When it comes to the experience argument as it relates to Obama, I am reminded of that scene in The Rainmaker where Matt Damon as an attorney asks Roy Schneider (who plays an insurance company CEO) how many insurance claims his company has denied. Schneider's character responds with something along the lines of "I am the CEO of the company, I can't be expected to know that".

Think about it, if you asked the CEO of Home Depot how many and of what quality the hammers he sells in his stores are, do you think he would know?

My point is: the President surrounds himself with (hopefully) a lot of smart people who have the experience necessary to help form opinions and decisions on every issue. Somewhere, at Home Depot, there is a guy who studies hammers, knows every hammer made and can tell you everything about the hammers Home Depot sells. Just like Iraq, or the Economy, or HealthCare--somewhere in Obama's administration will be a person who will have studied these things for most of their lives and will be the experts the President can turn to. I don't expect the President to be an expert on all things...no one possibly could be. What I want my President to be is a motivator, someone who can reach across and through and around the divides that Washington can't seem to get over: political, racial, party...you name it.

And that leads me to my next argument-military experience. Can't we envision a time where military experience is not a precursor to greatness as a President, let alone a talking point? Yes, McCain is a hero in every sense of the word. That being said, I don't trust him to be the President for a host of issues that are mine alone. There may be a day when we come to our senses as a human race and not have wars...then where you find the candidate with military experience? My point is: I can't believe that some would look at McCain and based on his military experience alone would support him. Then again, I've never been in the military.

To summarize, I support Obama, because I think we need a fresh voice and a whole lot of change in this Country. The only people against Obama are the ones who are okay with the status quo, and you have to ask yourself....why?

"The only people against Obama are the ones who are okay with the status quo"

Really? You don't think there are some people who want things to be different but are legitimately concerned about Obama's ability to execute?

The lame line of HRC about having more experience and being ready to be President on Day one is a poor one.

What great experiences did Bill Clinton have on the foreign policy stage before he took office for his first term?

HRC has blown it

Barack Obama 2008!

I was with you until the last paragraph. As TheWolf says, there are legitimate reasons to prefer Clinton over Obama. I don't find those reasons compelling, but other people do, and it doesn't make them fans of the status quo. Frankly, the status quo is Bush, and despite the rhetoric from both sides, neither Clinton nor Obama is anything like GWB. Heck, even McCain is a big step forward from GWB.

Good point dausull and thewolf-perhaps I was a little hasty with my last paragraph. I stand by the rest, however.

Roger that.

"The only people against Obama are the ones who are okay with the status quo" OK you took it back but I for one think things need to change but do not agree with the approach Obama proposes.

I also think that he either has painted himself into a corner by saying long experience is DC is the wrong experience. How can he then put up a VP who is from DC and if he wins how can he put together a cabinet that is from DC. To me that is pretty scary that there will be a group of inexperience people in charge.

I do think that you are understating the need for experience. If it was just a matter of surrounding yourself with knowledgeable people we all would be CEO of Exxon. I think you kid yourself by thinking that a CEO does not know a lot about their business. There are lots of stories about the founder of Walmart stopping by a store that did not have enough cars in the lot to see why.

I think Obama's strength and experience is in running campaigns and getting people fired up. But that does not translate to someone who I would choose to run this country. Honestly, i am not really happy with the whole lot of choices but I would not make Obama my first choice and a line in a movie to me does not prove a thing. This is not like the Movie Dave where someone with good ideas can totally transform the government.

When Bill one the first time I was aghast that he would be in charge. I think it worked out well just as it may if Obama wins but my 30 years of experience running things leads me to believe that it is a long shot.

"Experience" - tough question and history shows individuals like LBJ with such a depth of political experience and yet a disasterous set of mistakes...same with Nixon and Ford. And then you have individuals who have only shallow "experience" and succeed beyond all expectation: Lincoln being the most common example.

Experience, like the concept "character" is defined by the out working of one's ideology, the ability to communicate with gravity and the skill of learning very fast. Political philosophy is important here. Some are politicians who conceive of "the political" as power politics and making someone do something they would otherwise not choose to do [Godfather authoritarianism]. Others see the political realm as a challenging path boundaried by cooperative politics, building consensus, teaching, being honest and bold.

I hope Barack gets to cooperative politics with a bold ideology of which FDR is a great model. Why FDR? Not because he was a "saint" at all or was perfectly successful but because he was able to see change from the Presidency in terms of the leadership of BIG change; using government to be as big and powerful as the corporations that in fact control America.

Barack has huge challenges. And you are absolutely correct: he will need a set of partners in governance and legislation who are adept, knowledgeable, able to communicate and build alliances fast and honest. He will need very skilled people of the quality of Joe Biden around him. And he will need to instill this small "n" nation with the understanding that the issues demand NATION. There is a difference.

The two presidents who got us through the two biggest wars in our history (after the revolution itself) were Abe Lincoln and FDR. They both did a great job and niether had any military experience so McCains service though admirable is necessarily a recommendation.

Hillary's experience in elected office is less than that of Obama and of the three remaining candidates it seems that only Obama truly wants to unite all Americans in a common cause.

We need him.

Disagree...but only in principal. Experience matters. Experience is indeed an important factor as we consider all of the candidates before us. The problem is that Hillz is trying to convince us that it is the longevity of the experience as opposed to the qualitative measure that we should regard. Naturally we tend to trust those with more time at the wheel- the 'between the lines' however, is are they DUI? She is! Democrating Under the Influence... of the fantasy that duration equals quality. It doesn't and it isn't a given, but it should be. But then it's not a perfect America is it? ...I digress terribly. Back to the point- if Hillz had expounded, or had gotten specific as she has said a zillion times regarding Senator O- maybe we'd be more agreeable on the argument of her purpoted "life-time' of experience. I don't know about you all, but I haven't spent my "whole life" dedicated to any one thing;and although I finished reading the Dr. Seuss volumes well over 30 years ago- I can not say my Dr. Seuss experience is superior to that of my 5 year old nephew who reads them now just because I read them first. I know, I'm being sarcastic...silly even but I trust you are forgiving folk. Nonetheless, when the Honorable Senator Clinton speaks she doesn't even seem to understand her own intent, which is amazing having found "her own voice" just a few short weeks ago. The intent is to convince us that longevity and experience coalesce as positive and righteous, but we have a GA-zillion examples that such is not the case (Castro's Cuba, Rapunzels' hair, some of the multi-termed congressfolk in D.C.). MLK even noted that "longevity has its place" in his 'Mountaintop" address circa 1968 referring to his desire to live a while longer... but in Washington I fear that longevity has become the means to sure up the political regimes in this government. I wish I could boast 20 or 35 years on the job but in my industry we this pesky think called lay-offs! (or as we call it in our cloaked back-woods meetings NAFTA and other bad policy choices).

Sometimes I think the presidential office may be better served if it were handled more like jury duty solicitation...eventually you're gonna have to serve, and it can be inconvenient, but it won't last forever. The downside is that you can't count it as "experience" in your run for public office.

Personally I'm concerned about Hillary's ability to "execute". Didn't HRC experience numerous campaigns with Bill's runs for governor, and 2 runs for president. If so, shouldn't she have learned through "experience" how to "execute" a successful campaign.