Who were the "most experienced" and "least experienced" candidates elected president?

[skipos]

Did their experience or lack of experience lead them to become good or bad presidents?

[stuartrida]

1. I am no history expert, but Lincoln had little experience.

One term in the house, and lost a run for the senate. Considering the disaster he inherited, and compared to the othe presidents of his day, I'd say he did a pretty good job.

[skipos]

4. Agreed. You could argue that GW Bush is as "experienced" as Lincoln was

as far as elected office goes.

[TechBear_Seattle]

2. Define "experienced"

For that matter, define "president." George Washington was the first President under the Constitution, but actually the 11th person to hold the title, President of the United States.

[skipos]

3. You can define it however you want.

I hear people say "Obama isn't experienced" or "Clark isn't experienced." I am curious who they regard as inexperienced or experienced presidents.

[neoblues]

5. Seems like Bush was "experienced"...

Having had a track record as governor of Texas (having a track record of damaging Texas).

Of course, if anybody with a rational mind looked at that track record (his "experience"), they would have seen that he was a terrible leader who would seek to win at any cost and run whatever government he could, directly into the ground; grinning all the while. Seems the M$M didn't care to give us much of a look at his prior experience (they were too busy slandering Gore who never claimed to invent the internet).

So, any performance advantage Shrub's experience gave him not only didn't help him become a "good" President, but both warned us he had a screw loose and his experience was just used to help him grasp for power and control over our Democratic institutions. Thus any experience was used to further his own agenda; but let's be honest, does anyone think Shrub gained skill or knowledge from any of his governing experiences? When training a chimpanzee, I suspect that any prior experience either doesn't help much or actually interferes with new learning.

Bush, it seems, suggests a variety of possibilities. Evidently, experience can be useful in predicting performance and might be helpful in destroying a government just as it might be helpful in running one well--depending on intention. Then again, if one is incompetent, no matter how much experience one is given, there is no improvement in performance. It also seems he's shown that even an intellectually challenged, emotionally twisted, violent and anti-social chimpanzee can actually function as President... but not necessarily well. Again it seems to come down to intention. If the ape wants to do a good job, as long as it's willing to listen and is able to get good advice (good advisers), it too could indeed become a very good President.

The Presidency above all involves making good decisions. Anyone with a reasonable intelligence, who can obtain and is willing to listen to good advice, can probably do a fine job. Having the right attitude is the key. Having the right ideology, honesty and an ability to appreciate and the integrity to respect the serious responsibility such decisions involve are also important considerations. To be fair, though, most people would be able to understand how important the job is--it was a well kept secret that our current President was among the few who wouldn't/couldn't. It was also evidence of just how screwed up much of the American electorate is... I mean seriously, where in the list of key attributes for a "good President" does it say "somebody you'd like to have a beer with...".

Experience, in my opinion (which, it turns out, is all I have), is considerably overrated as a qualifier for President (though obviously, some political skill is important; as is evidence of leadership ability; as is intelligence; as is... being mentally well balanced/adjusted**).

**too bad everyone assumed that surely anyone running for president must surely have achieved a passing score on this characteristic.

[skipos]

9. Agree 100%. nt

[Deep13]

6. Two things:

Prior experience in winning major elections.

Demonstrated management ability, especially in government beaurocracy.

Least experienced (except for founding fathers):
U.S. Grant- no prior electoral experience, no experience managing civilians. Generally viewed in very poor light as president.

On the other hand, Dwight Eisenhower is well regarded and his resume looked an awful lot like Grant's.

Most experienced:

G.H.W. Bush- 8 years as VP, Congressman, director of CIA. Knew when to quit his unnecessary war. Still, generally considered ineffectual especially at home.

Gerald Ford- Senate majority leader, VP for a short time. Keep the seat warm for Carter.

Lyndon Johnson- well connected US Senator, VP. A towering figure who was passionate about justice for minorities and for the poor. Horribly mishandled Vietnam, though it should be noted he could not draw on Vietnam as an example of what not to do. (Right, George?)

[ashling]

7. What qualifies as experience.

Wilson was a college dean ...

Eisenower had no political experience ...

Bush could tie his shoelaces ...

[Hamlette]

8. Washington and Lincoln

2 of the presidents we honor the most had the least experience in government.