The election season of 2010 is drawing to a close. The possibilities for a Republican return to power in the House seems to be strong, and there is a good chance that they will also regain control of the Senate. In more polite times I would agree that this is a good thing. Polite times, in my political lexicon, mean that the two major political parties will pursue different means of contributing to the well being of the country. But, the foci of both  seems to be in defeating the other party, and if the country benefits, that would be nice but not of primary interest. Reelection of incumbents and defeat of the opposing party is what drives politics today. 
I follow politics with modest interest, and generally root for the underdog. That means that historically I follow a point of view that supports moderately liberal candidates; I am wary of demagogues. 
In the course of this electioneering period (which seems to be very long with incredible, even obscene amounts of money spent on the campaigns) I have discussed political theory and practice with long time friends. Many of them have more politically conservative views than I do, but they are all both bright and polite, so our conversations are frequently focused and not too emotional. Our friendships survive political differences.  
In a recent conversation one friend told me that he had voted for McCain in the 2008 election. His reason was that McCain was far more experienced than Obama. I thought about that. I had not voted for McCain, but I have been disappointed with Obama’s performance. This required some musing on my part. 
I stick by my immediate reaction and deduction that Experience is not enough. I give you as an example, George Herbert Walker Bush (the father). If you consider his resume, it is spectacular. In fact, if there ever was a training program to become the President of the United States, George Herbert Walker Bush followed it. He served in the military during WWII. He had a succession of one senior position after another. He should have been a great President, possibility the greatest President we have ever had. And yet, his performance was not noteworthy. It was not bad; but for a man with  his on the job training he should have been operationally spectacular. 
So, experience is not enough. What else can we consider? Vision! Vision for the country. The ability to recognize the errors of the past (recent and long term) and then select operational methodologies should be all that is required. Nope. Vision isn’t enough, either. In the language of mathematics, it is necessary but not sufficient.  
Obama had a clear understanding of the issues that he was facing when he took the Oath of Office on 20 January 2009. He spoke about several issues during the campaign. His understanding of the economy and the great, potentially disastrous dangers which the USA could face due to economic forces run amok, was clear. He understood the importance of Health Care Reform, and why it had to start. He was elected because he told a great story, and that is what the country wanted to hear. What happened? What went wrong? 
I think what went wrong was leadership. “The characteristics of great leaders is that they have the foresight to anticipate, the guts to commit, and the tenacity to execute.” This is a comment by Robert Galvin, Founder, Galvin Electricity Initiative and Retired CEO and Chairman, Motorola, Inc. My observations lead me to believe that Obama selected superb workmen for his administration, but led the band, poorly. His understanding of the problems was first rate, and his ability to speak on virtually any subject is outstanding. But he doesn’t stir his listeners. He organized poorly and focused on the wrong targets. His prioritization of his goals was wrong. And, he didn’t lead successfully.
The success of his campaign rhetoric, which was notable, was because he had a vision that he portrayed to the voters and which they desired. They saw a man who had the vision to state the problems and promise them action to resolve those problems. In defense of Obama, I think that as a technician, he did a good, maybe even great job. We did not fall off the financial cliff. The economy is getting better, albeit slowly. If we hadn’t had the stimuli the country could have, and perhaps would have sunk into an economic depression similar to the Great Depression of the 1930s with WWII to follow. The stimulus package(s) have started a regeneration of our infrastructure which is crumbling under our feet. This will take a long time, measured in decades. But, the focus of the country was on Jobs. While there are people who will concede that Health Care had to be reformed, and that the financial worlds had to be reined in and controlled, and that the infrastructure of the country had to begin the process of rebuilding, the great majority of people focus on the continuing job situation. People are desperate about the job situation, and the President is not solving the problem. 
Did Obama explain what was going on to the American electorate? Did he lead them in a concerted way to support his efforts? I think the answer is no. If he tried, he did not succeed. 
There are more things to worry about. I will not discuss them now. However this small exercise of thinking about our national leaders has led me to a short, succinct observation  about my belief in the qualities that a successful elected leader of the country must have: Vision, and the ability to Lead. Experience, is simply not enough because it focuses on what has happened, and not what must be done.