When people want a change, experience in the system that they want changed is probably not seen as a big plus. So the argument comes off as a little misguided and weak to start with.

Also, would you consider someone who was married to a brain surgeon for eight years to have eight years of brain surgery experience? I think Clinton has rather oversold exactly what her experience is and we’ve been undersold on Obama’s experience. He has actually held elected office longer than her. He helped organize labor and voters in poor Chicago neighborhoods and was the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. This breadth and depth of experience would ensure that he wouldn’t be a president that is surprised to learn that they use a price scanner at the grocery store. Yet, he is able to talk more intelligently about complex topics than any of the other candidates.

For me, a person’s effectiveness would be a better way to judge a candidate for president. Clinton started a campaign with the most resources: monetary, contacts/organizational, and still has (mis)managed her way to second place. Obama, who started with relatively little, has managed an upset by bringing new voters to the polls. I think this demonstrates that he does have a set of skills that could help him effect real change in Washington.

Give me a doctor who has easy and immediate access to the research, resources, reputation and expertise and I’ll weigh his personal experience secondarily, because shoddy docs don’t usually get employed with the highest rated hospitals.

Same with the candidates. I’ll vote for the one who I think can bring in the staff to get things done. Aside from that, the only experience he / she needs is being a figurehead who well represents the needs and desires of the governed.

@Alexander: Surgeous are a different animal altogether. I’d pick the more experienced codger, too.

I think that a great worker isn’t the person who has been doing it the longest, but who is capable of knowing who the right people are to get the right job done.

Regarding Presidential candidates, I wouldn’t know who would actually work well. Obama at least SAYS that’s what he would do. Everyone else just keeps saying that they have the experience to do the job right from day one. (whatever that means)

I think I am still going to vote for Ron Paul.

If this is the case, then picking a politician who has the most experience is kind of like picking an expert thief and liar, someone whom has potentially become corrupt and jaded and over the years has learned how to manipulate the system for their own benefit.

I think I’d rather have someone like Mr. Smith in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”, who completely lacks experience, but makes up for it with pure gumption and conviction.

But you’d need a lot of experience to say that you’re fit to be the President of a nation like the United States IMO.