What makes Obama any less qualified than Bill Clinton was at this stage?

[eeyore]

I really am not getting the criticisms being laid out that Obama isn't experienced enough to be President. If I'm not mistaken horribly, the only governing experience that Bill (good example) or Georgie Boy (horrid example) had was Governer. Is Obama really that different? And Hillary has just two terms of Senatorial experience - not really that much more than Obama.

:shrug:

I just don't get where this is all coming from. Sounds like a pretty major double standard to me. Is it that young+black = not enough experience?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

1. I don't know if this makes a difference -- probably not -- but

Clinton was Governor, not Senator.

[BlooInBloo]

2. Bill Clinton was executive.

[TwilightZone]

4. So was Bush, so does that really matter?

n/t

[BlooInBloo]

9. (shrug) I didn't say it mattered necessarily. I was just answering the OP's question.

[TahitiNut]

12. No, Our Leader was a "Governor" in name only - Texas has a "weak Governor" system.

The Governor of Texas has almost none of the Executive powers that Governors of other states have. It's far more of a ceremonial (front man) post than most.

[AlCzervik]

48. i lived in Texas was Jr. was the gov and i agree, he would have been

and done nothing without Bob Bullock.

[Rosemary2205]

3. Is it that young+black = not enough experience?

Yes.

unfortunately.

[danalytical]

11. Right to the race question huh?

Seems like legitimate concerns aren't welcome if the person in question is (insert desired group here). If someone asked the same question of John Edwards do you see people jumping up and down and claiming the question is prompted by the worst possible mole person discrimination?

Barack Obama is a natural leader, there is no question about that. But he is the new guy on the block, he has barely been in big league politics for 2 years. It's a legitimate concern. I have the same concern of Edwards.

I know you aren't attacking the OP, but the question of experience regardless of where it comes from is legitimate.

For the record I would vote for Obama. And I will if he's the nominee.

[Clark2008]

65. But Obama HAS more experience than Edwards.

Edwards was a weak senator for six years (check his legislative record), but Obama has experience in the state house, as well as his experience in the Senate.

Besides, there are folks who do work outside of elected office that would be considered experience for the job. Edwards, being a lawyer, had some experience in writing laws, but I don't see how a personal injury attorney really translates into diplomatic and foreign policy skills.

Make sense? :shrug:

[Zynx]

75. I only give Edwards credit for four years in the Senate.

His absentee rate for his last two (when he was running for President) was enormous.

[Le Taz Hot]

79. Ah, the race card.

If I don't like Obama it's because he's not caucasion. If I don't like Hillary Clinton it's because she's a woman. Couldn't POSSIBLY be because of their MOR milquetoast politics. No sirreee. I swear these two candidates' supporters are their biggest liability.

[cgrindley]

5. Governor = more experience than senator

Hilary has two terms as senator and was married to the president of the USA for 8 years. She's at least seen everything.

[Missy M]

6. Plus the years President Clinton was governor!

[eeyore]

10. Just because she was there doesn't mean she can govern.

She has no actual governing experience where she was ultimately in charge, and neither does Obama. They are equals in my eyes. In fact I think I favor the fresh perspective of Obama over the baggage of the past that Hillary carries with her.

[benny05]

24. One term as Senator

and 4 weeks for Madam Clinton.

I don't discount her experience as First Lady. But I despise her "entitlement" attitude or one should vote for her because she is a woman. I just wish it were a different woman, like Gov Kathleen Sebelius.

However, the lot overall is diverse. The roster of Dem candidates is very good. And sure as hell better than the candidates trying to garner attention with the freepers. I'm glad I'm not a freeper. It would be disappointing having to kiss up to John McCain or Mittens.

[durrrty libby]

27. entitlement? That is BS and Fox Noise crap

[benny05]

30. Just My Opinion

Considering Madam Clinton gets money from Murdoch, the king of Faux News.

That's how she comes across to me. Just like the repug character in "American President".

"Hi, I'm Bob Rumson, and I'm running for President."

Insert what Clinton said last week.

"Hi, my name is Hillary Clinton and I'm running for President. and I'm in it to win."

Where I live, which is Central Illinois, folks here are Obama or Edwards supporters. A private event I attended on Monday night for John Edwards, many of the supporters said they reacted her website and that DNC speech the way I did. To us, she sounds like "I'm in it to win for my personal gain, and you should elect me because I'm a household name."

So, if you want to call us all freepers, that's your choice. But we in the Midwest look at how pols frame things and how they say them--very carefully. Madam Clinton is doing better in Iowa according to conservative pollsters. And notice what I said: conservative pollsters.

[cgrindley]

47. Personal gain

as opposed to what? making millions out of other people's misery? out of ensuring that doctors stop practicing? Edwards is a creep.

[benny05]

50. So Edwards was Wrong to Stand Up for Jennifer Campbell?

For some doctor's last minute decision not to deliver her by C-section as was planned? They (the parents and the doctor) knew the baby was going to be breech. So instead, Peggy Campbell endured a horrible delivery and her daughter was born with seizures and was going to be a vegetable for the rest of her life. The Campbells had no where to turn as they had no money to pay for the expenses for a major mistake this doctor made, and had made with others as well.

That comment impugns the dignity and worth of the Campbells. Thank goodness they found someone to lay out their case like Edwards and justice prevailed. Bad doctors should be taken out of practice. Citizens have no other recourse but the court system and our Constitution guarantees it.

I stand with John Edwards and for the rights of the voices that cannot be heard without him and others who belong to the American Association of Justice. If you ever need a trial lawyer, and you may someday, you will come to appreciate his work.

Shameful comment.

edit: information parsed from Four Trials by John Edwards, "Jennifer" chapter, starting p 49.

[cgrindley]

51. if he was such a saint, why the mega house?

It's thanks to his likes that it is almost impossible to find an ob gyn. perhaps he should give that money away. with any luck some of it can go to training new doctors. and yes, I believe that there should be severe limits to the damages won in malpractice cases. and you can cite whatever tale of woe and tragedy you want. the current damages awarded in these cases are absurd.

[Richard Steele]

52. My, what a reasonable, fact-based response. nm

[benny05]

53. Insurance Companies, Not Lawyers, are the Problem

Insurance companies shouldn't holding doctors hostage. It's not the trial lawyers who do. I repeat, bad doctors have no business practicing.

Regarding his new house: it's part of the American Dream. He and Elizabeth entertain quite a bit and there are always lots friends and family around. If I took the kind of risks that he did (remember he was on retainer), I would build a bigger house too, especially since they collect lots of books. I think I read he had well over 5000 about over a year ago. And I have about 1600 myself, but my books are not arranged very well like his. I was pleased to read he and EE took the care of hiring folks to make their house a green house.

Don't forget their expensive house commands higher property taxes, which the county will glad receive.

What I do know, and in talking with some of his old friends on Monday evening, they said if I had met his parents, Wallace and Bobbie, very humble people who are very down to earth, I would know that Edwards has not changed with wealth. The Edwards I saw was very geniune and very comfortable with everyone I met, including me, who is just a blogger and not a high roller at all.

See my event report here: http://blog.johnedwards.com/story/2007/2/6/855/74561

[cgrindley]

54. American Dream?

I can't believe that you're defending this guy. He's a personal injury lawyer. He's part of the problem.

[benny05]

55. And...

From his speech at the DNC Winter meeting:

We should be the bright light, the beacon for all the world.

We are not the country of the Superdome in New Orleans after Katrina;

We are not the country of Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo;

We are not the country of secret surveillance and government behind closed doors.

We are Americans, and we’re better than that.

And we are Democrats, the party of action – not reaction. We are Democrats, the party of principle – not appeasement. The time for half-measures, empty promises, and sweet rhetoric is gone. Now is the time for courage, decisiveness and moral leadership.

It’s time to stand up for the promise of America again -- and for the principle that every American matters, no matter where you come from, or what color your skin is, or how much money you have in your pocket.

Let’s stand up for the working people whose labor made this country great. America was built by men and women who worked with their hands. And organized labor has fought for and made better the lives of every working man and woman, by giving them a voice – labor never stands silent where wrongs need to be righted. Will you stand with them? It is time we acknowledged that it is organized labor, which has protected the American worker against mistreatment by corporate America. I am proud to stand beside organized labor? Will you stand with them, too? Will you walk with them and march with them?

We know one thing for sure: it is time to be patriotic about something other than war. It is time to do what you know is right and to speak out against what you know is wrong.

Not tomorrow. Now. Speak out now, take action now.

We don’t have to wait to see if someone keeps the promises of a 2008 campaign. In fact, the transformational change this country needs cannot wait until January 2009.

Tomorrow begins today. And our obligation to act starts right here, right now.

Because somewhere in America, because everywhere in America, people are counting on us to stand by them and to fight alongside them for what we know in our hearts is right.

So let’s stand up together. We have always been the party of promise who stood with the working man and woman, the party of hope who stood with the needy, the party of compassion who stood with the young and the old and the frail. It is who we are.

In times like these, we don’t need to redefine the Democratic Party; we need to reclaim the Democratic Party.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

59. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TwilightZone]

64. "massive abortion of a house"

Are you on the right website?

[benny05]

66. s/he is not

Poster got his comment from here:

http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/from-iowahawk-th...

[TwilightZone]

71. My, how original.

Methinks we won't see much more of Mr./Ms. Originality.

[cgrindley]

85. NO

I made the comment up. I did not take it from anywhere. The phrase is a common one.

[cgrindley]

81. The question is better asked of you

You people are defending a personal injury lawyer who owns the biggest house in his state. What the heck is wrong with you? He's a personal injury lawyer. Lawyers of that sort are part of the problem in America. And someone with that sort of wealth should be absolutely ashamed of himself. It is disgusting.

Or do you define progressive values as those of the ultra rich? Get real.

[TwilightZone]

68. Try the phone book.

If you can't find an OB/GYN, it's your own fault.

What a ridiculous claim.

[cgrindley]

82. Are you paying attention?

Try this site:

http://www.acog.org:80/

[cgrindley]

84. Here's a recent press release from ACOG

http://www.acog.org:80/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr11-03-06.cfm

[TwilightZone]

86. And, it's all John Edwards' fault.

Give me a break.

Oh, by the way:

"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is the national medical organization representing over 51,000 members who provide health care for women."

51,000 of them. And you can't find one? Bullshit.

[treestar]

38. Interesting though, but yeah I think being married to the President

at least in Hillary's case, would have given her a bird's eye view that in fact, no one prior to Hillary has ever had.

Not even a VP.

[Richard Steele]

62. I'm not a Hillary fan, and doubt I ever will be, but that is certainly a valid point.

(And I CURSE my sense of "fair play" for making me admit it!)

After all, it's not exactly a SECRET these days that more than
one of our US Presidents was completely incapacitated while his
wife did his job for him.

[ray of light]

78. agreed. Also, she did a lot more as a wife of the Pres. than many other

first ladys had done.

And she actually has an impressive resume, especially with child protection organizations.

But what holds me back from supporting Hillary is more the calculating and "win at all costs" methodology she uses. I don't trust her anymore and feel she will say anything to win. I'm concerned about her fundraising with Rupert Murdock and the implications that brings. I'm concerned about the massave donations the pharma companies and the healthcare businesses have given her because of the implications that brings as well.

I really would like to support her, but those doubts won't go away.

And Obama I would like to support too. I have no idea why I haven't jumped into his camp yet. The same is true for Edwards.

For me, and for many others, I think it boils down to that gut feeling on who I can trust. I have felt like I can trust Kerry and Gore. (I'm more inclined to go with a "Draft Kerry and Gore or Draft Gore and Kerry" movement next year than throw my support behind any one person now.)

But with my two favs both saying they're not running, I'm not going to jump into anyone's camp unless I see what they're actually doing this year before the 08 primaries. Just campaigning doesn't cut it. I think it's sick that the primaries have already started, so my judgement will be on their actual work this year and their behavior the last 5 years.

[RummyTheDummy]

73. Apparently she hasn't seen enough

Because the war in Iraq is STILL justified in her book.

[BuyingThyme]

7. I don't care about "experience."

[Mabus]

14. I concur: it's about his judgment on issues I care about

And this goes for all of them.

From what I can tell Obama is smart enough to make sound decisions and that's what is important to me. Sometimes "soft eyes" help situations because they allow a person to look outside the box.

[BuyingThyme]

16. I don't like him. I want somebody who believes in

the separation of church and state, and who doesn't cite the Bible as his reason for discriminating against Gay people.

[Mabus]

17. I did not know that about him

I'm actually for someone else but I try to be supportive of other candidates/potential nominee.

[BuyingThyme]

18. In the end, almost all of us will be on board with the candidate.

Until then, let's fight it out.

[sandnsea]

8. I think it was a different time

Some of us are older and having a bit of a passing the torch gap I think. We see Clark, Gore, Kerry, Feingold, and even Dodd, Biden, Clinton and Richardson - against Edwards and Obama?? Surely you can see the experience gap. I think Edwards is older than I am. People are just looking to a history that reflects a set of values. Obama hasn't laid his out yet, is what I really see. Webb did, which is why he walks into the Senate with so much weight. Tester didn't, although he has the same credentials as Obama, so he is seen as having less weight. Obama just needs to connect his story to policy.

[eeyore]

13. Interesting perspective...

I see Obama's main strength as being his ability to connect and communicate with a larger portion of Americans than any of the candidates. Hillary is divisive as hell, no one knows Dodd or Richardson, Gore won't run, Clark is a one issue guy, Edwards is perhaps tainted by Kerry, and Kucinich is fantastically unelectable.

When I watched Obama on Conan O'Brien I saw a guy who can communicate with our culture as it is today. His style and demeanor are made for television, and in my opinion will prove to be formidable.

[sandnsea]

22. I agree

The only gap I see, that I'm hearing from my 50 year old peers, is the policy gap. For instance, I just read his gun control views. He advocated a one gun per month law, among others. It's fine by me, but how is that going to play with the rest of the country. Do views like that mean he isn't going to be ale to bridge these partisan gaps the way we'd hoped? I think that's what people really mean by experience. Who is he, what's he going to do, what past decisions inform where he will take us in the future. That sort of thing. Primary and caucus activists will want to know those things.

[TwilightZone]

26. Clark is a one-issue guy?

What one issue would that be?

I'm going to guess that you mean the "war" in Iraq.

If so, I'd have to disagree. He campaigned for 86 candidates in 26 states in '06. I suspect that he focused on a little more than the war in Iraq.

Maybe you should find out a little more about him before you railroad him with the "one-issue" meme.

Here's a start:

http://securingamerica.com/issues/overview
http://securingamerica.com/taxonomy/term/3

[CBGLuthier]

15. JFK would be the president to bring up

8 years in senate, 6 years in house.

Obama may still be light compared to that but it kind of bursts the executive argument.

But really, to get more to the point of where it is coming from.

There are certain candidates that have certain supporters who are rabid and will trash every other contender and so it will be for the next year so you may as well get used to it. Kind of sucks but these are not civil times we live in.

[bananarepublican]

29. JFK was one of the best of all time! That's one of the reasons the...

... right-wing-freak-show of the day (Hoover, the Hunts, Nixon, et al) murdered him.

I just hope all the democratic contenders are aware of the circumstances surrounding the death of Paul Wellstone and take reasonable precautions.

[Pyrzqxgl]

46. JFK also came from a family with a long tradition in politics.

much if it in executive positions.

[IWantAChange]

19. Obama has intelligence, character and compassion - GWB? none of those

[Sherman A1]

20. Nothing at all

he meets the Constitutional requirements and the rest is up to the process which we will all watch for the next 2 years.

[Seabiscuit]

21. In the eyes of too many Americans, one word: pigmentation.

[Melinda]

23. 2nd ? How is he less qualified than Hilary?

Obama has 9 years legislative experience vs 7 for Hilary (albeit less at Federal level), but neither has any executive experience at all.. so is there really any significant difference at all? I say no. :)

[k_jerome]

25. one difference I see...apparently Obama's last name is easier to spell than Hillary's first. nt.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

49. I'm underwhelmed by both Hillary and Obama

How's that?

It has nothing to do with race or gender. I just see image and identity politics in both of them ("We need a black president!" "We need a woman president!").

What I want from a candidate:

1) An acute grasp of what is wrong with this country

2) Willingness to challenge conventional wisdom and demolish the buzzwords that the corporate media have drummed into our heads ("a strong defense," "the war on terror," "free market solutions," "privatization," "free trade," "consumer-driven health care," "protecting American interests overseas"), and the ability to recognize that the concepts represented by these buzzwords are precisely what is wrong with this country.

3) An inner core of values that s/he will NEVER violate, no matter who bribes or threatens him/her.

4) The ability to communicate these cliche-shattering ideas and inner values in a non-wonkish, non-condescending, sincere way, and without mushy platitudes

I'll leave it to you to figure out which aspects are lacking in each candidate.

[Melinda]

60. Seems you and I are in agreement yet again.

I haven't posted often the last few years, but some things never change; I find myself nodding my head with you, KoKo and several others far more often than not when I have the chance to read DU anymore. In this instance, I agree with you wholeheartedly and appreciate exactly what you are saying. I had to hold my mouth when voting for Kerry, I simply can't abide DLC cronies, anyone who believes they are somehow "entitled" to the position, or opportunists of any design.

There is only one potential candidate as far as I am concerned; much as I admire Kucinich, I pray I can cast my vote for President Gore yet again.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me, and keep on doing what you do so well here at the DU. :hi:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

61. The way that so many people are falling for the horse race aspects

of the presidential race, as if it were American Idol, has me quite pessimistic about the future of this country.

I think we'll slowly sink into obscurity (or nuclear war) if the purveyors of conventional wisdom, Republican or Democratic, are elected.

Back at you, Melinda! :hi:

[City Lights]

28. And Edwards has one term of Senatorial experience.

Yet I never hear anyone raise questions about whether he's qualified for the job. :shrug:

[benny05]

32. Actually

A few do question him, but as Edwards has said, Bush, Cheney, Rummy, and his cabinet were supposed to have a lot of experience and look where it got us.

I like his activism since he got out of the Senate. He's done a lot more to promote raising the minimum wage, raising awareness about poverty, travelling abroad and meeting with government leaders.

[City Lights]

40. Don't get me wrong, I'm not questioning his experience.

I just find it odd that I see LTTEs every week in my local paper dissing Obama due to his lack of experience, but not a one dissing Edwards. There may be a few people who question Edwards experience, but they don't compare to those crawling out of the woodwork to warn us about Obama's lack of experience.

FWIW, I like Edwards and would be happy to vote for him if he won the nomination. :-)

[benny05]

44. Thank you

I didn't see that you were questioning him necessarily. I was just responding that some people do.

[AlGore-08.com]

76. Not knocking Edwards, but that is a really terrible argument

It wasn't the fact that Chaney and Rumsfeld had experience that got us into this trouble - - it's because their philosophy and programs are flat wrong. It's that they're willing to ignore reality in favor of their messed up worldview.

[Dracos]

31. I agree with what he said

today that he had enough experience with Washington to know that things need to change..
:kick:

[Beelzebud]

33. Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld have A LOT of experience.

Would either of those jackasses make a good president?

[Katherine Brengle]

34. I've been thinking about that too --

I think it's just that Senator Clinton was First Lady Hillary Clinton for so long that she's been in our minds all along. Obama still feels fresh, even though he has been in the political game for some time.

I think it's more about recognition than actual experience when people say that.

[GreenTea]

35. Dontcha get it? Obama black--- Clinton white...comeon get with it!

Yes, yes...

[benny05]

57. Where has Dennis been today?

With all of the Obama news, I hadn't heard where he was today.

[FrenchieCat]

36. War in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, War on Terror, possible War in Iran....

none which were happening when Clinton was running.

[treestar]

37. If JFK could be elected

The Sen. Obama can be.

:bounce:

[FrenchieCat]

41. Are you talking about military "War Hero" JFK? PT109 JFK?

Why would Obama be compared to JFK? :shrug:

[treestar]

42. Didn't JFK have about the same experience?

He was a Senator. Maybe in his second term? He was young for the Presidency, relatively.

True the WWII thing gives JFK more, but there are the times. We shouldn't be limited to war vets, and hopefully will come a time there just aren't any. In fact I don't think military experience is essential or should be preferred over having none. In fact, when was the last time the Repuke candidate had any? Poppy Bush.

[FrenchieCat]

45. I was pointing out the differences between Obama and JFK....

Considering the times as they are now, the differences cannot be ignored while the similarities are touted.

My point is that these are a very different times to both the 1960 and the 1993 elections...and so touting Obama as having the same "experiences" as Clinton or as JFK do not compute with me.

If one wants to compare, then I would suggest 1952 as being the election to look at.

1952 was a time when we were engulfed in the Korean war. No incumbents were running. Truman's rating were at their lowest. The person who won had no prior elective office experience.

[michaelwb]

83. Nope, not true.

JFK had much more experience at the Federal level than Obama.

Elected for Three Terms in the U.S. House of Representative: 1946, 1948, 1950

Elected twice for the Senate: 1952, 1958.

So he had served 14 years at the national level before running for President.

Even if you count the Illinois Senate terms as equal to national legislative experience (not close at all) Obama comes up short.

I'm not saying Obama can't run, but saying he had as much experience as JFK is just plain wrong.

[spanone]

39. junior had zero experience other than his 'uncle' is a Saudi.

[jakem]

43. Required qualifications as I see it:

1) a sound ethical basis. not 'nation under G-d.' not 'bless you all goodnight.' not converting the heathens. we are talking compassion here, not moralistic bullshit. no torture. no thumping religious books. the only acceptable leader is one working for the greater good of all americans first, and the whole world a close second.

2) a good brain. one that can process a complex situation and seek out the correct information, find creative answers, and understand the implications of wrong decisions in a position of such power.


I fail to see how executive experience plays out much here. see requisite #2. If they can do that, we are all set.



We are spending two terms with a president that fails both requisites.
Clinton (Bill) was a little fuzzy on point 1, though certainly better than most. I'm not convinced Hillary has #1 worked out at all. I think Obama has both criterion covered fully. And if he is able as it seems to inspire and motivate people- end of story. He will have my vote and many others.

[benny05]

56. Work Hard for him

May the best Dem candidate win all the way to the WH and help us take back this country!

[Clark2008]

63. Nothing.

But, the fact remains that there is an awful lot of racism in this country (and sexism, too).

[benny05]

67. Please do a great post about General Clark

Because I think he is a good man. I am hoping he will add to the debate in our country amongst Dems.

[Malikshah]

69. Well, maybe because both Barack (and Hillary) and said supporters

poo-pooed anyone who suggested that they would run....and lo and behold...

Sorry, but folks who were calling the Hillary 2008 race in 2000 were ridiculed.

As for Barack...it was called as soon as he won Illinois...and those who did so were ridiculed

Their actions since that point have all been very carefully calculated. Each vote is not about the issue at hand, but 2008... that's not, IMHO, the markings of a true leader and someone I would wish to be President.

To get to the point of the original post-- it shows his and her lack of experience in the human condition. Political automatons don't count in my book.

[dsc]

70. Bill Clinton had been AG of Arkansas and Governor for 14 years

Obama has been Senator for 3 years and State Senator for 4 years. It is hard to make a comparision.

[DonkeyInChinaShop]

72. Well you might want to get your facts straight

before you start talking so definitely. Barack Obama was a State Senator for 8 years. Abraham Lincoln served two years in the US House, was a famous lawyer and debated Stephen Douglas a couple of times. He did a pretty good job as President last time I checked.

[dsc]

80. Then compare him to Lincoln

but don't say his experience is equal to Clinton's, it wasn't.

[Imagevision]

74. Barrack Obama has key judgement ability - So far he has my vote...

[last_texas_dem]

77. Using "experience" to determine whether someone would make a good President

is such an arbitrary concept when you really think about it. We've had good Presidents with little legislative, executive, military, political (in general), etc. experience before coming into office and vice versa. I don't think the amount of experience a candidate had before becoming President can necessarily predict all that much how well they will be able to respond to the unique circumstances that they will have to handle in office.

Yes, we've had times where the inexperienced candidate getting into office (notice I don't say winning the Presidency) has meant disaster; George W. Bush is a very fitting example. But consider that his father was one of the most "qualified" (in terms of experience) Presidents we've ever had and that didn't make him all that good of a President.

Probably the worst thing that a relatively inexperienced Democratic candidate has to deal with is the simple fact that it will likely be an issue that the media, the Repugs, and their Democratic primary opponents will bring up to call into question their abilities. If the public is influenced by this, it could hurt the candidate's standing. Whether it's necessarily all that fair to call into question or not is another story.

Oh yeah, and on the issue of Bill Clinton vs. Obama: the way I see it there isn't that *big* of an experience gap, so I would tend to agree with you. I believe that overall Clinton may have had a few more years in office at this point before the '92 election, and some would argue that serving as Governor makes one more equipped to handle the Presidency than serving as a Senator. (Or maybe they would just argue that it makes them more "electable" because their record can't be distorted so easily.) However, in serving as Senator, a politician is serving in the federal government and not the state government, so the opposite could be argued as well. I personally don't see Obama as lacking in experience. The main thing I worried about a little when I heard he was considering running for President was that he would piss off the Illinois Democrats who had just elected him to the Senate a couple of years ago. However, I haven't seen much evidence of this; most of the Democrats from Illinois that I've noticed seem to like Obama and not have a problem with him running for the Presidency.