The myth of experience

Someone needs to explain to me what kind of experience is optimal for the job of president of the US. Since the Iowa caucus wrapped up, I've been reading tons more opinion pieces on why Obama would not make a good president because of his lack of experience. That is, tons more than I was reading before when polls seemed to show that he was a distant second to Hillary.

I'm mostly not swayed by these arguments for a few simple reasons.

Reason, the first: I understand that a president hardly ever makes a decision without comprehensive discussion and information exchange with the relevant members of his cabinet. Typically, a good president surrounds himself with intelligent, competent, and EXPERIENCED people in that particular field of knowledge. I believe that Obama would certainly sorround himself with intelligent, competent, and experienced people.

Reason, the second: Given the first reason, a president needs to have decision making experience of the kind many people outside of politics also possess. I believe that Obama possesses the ability to make those important decisions and has honed this skill in his political career.

Reason, the third: I feel that there is such a thing as BAD EXPERIENCE. Just because a candidate has, say, 14 years experience governing the state of Mississippi does not mean that he has accumulated 14 years of useful experience running a country. In fact, learning how to run Mississippi can train you to have very bad habits regarding fiscal conservancy or international relations.

I think that in the current state of the country, the skill set of the most useful president would not necessarily be augmented by a dozen or more years of political grinding and special interest poisoning.