Does it matter which candidate has more experience?

Does it matter who has more experience?

I have yet to vote, and while I know which way I lean, I am still undecided. Yesterday, I heard for the first time a compelling argument to consider John McCain even if you do not like him as a person or as a candidate.

Many of us have worked in retail, so this analogy should feel especially relevant.

Imagine you have two employees that have worked as supervisors in a retail store. Suddenly, the District Manager quits, and for whatever reason, one of those supervisors is going to become the new District Manager TOMORROW.

On one hand, we have a man that has been a supervisor for a short period of time. Without warning, he will be thrust into this powerful role of District Manager, responsible for hiring and managing all the Store Managers. He will have no advisers. Would you honestly feel comfortable working under this man? To be honest, I would feel afraid.

Or, you have the other supervisor. He has worked for the same company for many years. While he has never held the position of District Manager, he has extensive experience and knowledge to draw upon when faced with the heavy decisions a District Manager will face. Even though this man has never been a Store Manager, would you not feel more trust for this man to at least make more informed, controlled decisions?

The analogy stresses the point of experience and how that affects an otherwise chaotic situation.

Does Obama have the experience making the tough judgements to lead our country? Or would the chaos we are already in descend further? Whether or not you like his ideas or his plans, whether or not you believe his promises, when faced with the difficult choices a President must make, does he have the experience necessary to lead us as the most powerful man in our country?

With McCain, we at least would have the assurance that whether or not he would make better decisions, he at least would make more controlled decisions. We do not have to like what he will do as President to at least feel confident he will not shake his head in confusion.

Or so the analogy says.

But there are problems with the above position. Do you see them?

The analogy is not a fair comparison.

To make it fair, we must say the first supervisor instead worked as an Assistant Manager for seven years. He then went on to work as a Store Manager for over three years. In all that time, he has done a commendable job, and for a long time, he has had his eye on the prize of District Manager. He has cultivated his character, his work ethic, his policies, his method of management, all so he can function as the best District Manager possible. In that time, he has gained several trusted allies and advisers, all of whom will be there to guide him should he ever need their councel. Several reasons have come up to doubt this man's integrity, but time and again he has responded to these issues with facts and candor, in general instilling more trust from his supporters and critics alike.

But those who will decide which to promote ask: Would it not be better if the first supervisor had more experience? Something close to twenty years? Let's look at a candidate that has almost exactly twenty years.

The second supervisor has been with the company for almost twice as long as the first supervisor: seventeen years. In that time, he has been severely reprimanded for several questionable decisions. In fact, at one point there was talk of him having ruined his career, but through hard work he has managed to gain enough credit to not only have a firm hold on his current position, but to also be considered for this promotion. He has spent his entire life in thought of the accomplishments of the men he descends from and their great accomplishments in positions similar to those he hopes to hold. Several reasons have come up to doubt this man's integrity over the years, including continued reports documenting his inability to manage critical situations. More than once, he has cracked under the kind of tremendous pressure he will experience often as a District Manager. But he has managed to misrepresent these facts or ignore them often enough that many of the people who support his promotion to District Manager do not find any reason to think less of him. Those that do shrug and say, if it's a choice between this man or the other, the second is the lesser of two evils. At least he has the experience necessary.

If it was up to me, I would think long and hard about these two options.

The first question that comes to my mind is strong enough to almost decide the whole thing for me.

Do I want someone that does not have the amount of experience I would like, but in his time with us has shown a reliable ability to manage?

Or do I want someone that has a much larger portfolio of experience, but in that time has again and again shown he is NOT a reliable manager?