Both are rather inexperienced, but Obama's experience is more recent and relevant than is the experience of Edwards.

Edwards is no more than a pretty face. And perhaps, that is all there is to Obama too, but if there is more, maybe it is time for us to see it.

Jen

Edwards was in the Senate from 1998 to 2004 - not exactly ancient history. How is this experience less relevent than Obama's two years served in the Senate?

Granted, neither could be considered on the same level of experience of Biden or Dodd, but I think you're parsing hairs when in this case.

I think you might be suprised by that "Pretty Face" come the Iowa Primay.

I think that experience is very important for dealing with the world as it is today.

I don't think that either Obama or Edwards has enough experience, and I don't think that Senators in general are particularly geared up properly to be President material.

I prefer governors, or those with other experience within the federal government. And for the Democratic Party, I really think that Richardson would be the man with the best resume for the job. But they will undoubtedly go for the "pretty face" even if there turns out to be a bozo behind that pretty face.

Jen

You underestimate Edwards, Jen. I'm not sure I wouldn't want Elizabeth rather than John in office, but Senator Edwards is probably going to do well in this.

For me, Biden seemed to do the best in the debate because he was telling the truth. The others were engaging, some of them clumsily, mostly in rhetoric. Elizabeth Edwards performed better than John. She made excellent points and was absolutely correct when she spoke in a pre-debate interview. Then she followed the debate by doing just as well at answering the post-debate inquiries directed at her. Voting for John would probably be worth it just to get Elizabeth as a first lady, even if he weren't a pretty good choice on his own.

"I think that experience is very important for dealing with the world as it is today."

Perhaps. But, you know who had a LOT of experience in 2000: *** Cheney. And Donald Rumsfeld. And Paul Wolfowitz. All those guys had been in the foreign policy apparatus for thirty years or so. So, pointing to experience as somehow important, or a deciding factor by itself, doesn't really cut it.

The counter argument is that the guy at the top, George Bush, didn't have experience and that this led him to be more easily swayed by those that did. I'm not sure that really cuts it though. I think that has more to do with the personalities involved than anything called experience [either a lack thereof or an overabundance].

Ultimately, it must be the person's ideas and understanding of the issues that carry the day, not the years spent in the bureaucracy. Indeed, it could probably be argued that someone with a lack of experience in the Washington sense, i.e. many years spent milling about DC, is better qualified than someone with that experience because they do not have as much group think baggage as those who do; they may be more representative of the actual will of the people.

Just as a complete side note, I think it's wonderful that this system censors the Vice President's [nick]name.

Why are the Democrats still debating whether or not to invade Iraq? That seems to be all they are doing, why are they wasting time with non-binding resolutions and trying to take away the authorization for the war?

All of which would have been wonderfull 4yrs ago but,,,what have you done for me lately?

I'm tired of this business of "inexperienced." Experience seems to draw in hubris and corruption.

This country is founded on the idea that the knowledgeable and moral citizen is qualified to serve the public interest.

This "experience" argument is a dead duck. Judge people on their actions, words, and policies. Not on their resume. Richardson might have the best resume on that dais, but did you see Meet the Press last week?!?!

Where Hillary can now use these debates as a place to defuse her self-serious image with bits of humor, Obama must (or thinks he must) come across more serious and policy oriented and winds up seeming stiffer than he should. Hopefully he will find the right balance soon between substance and the musical rhetoric required to move the audience.

'Experience' doesn't seem to be a relevant factor in a candidate's performance.

I'd say general intelligence is my topmost priority, along with the ability to differentiate between 'good' and 'bad' ideas. One of the reasons Obama has my confidence at this point is the fact that he doesn't behave like the rest of Washington. He's been frank and honest, laid down some excellent policies for cleaning up Washington's reckless spending, and is generally committed to doing the best he can by the American people. I believe him when he says this.

Might he make mistakes? Of course. But I'm looking at his record and his promises, and realizing that he would do everything in his power to make the right decision the first time, rather than the sort of impulsive 'I'm the decider' situation we've been having. And if he did make a mistake, he would apologize for it and do his best to remedy it. I can't ask much more of a president.

Hell, I have issues with his universal health care plan and the fact that he doesn't have a step-by-step out-of-Iraq plan (he's got a vague idea, but nothing solid), and I still think he's the best choice, because he seems committed to making the best call. Not the decision that makes him look good, but the right one. I admire him for that. I'll be voting for him.

Great post. I would argue that the experience that does matter is not experience in Washington or even in government but experience making tough calls. Has a person spent some time looking at lots of data, weighing options, facing pressure and then having to come up with a plan. As a side issue, that's why campaigns are useful and I don't mind them starting early. It gives us a chance to watch a candidate perform under strange and brutal conditions. Is it the best system for testing this. Of course not, but in addition to looking at a candidate's background for moments of excellence we can try to
look for clues during this public marathon.

indeed, one of the best kinds of experience that a candidate can bring to an election. Experience that "counts" comes in many forms. And, I agree that starting the campaign so early gives us a better chance to watch the candidates react to the many things that will come up along the way.

So far, I feel we have a lot of weak candidates out there.... all have weaknesses in different areas (from lack of knowledge, wrong knowledge, to a lot of baggage).

What I would like to see is a stateman (or woman) of great gravitas and integrity and vision for our nation step up and run for President.

Too much to ask?

Probably.

Jen