Barack Obama has as much, if not more, experience in statesmanship than George W. Bush had when he first ran for president. Being governor of Texas doesn't prepare you for much more than mugging in front of cameras and acting more important than you really are; being a Senator is far more substantive.

Bush's lack of experience does not really explain the debacle of his presidency. It is fair to argue that the president's job, being as huge and important as it is, requires solid delegation of responsibilities and a cabinet and staff you can trust. Bush could have surrounded himself with better people, but instead, he chose Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Donald Rumsfeld. They are to blame for this trainwreck. The buck may stop with Bush, but don't think for a second that our doddering fool of a president has had much say in the way things have developed over the past 7+ years.

Folks shouldn't gloss over Obama's strong oratorical skills. One of Ronald Reagan's strongest points was his ability to communicate to the American people and to the world. It is a sad, shameful thing that our current Commander-in-Chief should be so fumbling in his manner and awkward in his public speaking. Why wouldn't other nations dismiss American primacy as a thing of the past? We have an idiot speaking for us. He's little better than a mealy-mouthed Yosemite Sam cartoon.

Hillary is perhaps more moderate, but in her case, it's more a matter of political pragmatism. This campaign has really brought out the worst in the Clintons, and it's time to put that era to rest. And from a purely political standpoint, I think she gets obliterated in a national election. The hate for Hillary is absolutely vicious among some people.

I think Obama can take us in a new direction as a nation. I don't think Hillary can do that.

I think you are wrong. We know what to expect from Hillary, and with Obama having Republican backing, we can expect only one thing from him. More Republican policies, and Obama keeping their agenda afloat!

Don't, please do not compare Obama with Reagan, unless you wish to force class him as a "Well" to do speaker. Reagan was a great president, but not that great of a speaker. He had his days, but his still laugable "Well" haunts him, even afer death.

As far as experience...Obama has none!!

Comparing Obama to Bush, is a bad choice if you're an Obama supporter. Bush was inexperienced (and stupid and crazy), which is what led to so many of his ridiculous mistakes.

My problem with Obama is that I haven't seen him do much as a Senator. As a freshman he's not got a lot of power or chances to get much done, but he hasn't seemed to use even the little power that he's got. Except to get noticed.

He talks a good game about bipartisanship and toning down the rhetoric. It's a good sentiment. But the Republicans have to agree to do those things, and they've never shown any interest in doing the right thing, just the thing their base wants.

Proof that communication ability is far more important than experience. No matter what your experience is, if you can't communicate your goals and the nature of your company you can't do much.

Just once...It would be great to have these people answer questions from only the audience, and the audience only.

Random questions from only the people....I'd guess that would never happen, candidates never take on questions such as these, for one reason....they might get one they can't answer!!

Obama has almost exactly the same experience as Abraham Lincoln. He also has many of the qualities that made Lincoln great --- intelligence to see problems and the eloquence to get people to join him in solving them. The Democratic party doesn't need another same old politician, We need someone who can lead a movement, Reagan was able to do that by syphoning off Reagan Democrats. Obama could get most of the independents get back those Reagan Democrats, and even create a few Obama Republicans. Hillary could never do that.

Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, having served both in Congress and in important cabinet posts in three administrations, are probably the most "experienced" guys in American history. Would anyone in his/her right mind want either of those guys as president? There is no apprenticeship that prepares anyone to be president. Many of them like Nixon, Reagan, and Clinton himself didn't even learn much from a first term and gave us Watergate, Iran-Contra, and Monica. And didn't Monica hang around the oval office a lot getting "experience?" Shouldn't she be considered for president too.

Obviously, experience isn't everything. As you said, Cheney and Rummy had tons of experience. They were just crazy and corrupt and compromised.

But while experience alone doesn't demonstrate success, lack of experience can be a pretty hard handicap to overcome. Experience in fighting back against the Republican Dirty Tricks Machine is something that I believe our nominee needs. From Obama's response so far to the criticism of the Clintons (which doesn't come anywhere close to dirty tricks, much less the DIRTY TRICKS the Republi-cons will author), I'm concerned that he won't fight back the way that he should.

While there are a lot of people that will rise to support him if he stays above the fray, I think more folks will write him off or accept that he's tacitly endorsed the attacks as truth. That's what happened to Kerry when he didn't aggressively go after the Swiftboat Liars, and I'm afraid that's what is going to happen to Obama when the GOP tries to marginalize him by HaroldFording, Swiftboating, or Muslimizing him.

While it sucks, in American politics, Fear and Hate motivate more than Inspiration and Love. If Obama doesn't fight both, I think he's going to be doomed. And the country will fall right alongside.