Barack Obama's "Political Experience"

In the weeks leading up to Senator Obama’s departure for the warzones in Iraq and Afghanistan and his visit to several European nations, which will (and has) gained him much media attention, the question was raised again and again for political commentators to answer: what does he gain from all this?

Many of the answers were solid and reasonable. One political commentator suggested that he is right to go in July and not closer to November, just in case he would need to recover from some political backlash should the ordeal not gain him any ground in winning on the issue of Iraq. Moreover, if he can make a case for his position on Iraq, given what he has seen most recently on the ground that may play to his favor—perhaps even moreso because he will have visited Iraq more recently than McCain.

Again, such talk is reasonable. One might think that people are fools for accepting his position, but one can hardly argue that his actions can't gain him a more favorable rating on the issue. In fact, after the constant attack from conservatives that he is "out of touch" on Iraq because he has not been to Iraq in quite some time—particularly since the surge—Obama may be right in taking this trip, it may remove the powerful "punch" of such attack ads.

Though, I’m not surprised, on one of the more liberal political stations I watch (MSNBC), many of the political commentators suggested that it will add "beef" to Barack Obama’s political experience. In other words, he will look "presidential" and will be able to add to his foreign policy experience.

To this I cannot help but wonder: how does a trip to see what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan equal foreign policy experience? It is not as if he has made any crucial, judgmental decisions affecting the region and surely traveling through Europe does not gain him such experience either. I am more inclined to say that is foreign travel experience not foreign policy experience. And foreign travel experience does not earn you the presidency. But even if we were to say that he gained some sort of foreign policy experience, his so-called experience would still remain pale in comparison to that of John McCain’s.

In the grand scheme of things, Barack Obama’s political experience should be at question here. Just how much Senate experience does he has in actual terms of work days? Not very much. From the time Obama was sworn in as a U.S. Senator to the time that he was forming a presidential exploratory committee, he had logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed that he was ready to be Commander-in-Chief and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and Ronald Reagan. After 143 days, he believed that he is worthy of America delivering to him the highest office in our land. This is his experience, stark in contrast to John McCain's 26 years in Congress, 22 years of military service including 1,966 days in captivity as a POW, and the candidate who has visited the warzone more frequently than his opponent.

On the campaign trail, Obama has missed days in the Senate, he has not finished his first term, has not championed many bills, has not reached across the aisle to conservatives though he is running as a "different kind of politician" and in the name of common ground, and he has voted "present" on too many bills for someone not finished with his first senatorial term, lacking in notable political experience, and running for president.

Are these political commentators actually reflecting on reality and giving unbiased information regarding the state of American affairs and the people’s sentiment, or are they saying anything and everything to defend and endorse their partisan affection for Obama? I think the answer is obvious.