The recent polls (breaking my golden rule of never mentioning polls) suggest most Americans believe he is the most electable, though McCain is right there with you.  Still, that's not a huge shock when we're down to 3:P

you have to be a little bitter, yet hopeful for change;)

He has been a legislator longer than Sen. Clinton.

Lots of great leaders didn't have tons of experience in the classic sense: Lincoln, JFK, TR. Bill Clinton was governor of a small state that bore less on global affairs than the US Senate.

Even FDR was relatively green before winning the Presidency in 1932. He was 50 years old and had served one term as State Senator (1911-1913), and one term as NY governor, from 1928-1932.  He was also Assistant Secretary of the Navy under Wilson and failed Vice Presidential candidate in 1920. Not exactly the deep resume of Clinton (First Lady for 8 years, Senator for 8 years) or McCain (Senator for 24 years).  

So I think the experience card is often overplayed.

At least for me, he says the things that I've been waiting to hear a politician say and is fighting in the way I wish more would.   I was especially impressed when I turned on a town meeting a few weeks ago and heard him get into a long answer about patent reform of all things.

I know at some point he'll do something that I hate, but he's just been as close as I've seen in my life.

Sricki,

This is really a great question. I can't speak for others but I will share my perception with a imperfect analogy.  For the purposes of this discussion, lets assume Clinton's claim of "35 years of experience is actually true" (when I do the math and look at actual roles I think that statement is largely myth, but let's just pretend it's true for  this discussion)

For me it's like high school.  I remember two teachers, the fist teacher was 55 years old, had been a teacher for 30 years, had a perfect syllabus and all the right books.  She had a well decorated class, the support of the school administration and the parents really liked her.  This teacher taught the same thing year after year and was a stickler for the mechanics of writing.  She focused on sentence structure, punctuation, formatting and timeliness.  She had a plan for every day, she had a plan.  She was an effective, even good teacher but never pressed me for the thought behind the thought, never pushed me to deeper work.  

The second teacher, was 35 years old, had been a teacher for 15 years, had kind of a messy class, was often in hot water with the administration, discussed topics many parents thought were "inappropriate" an evolving syllabus that might change depending on what was going on in the world.  She had a 5 grades slots set aside for what she called "open essays".  Each semester this teacher expected us to find 5 experiences in every day life to write about.  

---Some of my topics, (The shame of being evicted from our apartment, the death of my grandfather and associated family dynamics, titles "the lies we must tell" (though a minister my grandfather was FAR from a perfect man)---

I once wrote a technically strong soulless paper for the second teacher that after reading she pulled me aside to tell me was "a bullshit waste of time" and that she expected more, far more from me.  

The second teacher, challenged, cajoled, ridiculed, inspired and tested me, think "Finding Forester"

I liked the first teacher, I loved the second.  

Love isn't really a word that should apply to politicians but as I mentioned this is a imperfect analogy.  

I don't love Obama, I love my family but I hope you get the point.

People rightly like Clinton but for those who connect, the feelings about Obama are on a different scale.  

I think it really boils down to what people want in their leaders.  It's not a right or wrong question, more a neat and organized with a perfect syllabus vs. "that was bullshit".

I respect people of both preferences but I love my brother and sisters who fight to break the machine.    

Obama just happens to be political figure I hope can be the instrument to inspire the change I already desire, a national muse of sorts.  

who needs a candidate who talks to voters!!! ;)

Thanks for your comment. You have swayed many, including those 40,000 people. The Clinton Campaign appreciates your hard work at promoting internet outrage.

Now, if you'll excuse us, there's a country to fix.

If you genuinely want to know, read his policy papers on his website.  Surely you understand a rally of 40,000 people just before an election is not about policy positions, it's about enthusing people and sending them away feeling good about their decision.  Sounds like he was having fun with the crowd - another reason I love him.

Use "reply to this" when you respond to an individual comment.

You've missed 21 debates, have no access to video replays of town halls across the country, or either candidate's website - I'm guessing, because I'm not sure how you could have missed the opportunity to explore the issues on either candidate at this point.

There's 40,000 people there that have made their decision. You can choose to play ignorant and pretend this rally was going to be a discussion of policy details in front of tens of thousands of people, and reject any other message he speaks about, or just be honest and say nothing would ever convince you and nothing ever would.