I guess when you're 18, the "experience" line just doesn't hold water.

Everyone's been throwing around "experience" like it's the holy grail of the presidency, but I've got a few questions as to the viability of that campaign strategy.

See, maybe it's because I'm 18, and maybe it's because I haven't been properly disillusioned with our country's political system, but I can't help but cringe every time Senator Clinton brings up "experience".

Experience implies this is some sort of carpentry job. The kind one only gets better at as time goes on. The presidency, therefore by it's very nature, excludes new thinking and spirited initiative, instead leaving a bulking, slow motion train wreck of legislation where there should be world changing going on.

Our greatest presidents, both Republican and Democrat (and Whig and Federalist, etc) were not the "experienced" ones, but the strong ones.

George Washington's only experience when he took office was leading troops. He took office only to raise morale, and left pretty quickly afterwords, yet he dictated some policies that have completely shaped the backbone of our country.

Likewise, Abe Lincoln was many things when he entered office in 1861, but I'm not too sure "experienced" was one of them. He had never been married to a president (as far as we know) and yet he still somehow managed to preserve the union (okay, so it's more complicated than that, but I think we can all agree he was a pretty fantastic
president).

FDR's experience? Governor of New York and Secretary of the Navy. Kennedy's? Well, he was in the military for a bit and served in Congress for a long time. Neither man had the first hand executive branch experience that only the president's wife could attain. (Which begs the question of precisely how much experience the first lady even has...)

If you voted on a platform of experience, instead of electing John F. Kennedy in 1960, we would have elected Hubert Humphrey.

Or, if we had voted for experience in 1935, James A. Reed or John N. Garner would have been elected rather than FDR.

How would they have handled World War II?

The notion that "experienced" candidates are required is dangerous because it excludes so, so, much. It excludes revolution and revision. It excludes new solutions and hope. It excludes any notion that we can radically change the world for the better. Something Americans have been known to do before, and could do again, should we elect the proper person to office.

The following sentence might put Hillary and I on bad terms, but you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

The presidency is whatever the candidate brings to it. If he or she brings mediocracy and compromise, then expect nothing less. However, if a candidate promises to bring a new age in politics, one in which neither Democrat nor Republican is the focus, but instead American, then expect greatness.

If you vote mildly, expect mediocracy.