Obama isn't much better, the only upside that I can think of is that he doesn't have the political experience to do as much damage if he does manage to get into office.
That's interesting in light of the current new subject for the talking heads. So the talking heads are all a-buzz from the how Clinton published her schedule. Critics say that it doesn't illustrate "experience," but I heard several people argue that it's what is NOT in the schedule that matters (I admit I'm not sure what this means, perhaps the fact that maybe meeting with White House staff doesn't make it in the schedule?).
Given that--what I'd like to know is how you people watching the election stand on the experience issue (I know Roger echoed the opposite of Airlik, if I'm recalling correctly--that Obama's lack of experience was a big negative). There are those that say it matters and those that say that nothing can prepare you for the Presidency. And there are those that say that the less experience the better, because of the current state of Washington.
What do you think? Has your opinion changed through time?
