I think that Obama has a lot of good experience- having worked as a community organizer than in local elected office and finally in national politics. Unlike Hillary who had a ready-made political machine at her beck and call when she made her first foray into elected office just eight years ago, Obama had to work his way up- as an African American and without the family and political connections so many politicians have these days. The skills he had to develop, especially as a community organizer, to be successful, then to go on and develop and cultivate more skills to survive elected office are fantastic. These are skills he had to develop on his own. Hillary, on the other hand does have experience, but she largely rode the coattails of her husband. Over the years, if she failed or made some other misstep, ie. the healthcare plan, then she was not putting her political career (since she was not elected) in jeopardy.

If a politician is intelligent, talented, has the interest of the country truly at heart and does well, then I'm not so concerned about whether they had some lucky breaks (and connections). I think Obama's rise, especially considering his background, is proof that Obama has what it takes to be a great leader.

But as DLS implicitly points out, whether one believes Obama has great experience with the ability to lead as President and whether one agrees with Obama's ideas are two different issues. Obama- or anyone- can have good solid experience, but people will vote for the person they like the best, whether it's Bush's folksy appeal, or are drawn to someone with (seemingly) the same beliefs as one's own.

As for Obama, his experience prior to Washington remains mainly a mystery and his time in DC, quieter than Clinton's. I would like to see him face some questioning. He's a Chicago machine Democrat, so to what extent would he imitate the current governor, with the state's ridiculous plan to levy large new taxes while letting the elderly ride transit for no fare? (Next, as with health care, would come The Children! [tm], and the governor has said that if it were up to him, everyone would ride for free.) What does Obama have to say about that and to what extent would he try to be the same (wrong) way in Washington?

No doubt, Clinton was a counselor to her huband throughout his political career and she is an undeniably intelligent and able woman. I have said such things about her many times on my own personal blog and here. But her personal political experience, both in and out of elective office, is thin compared with Obama's. Her insistence that she is the more experienced of the two is false and misleading.

I hasten to add that I have, to employ imagery I first heard from Bill Clinton, no dog in this hunt. So, my observations are non-partisan.

I have the deepest respect for the service provided by our past First Ladies. I'm in awe of the willigness of potential presidential spouses, like Elizabeth Edwards, to put their own personal agendas aside in order to support their husbands in taking them into the world's most visible fish bowl. I have long pined for the day when a female chief executive takes her self-sacrificing husband into the fish bowl.

But occupying the fish bowl doesn't necessarily qualify one to be President. If years in the spotlight counted as experience warranting electiong as president, someone should nominate the ticket of Britney Spears and Justin Timberlake, as both have more years of celebrity than does Obama.

I agree with Amanda that it's unfair of Clinton to claim her years as First Lady as a qualifier for the presidency and at the same time, to refuse to open her records from those years to public scrutiny. She shouldn't be allowed to have it both ways. Refusal to release those records should be met by the refusal of the public to listen to her claims of “experience” as a consensus-building political leader gained from her White House years.

Similarly, Clinton's supporters should not be able to disparage Obama's experience and then be unwilling to have their candidate's experience questioned. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

By the way, I'm a big admirer of Eleanor Roosevelt.

Have a blessed day.

Mark Daniels

No names, of course, but he discusses “military experience” as an asset to close a gap. Alternatively, he also thought an economist might be a useful fit.

Of course, TMV allows expressions by all sides to be displayed, unlike you, who regularly edit out comments and people you disagree with at your own blogs.

There is a larger world than your echo chamber.

You refuse to accept Hillary Clinton's public service as public service – yes, if you consider elected office only, Obama holds a slight edge. But then you slide into other experience, and right into the blatant untruth.

And you show your semi-unhinged bias: “one more example of Clintonian hyperbole.”

You also care not a bit for the example of Eleanor Roosevelt, clearly – thereby doing a disservice to all Democratic women.

This sad sentence stands out: “Hillary Clinton’s time in the public eye is apparently perceived as political experience.”

Yes, VERY apparently.

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1551

.