The question was simply meant to point out that executive experience is not necessary to be a good president. Sure it’s a plus; be in itself is not required.
A bumpkin with love of country and fealty to the Constitution would be a far better president than a knave with decades of executive experience.
By the way, Obama is actually a very effective chief executive. He’s gotten entire bureaucracies to willing violate the Constitution and the law: IRS persecuting political opponents, ICE ignoring immigration laws duly passed by Congress, DoJ ignoring the IRS’s civil rights abuses....
People who write him off is dumb, naive or incompetent simply don’t understand his motives.
People who write him off is dumb, naive or incompetent simply don’t understand his motives.
I wouldn't disagree with much of that.
What I was trying to say was that Bill Clinton or George Bush "learned" how to "deal" with Congress. That is to say, they adapted and compromised when they realized that they couldn't get their own way. One could say that they became better presidents for learning how to cooperate. They got better at working with Congress at least.
Barack Obama didn't want to do that. He didn't want to be like Bill Clinton. He wanted to rely on what he could do on his own (the metaphorical "brute force" approach), rather than on compromising, cooperating, or adapting to changed circumstances. That's why he doesn't show a record of "improvement" in office, why things haven't gotten smoother for him.
Does that mean he's "a very effective chief executive"? Well, if that implies that he gets the results he wants, maybe it does. If it implies that he's an admirable model for effective governance, it's harder to say that he's been very effective. Too much "poisoning the wells" and burning the bridges" -- too much creation of ill-will.