A few days ago, I commented on another diary that I was getting sick of hearing about how Sen. Obama lacked the "experience" to be President. I posited that it wasn't really about Obama's lack of experience, but more about Obama's relative youth that people were complaining about. Especially given the elites of the baby boomer generation.
Nobody was saying that John Edwards was "inexperienced", for instance, despite having only one Senate term under his belt for his entire life in public service. And is "experience" all it is really cracked up to be, given that Joe Biden has oodles of experience and yet somehow manages to make an ass out of himself on an almost daily basis?
No, it's the youth thing, not the experience thing, we are really talking about here. And reading a column from Ellen Goodman yesterday, I'm not the only one to notice it.
As Goodman puts it:
Obama is indeed this year's designated "fresh face." But on the flip side, those who are not questioning whether the Illinois senator is too black to be president are asking whether he is too green.
That's not green as in tree-hugging. That's green as in inexperienced and/or young. Even his little daughter once asked, "Are you going to try to be president? Shouldn't you be the vice president first?"...
But I find it bewildering to hear so many Americans worrying that a man who is middle-aged, by any demographic measure, might be too young. The question -- "How green is Obama?" -- may say less about the senator's youth than the country's age. Or the baby boomers ' aging.
Goodman argues that a generation that, in a recent study, defines "old age" as starting three years after the average American dies might just not be ready for someone younger than them, with the first Boomers turning 60 and all that:
Most of the green-talk is indeed from boomers, a generation that was just coming of age -- teen age -- when Jack Kennedy was killed at 46. Is it possible that the same generation that famously didn't trust anybody over 30 when they were 20 doesn't trust anybody under 50 now that they are turning 60?
It's a fair question. I don't want to start generational warfare (that pie-fight has been fought one too many times on this here blog), but one wonders...can Obama win the crucial boomer vote if he is viewed as being too young?
Goodman rightfully points out that at age 45, Obama really isn't really a spring chicken. He wouldn't even be the youngest President elected if he made it through. (Teddy Roosevelt holds that honor at age 42.)
Even more frightening for Boomers is the fact that while Obama is technically a Boomer himself, he seems to self-identify with my generation, Generation X:
Obama was technically born at the tail end of the boom, but places himself politically outside the "psychodrama of the baby-boom generation" which he describes as "a tale rooted in old grudges and revenge plots hatched on a handful of college campuses long ago."
Interesting. In other words, Obama rejects what he perceives -- correctly or not -- the prevailing Boomer ethos in his mind.
So, is it really about "experience"? I'm beginning to think it isn't. It is because Obama is the youngest candidate in the field (and he looks it). And maybe, just maybe, it is because he does not self-identify with the Boomer generation.
You can be sure it will continue to be an issue. President Clinton, in 1996, not so subtlely framed the issue of age -- with success and in reverse -- against Bob Dole as he ran a theme of "building a bridge to the 21st century". You can bet that something similar will happen with Obama, but instead, it will be painting his relative youth as inexperience for the job...no matter how false the comparison may be.
And despite the fact that I have not yet picked a candidate to support, I will give my own personal warning to all the Democratic candidates out there:
The more you rail on Obama's "inexperience", the more likely I will go and support Obama.
Because in reality, you are talking about me. You are talking about voters under the age of 45.
And the more you paint all of us with the "inexperienced" brush, the more we realize you are just saying we're too "young" to do a good job.
Which makes me wonder...will you still be doing it when you are in your eighties and we are in our fifties and sixties?
As much as we embrace the diversity of our candidates -- African-American (Obama), woman (Hillary Clinton), Hispanic (Richardson) -- let's not subsequently create another barrier in our party by poo-pooing youth.
This weekend, the DNC is meeting in Washington, D.C., and the Young Democrats of America are pushing for enforcement of a 30 year old provision in the DNC Charter to boost slating of young delegates to the Democractic National Convention. My hope is that the Rules and Bylaws Committee will accept the change, as the rules have not been enforced to date.
If we are truly progressives (read: progress), we will welcome youth and their energy into our party.
And we won't say that anyone is too "inexperienced" because of their birthdate alone.