There has been a lot of talk recently about judgment, or more specifically, judgment vs. experience. It has been a campaign slogan, the topic of countless debates and even CNN’s Jack Cafferty recently asked the question, “Which is more important; judgment or experience?” It seems like I am the only person who feels like kicking in my computer monitor or television when this argument is made.

My issue with this comparison is that it is unanswerable as the two concepts are not mutually exclusive. In my life, I make judgments on a lot of things; what tie looks best with a suit, should I take the back roads or the interstate to my destination, does my girlfriend’s rear end look big in those jeans… No matter what judgment I am called on to make, my answer is entirely dependent on prior experience coupled with knowledge of the topic. For example, my choice of tie will depend entirely on my knowledge of fashion trends and my prior experiences in wearing the same (or similar) tie with that suit. My choice for the best route to take would depend entirely on my prior experience with traffic during similar times of the day and other considerations. My judgment on the appearance of my girlfriend’s rear end would no doubt be influenced by my prior experiences of being hit with a frying pan no matter what answer I give.

A good friend once said what I consider to be the most profound statement in life: “At any point in time, we are the product of all our experiences; both good and bad”. Putting the judgment vs. experience argument into this context shows it to be even more absurd. Consider a toddler trying to decide whether or not to touch the tempting and attractive glowing coil of an electric stove. Suggesting that the child could use good judgment in absence of the experience of being burned or the logic of choosing not to be burned is ridiculous. Thus, we all go through life making choices that we judge in retrospect to be either good or bad and use this experience for future reference. Certainly the toddler that has burned himself on a hot stove can utilize good personal judgment in resisting its seductive and warming glow in the future; whereas the toddler who is warned away by protective parents may remain susceptible to it beckoning in a less supervised atmosphere.

Let’s apply these principles to our current Presidential debate. Senator Obama claims the mantle of superior judgment on the basis of his opposition to the Iraq War. Now, consider the facts. At the time of his referenced opposition speech, Senator Obama was an Illinois State Senator. At the time, he had no experience with foreign policy, national legislation, military matters or any other matter that was relevant to the topic. So where did the knowledge for this supposed judgment come from? Does 5 years as a “community organizer” in Chicago convey understanding of the complexity of international governmental affairs or 5 years as a State Legislator (through 2002)?  Prior to that, Mr. Obama can only at best reference the same challenges faced by all recent college graduates, “Yup, you’re smart and you’ve got good grades, kid. You’ve even got a nice sheepskin from a good school. But for this role, we need someone with experience. Come back in see me in 5 years or so when you’ve cut your teeth some”. While Obama’s resume does illustrate an person of assumingly high intelligence with an exceptionally ambitious track record, I completely fail to see anything that could be referenced as the foundation of good judgment on matters of foreign relations.

This argument will no doubt be at odd with those who protest, “experience or not, he was right”. So in fairness, let’s explore that side of things. First, by virtue of that argument, we agree that he does not have experience in these matters. So, at best, we cannot factually claim good judgment but could potentially say that he made a good guess. I don’t say this in an attempt to be belittling, since a good guess is better than a bad one and if someone guesses right, it can still be regarded as an accomplishment. My point is that we cannot, in fact, state that someone has demonstrated good judgment on a matter that he has no verifiable knowledge of or experience with.

This leaves the second half of the argument of “… he was right”.  That, I must insist, is a matter of opinion. Before debating this, I must concede one point. In retrospect and taken as a whole to date, it is my opinion that the Iraq War has been in large part, a bungled mess. That is a long discussion and a different topic however. It is also not particularly relevant here, since something being handled poorly or even the result of an action has nothing to do with whether the decision to take action is correct or not. To put my argument into perspective, consider this example. You are in a desert and haven’t had anything to drink in two and a half days. You stumble on a bottle of water. After gulping down the water; your dehydrated body goes into shock, your stomach becomes an instant pit of pain and you vomit all of what you drank onto your shoes. This does not make the decision to drink the water a bad one. The implementation of this decision, however, was extremely poor and netted a terrible experience and bad result.

So, now we are talking only about the decision. Like any decision, it was made based on a haphazard mix of facts, speculation, questions, projections and prior experience. Facts- Saddam Hussein had refused to comply with post Gulf War several resolutions and conditions for withdrawal for 10 years. Speculation- there was evidence that he may possess weapons of mass destruction and the means to develop and deploy additional weapons (based on evidence from US and numerous international sources). Questions- Does he have these weapons? What is his intent if he does possess them? How does all of this factor into the reality of the terror threat we face? Projections- Saddam’s consistent and continued lack of cooperation and compliance strongly suggests a significant threat to the national security of the US, a threat to a volatile region and potential grave implications to the overall terrorist threat. Prior Experience- Saddam had used weapons of mass destruction on his own people, had engaged in hostile action against a sovereign nation, made clear threats to the US and its interests and committed acts of genocide.  The US, UN and other nations and entities had made sanctions, engaged in diplomacy and exhausted every alternative means to address these issues over a ten year period and again, prior to even suggesting a military action. After the consistent failure of alternatives, Saddam was presented with the option of cooperating or facing the military action and still refused to comply or negotiate. Barring anything that happened or was learned subsequent to the war, that was the only information we had. A choice was made. Like in our example with the water, we could have chosen not to drink the water and considered the possibility that help may arise in the future or circumstances would change. Once action is taken, it is impossible to discern the consequences of inaction. My opinion is that the right decision was made, even though the implementation and results were poor. Anyone is welcome to a different opinion, but that that is all it is. An opinion based on speculation of a hypothetical alternative is nothing more than an opinion, not demonstration of good judgment.

Let’s put this into further context. A State Senator from Illinois with no prior experience or knowledge of similar matters made a speech in opposition of an action that was supporting by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of the US Congress, the President of the United States and several independent nations. All of these entities, other than the Illinois State Senator had access to confidential and public intelligence information on the matter and most had years, if not decades of experience in dealing with similar matters. The only support that this State Senator had for his opinion was an absence of complete and factual information and minority opinions. To state that a person with zero experience, minimal information, no expert resources and against majority opinion had demonstrated good judgment would require that that person be omnipotent. Despite rumors to the contrary, I think that we can all agree that while Barrack Obama is many things, omnipotent is not one of them.

I think we can conclude, without question, that Obama has at best made a good guess (only if you agree with his conclusions in spite of significant evidence and majority and international opinion to the contrary; relevant to the time of the decision). Alternatively, we can conclude that a State Senator made a speech that was designed with the sole purpose of garnering public support for a Federal Senate campaign. In consideration of this question, I offer the following observations and experiences. Over the past 2 years, Senator Obama has come out on both sides of every issue presented during this campaign. No, I am not calling him a flip-flopper and even if I were, I do not consider that to be a negative thing. If someone can demonstrate factual information or experience that causes them to revise their judgment on an issue, I fully support them. Obama does not do this. He consistently represents both sides. His voting record demonstrates more of the same. He routinely elects to vote present when he does vote and has been complete absent from a significantly more votes. When he has spoken against of half of what he has voted for with a complex series of explanations and visa versa for what he has voted against. For a specific example, he recently altered his firm stance in opposition to offshore drill to say, that he would support it only in the interests of furthering a different solution. Is that judgment or politics? Most recently, in regard to the situation in Georgia, he came out with a vanilla statement that was conspicuously absent of stance or position of any kind so as to get something to the media without significant delay. One hour later, he became slightly more condemning of Russia while maintaining a vanilla position. Immediately following, his staff condemns McCain’s statement only to have Obama come out with something strikingly similar to McCain a day or so later. Previously, he has to give two press conferences within hours of each other to “clarify” his statements on withdrawal from Iraq, both of which directly contradict “what I have [he has] always said…”

Based on all the information and facts available from the past 2 years of Obama campaign, his voting record, his speeches, his consistent and admittedly poor judgment in his chosen personal relationships, mentors and supporters and my overall experience in regard to him; I have to conclude that not Barrack Obama has consistently failed by any measure to demonstrate good or even reliable judgment of any kind. I can excuse some of this due to his overwhelming lack of experience in related matters, but I would have expected better judgment in personal relationships from someone who has spent 5 years as a community organizer and 7 as state politician and less than 2 as US Senator before announcing his intent to run for President. Even if he understands nothing else, his experience should have given him better judgment of people, even if he never heard what any of them said and was ignorant to their prior felonies, terrorist acts or shady business deals. If find it very difficult to trust someone’s judgment on issues related to 3,537,441 square miles of the United States when he has demonstrated such utter ignorance and poor judgment in purchasing his own property. Setting aside any nefarious allegations, who in the world would by the majority of a property that blocks access to an adjoining lot that was sold to another person? Did he intent to allow neighbors and strangers unlimited access to his yard for as long as he chose to live there? I certainly wouldn’t care for my home to be the entrance to someone else’s property, especially if I paid $1.65 million for it.  Do you really want this guy signing off of federal land issues?

In Mr. Obama’s defense, I do respect that it would have been difficult and far less appealing to print, “I made one arguably good guess in my short political career” on bumper stickers and campaign signs. I would certainly recommend his for a marketing job, since there he seems to have significantly better judgment.