One of the most tried and true Republican arguments against a Barack Obama presidency is that the Senator lacks the relevant political experience to be the President of the United States, particularly during a time of economic crisis while the War on Terror is going on. They love to make the argument that he’s the least experienced person ever nominated to the office of president. Let’s take a look at Barack Obama’s political experience for a moment.

Barack Obama spent eight years as an Illinois State Senator (1997-2005). He’s been the junior Senator from Illinois for nearly four years now (2005-present). From a purely political standpoint, Obama has nearly 12 years of experience. Obama also was the editor of the Harvard Law Review and worked as a law professor at the University of Chicago in the early to mid-90s. It’s not political experience, sure, but it’s certainly relevant to being a politician.

You might look at that and say, “Wow, that looks like a paper-thin resume.” Fair enough. But have you ever looked at Abraham Lincoln’s resume when he was running for President in 1860? Well, here’s your chance.

Lincoln spent eight years in the Illinois House of Representatives, then two years as a member of the US House of Representatives. So, Lincoln served 10 years as an elected official before running for president. Lincoln didn’t serve in political office during the 1850s, and while he did help organize what became the Republican party, he spent much of the decade as…a lawyer. Hm.

I’m not saying Barack Obama is another Abraham Lincoln (though if he is, this country should be fucking thrilled considering what’s going on now). But this is the most telling evidence that judgment and intelligence can compensate for a lack of experience. Lincoln didn’t have any “executive experience,” but pretty much the second he was elected, he faced one of the greatest crises in American history when the south seceded – and he handled it spectacularly. 

Now yes, the world is a different place now. It is more complex. But if you ask me, that’s only more of an argument to weigh intelligence, judgment and intellectual curiosity on the same level as experience. Sarah Palin may have more “executive experience” than any of the other candidates, but would you honestly consider her qualified to be President when she didn’t even have a passport until 2006? I would feel far less comfortable giving someone the keys to the White House who displays no intellectual curiosity about the world than someone who lacks executive experience.

You can’t use experience alone to judge how a person will handle the office of the Presidency. Other factors must be considered, like intelligence, intellectual curiosity, judgment and leadership ability. You can use experience to get an idea of how someone operates, but to use the argument that someone lacks experience as the sole reason to disqualify them from something is a flawed argument. 

So go ahead and vote against Obama because of his perceived lack of experience. Just know that Lincoln wasn’t exactly an elder statesman when he got elected either.