments in history and his silence was deafening.

[G Green]

Obama did do some things and there were long overdue in Illinois. I'm sure that he'll make a better president than McCain any day. I'd give him the chance to change things. With McCain I fear it will be the status quo. Help Obama, whyobama08.org.