Actually, I'm surprised to hear lack of experience cited as a negative for current candidates. Back when Bush was first elected, I seem to recall many news reports about how his lack of experience was a concern, but that it would be okay because he'd have plenty of advisors who were experienced who could tell him what to do. So, according to the expert thought of the time, experience wasn't really that much of a requirement in a President. Nice to have, but not really a deal-breaker.
So...has very much changed in the interim? If it wasn't a hindrance back then, why would it be now? Wouldn't Obama have advisors?
Course, there are some who would say that Bush's resultant Presidency proves that lack of experience definitely is a negative...
LabRat
Athos: If you'd told us what you were doing, we might have been able to plan this properly. Aramis: Yes, sorry. Athos: No, no, by all means, let's keep things suicidal.
