The point has been made that experience isn't particularly important for judging a presidential candidate, but I thought I'd throw in a slightly different perspective on the issue.
In this case, I draw from something I observed during the 2000 election. Having spent time around other young people with liberal leanings, I remember clearly hearing the argument that Bush and Gore were "the same"; they both played politically to the center, took similar positions on many issues, and were supported by large special interests. I didn't have much of a rebuttal at the time, but at this point, I suspect that most people would find that assertion of similarity laughable.
It is clear now that what the candidates said during the election and what decisions that they would make as individuals once elected do not come close to providing a complete picture of their future presidency. Instead, the people they surround themselves with and will potentially have as members of their administration make a substantial difference as well. A Gore Administration would have looked nothing like the Bush Administration has; no Rumsfeld, no Ashcroft, and no Gonzales or Norton or Whitman or (especially) Michael Brown. Lieberman, for all his unpopularity on the left, is no Dick Cheney.
I would argue that these people have made as much of a difference in the formulation and implementation of government policy (or lack thereof) as Bush himself, and therefore I think that is at least as important to look at the kinds of people each candidate is likely to appoint as members of the larger administration as it is to look at the candidate alone.
