This is a post about experience and what it means in the United States. In the workforce, it means everything—more than talent, more than promise, more than a hunger-in-the-eye and shine in the teeth.
I know this because after graduating from college seven years ago, I spent 18 months waiting for rejection calls, that mostly never came, knowing that if somebody just gave me a chance, I'd make them very happy they took the gamble.
In the third year of my journalism career, I won 20 state awards in the three major categories of my job title, more awards than other journalist in the state of Oregon.
So what does experience mean to me: I think experience is nothing more than a reinforcement of our already-formed ideas and habits. If you are good, then experience empowers you to be better. If you are bad, then experience empowers you to be bad. It's that simple. And that's something I've gleaned from three of the four bosses I've had.
The first was 35-years experienced, combative, but at the end of the day, I'd have to say good. Even though I'd be clinching my teeth.
The second was 25-years experienced, touted that like his only trait and used it mainly to step in the way of progress and improvement. If we disagreed, he rarely cited sound reasoning. Instead, he reminded me that he had been doing this for 25 years.
The third became a boss when I arrived. Zero years of managerial experience and just slightly more years of experience in the profession than me. And by far, he is the best boss I've ever worked under. Open-minded and logical and willing to bring everybody into the fold of the decision. Sound familiar?
But somehow, to some people, experience holds incredible rhetorical power. "Might makes right" is no longer morally accepted. But "Time makes right" does. Why?
My hypothesis is this:
Clinton is getting the middle-aged white women because, well, she's a woman. She's getting the blue-collar worker, yes because of her fear-mongering, lowest common denominator kind of politics, but also because she puts value in that word "experience."
This is a group, who mostly got to where they are, by working hard and gaining experience. And it's something they value. Far different from the more educated voter block that Obama attracts, which got to where they are with their ideas, education and associations.
In this election, experience means everything to me and at the same time, it means nothing.
I love nothing more than to sit down with a more experienced colleague and listen, knowing he's been there.
But judging by what I can see and read, Clinton's "lifetime of experience" is not the good kind.
It's taught her that dividing the people and the party is a good campaign strategy, combing her opponent's bathroom floors for something, anything negative to throw at him is good debate and she knows they work, even though people don't like them. Praising the Republican candidate's experience to diminish the experience of her own party's best candidate is fine—as long as she, Hillary Clinton wins.
But the one time she could have relied on her "lifetime of experience," she, as Obama has said, got it wrong. And she pandered to her own political aspirations the rest of the time.
I desperately want to vote Democrat in this election. But I will sit it out if Hillary somehow steals the nomination.
Remember how Karl Rove got G.W. to the White House. He did it by dividing us. By exaggerating issues—gay marriage, abortion—that put us against each other and motivated the ones who truly believed the Bush administration was going to do something about it. (It did nothing.)
Obama, meanwhile has limited the negativism, playing defense when we all know he could easily summon the "Whitewaters," Troopergates, Lewinsky ghosts if he had wanted to.
He is doing something through his campaign that we haven't seen for awhile. He is enabling my Republican brother-in-law and me to be able to talk and agree on a single candidate. He is motivating me to get involved with my municipal government, to shake myself out of this civic lethargy that has gripped me since Bush has been in office.
I don't know how anybody can say that is "empty."

Spoken like a true wet-behind-the-ears young punk.

No, spoken like someone who had something to say...

mrliberal:

Spoken like a true wet-behind-the-ears young punk.

Isn't it time for your spongebath?

What good does saying something that is incorrect bring to the table! Experience is a form of learning.

Nah.

Reading posts that long is certainly "an experience!"

"Experience is a form of learning."

Experience (like education) merely provides opportunity to learn.

Mr Knight,

Your eloquent and well-thought post is nevertheless shortsighted. When Obama was behind a few months ago, he joined up with Edwards and the other Dems and *attacked* Sen. Clinton in the televised debates (Clinton, back then, if you remember, largely tried to stay above such attacks). Since he's surged and become a front-runner, there's been a role reversal - she's looking for anything to dredge up on him, and he's trying to stay above the fray. And if you've noticed since March 4th, Obama has turned negative again. These differences you perceive between the candidates are a function of the horse race of the primaries, not of her inherent divisiveness and his god-given inclusiveness.

Clinton dividing people? Why? Because she points out that Obama is unusually lacking in any practical experience for the most challenging executive position in the world? And you thought this lack of experience wouldn't be an issue in the General election?

Look Obama makes the case that the reason to choose him over Her is that "Fairly or unfairly" Hillary Clinton is "polarizing" and I'm not. (I love when he says that, leaving open the possibility that the bad rap on Clinton is deserved). Why is this not "divisive" to the many millions of Democrats who don't think she's "polarizing" at all? According to the "Obamamaniacs", pointing out the obvious short commings of an opponent is only "divisive" if aimed at Obama. I thought it was a campaign.

Remarkably well said. I could certainly take a note or two on translating what I see into an intelligent discussion.

Experience can be good or bad (well Duuuh). Seriously..."Time in Washington" as an elected official(or spouse)...is probably considered by a large group of folks as "suborned by the system," Therefore a negative...ie Hillary's "Whitehouse Experience" or McCain's years in the Senate.

My personal evaluation of "good" experience for the presidency considers: Did he/she ever DO anything? A real job...Like Doctor, Plumber, Military, Police...NOT Lawyer....

Did he/she ever hold a real leadership/executive position? CEO, Business Owner, Governor, Mayor, Military Officer...Someone who had to make real decisions...not as part of a group...but the ultimate "buck stops here" decisions. Legislators don't count...by virtue of their positions, they don't lead or decide as individuals...just as part of a corporate body.

In short...Has he/she had a real job? Has he/she ever lead anything?

In the private sector, I've interviewed a lot of job applicants. I also looked for experience...Sometimes it was hard to determine if a candidate had 10 years experience...or 1 years experience 10 times. Sounds like you may have worked for a couple of the latter category.

Regards,

Mike