Candidate wanted, no experience needed

WASHINGTON - "Much of the criticism he's leveling at me is identical to the criticism that was leveled against him," Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said earlier this week. Today's critic, who believes that Obama does not have the experience necessary to be the leader of the United States, was yesterday's object of criticism. Then it was Bill Clinton, who was catapulted from the governor's office of the small, remote state of Arkansas straight into the White House.

"My dog Millie knows more about foreign affairs than these two bozos," the incumbent president, George H.W. Bush, said about Clinton and his running mate Al Gore - who defeated him in the end.

Yesterday's president is now the agent of his wife, Senator Hillary Clinton. In 1992, they were the new faces, but she is now campaigning on her experience, whereas Obama is offering the voters a change. The polls show that at least theoretically, experience carries a slight advantage in the eyes of the voters. The gap depends on how the question is worded: "Strength and experience" wins 49 percent, compared to 41 percent for "new direction and ideas," whereas the "right experience" garners 44 percent, compared to 41 percent for "fresh ideas."

Nevertheless, after months in which Clinton was the one to beat, Obama is leading, if only by a hair, in the first two states to hold primaries, Iowa and New Hampshire. Bill Clinton's position in 1992 can be likened to that of the leading Republican candidate, Mike Huckabee, who entered the race with the identical political experience: governor of Arkansas.

Once, America tended to vote in presidents with experience, or perceived experience, men who had dedicated the better part of their lives to matters of war and peace. The Cold War era was good for establishment candidates (Eisenhower, Nixon, Bush Sr.) and those who succeeded in creating the impression of relevant experience (such as Kennedy and Reagan. Jimmy Carter was a notable exception). In the 1990s, two less experienced candidates were elected. Clinton and Bush Jr. did not even pretend: "It's the economy, stupid," was Clinton's campaign slogan in 1992, and in 2000, Bush promised voters a "humble" foreign policy, as befitted his own political proportions.

Some observers figured that the 2008 elections would once again glorify the "experience," real or feigned, of candidates such as Clinton, John McCain and Rudolph Giuliani, as opposed to the refreshing newness of Obama and Huckabee. That is what the earliest polls showed, but this is increasingly not the case. America could once again gamble on a genuine turnaround.

The polls show that the war in Iraq is still the most pressing issue. But the candidates who are building up the greatest momentum are not necessarily the ones who are perceived as those who will deal with it, and the war on terror, most effectively. According to a recent Harris Poll, Clinton has a sure lead among Democratic voters on Iraq and terror; among Republicans, Giuliani leads on terror, while McCain is the champion on Iraq. But the local dynamics in Iowa and New Hampshire have their own laws.

At present, "experience" is taking a back seat to "fresh ideas" in the primaries. There are two lessons here. The first is how fed up Americans are with the current administration. The second is how little is left of the agitation caused by the September 11 attacks and the two wars that followed in their wake. To judge by its candidates, the U.S. is no longer in the grip of war fever - at least not until January 5. America differs from Israel in believing that its margin of security, which is derived from its strength and size, give even candidates from nowhere a chance.