The Irony of Experience

Barack Obama supporters are pumped up because President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski has come out in support of their candidate.

After a couple of weeks of wrangling between Hillary Clinton, Obama, and the media over the question of whether he has enough experience to be President — and Obama’s quite justifiable response that the “experienced” senators were the ones who fell for fake claims of WMD in Iraq and authorized George W. Bush to attack Iraq and get the US into the mess it’s been in for more than four years — now an “experienced” foreign policy expert comes through and says that Obama “has the upper hand” over Clinton in his grasp of foreign policy.

I suppose people need to take the endorsements they can get, but aside from Brzezinski’s own judgment on arming anti-government forces in Afghanistan in 1979, wasn’t the whole debate based on the idea that just because someone had been involved in foreign policy decisions for X number of years that didn’t necessarily make their judgment superior to someone with, say, sane views?

It seems self-defeating for a campaign to make the claim that the longer experience of an opponent doesn’t necessarily make them right, then buttress their clearer judgment by pointing to an endorsement by someone with even more experience without an examination of the endorser’s own record.