Let me just say, as a Clinton supporter who was always on the other side of these experience debates, the argument about "years in elected office" doesn't pass the laugh test.  No one is going to accept that serving in a state legislature is equivalent to being Governor of California.  Stick with the first argument, I say.

Governor>Senator>Congressman>ma yor

However businessman is somewhere in there depending on size of business.

Does Donald Trump have no experience in New York Politics?

Obama by traditional metrics of experience has 2-3 years in the senate.

Counting 10 years state senate is only slightly less silly than counting a decade as mayer in a small town.  Especially if someone else is spoon feeding you the results.

A very serious and credible case can be made for Obama being the least experienced candidate in 100 years.

Commonwealth & Southern was the nation's largest utility holding company, which Willkie was President of before selling C & S to the TVA (which he was deeply involved with via Roosevelt). His real world "experience" before running in '40 dwarfs Obama's legislative accomplishments or experience before running in '08.

Giuliani stopped at 100 years because of WJB? He had done less than Obama.

I can't believe no one EVER mentions this.

Abraham freaking Lincoln was representative in the House for TWO years before he ran for president. That ought to shut the Republicans up forever.

How about Ross Perot?  No big deal, but he did run.

This is an silly post that just plays the Republican's game. Experience isn't meaningless, but trying to point out which presidential candidates from the last hundred years line up with Obama is just setting him up for bad comparisons.

If we're going to actually get into experience, there's only a few things worth talking about:

1. McCain is obsessed with experience, and yet he chose Sarah Palin, meaning that all of his arguments about "ready on day one" were just campaign hooey meant to scare people.

2. Sarah Palin, regardless of experience, has no interest in any national policy matter, domestic or foreign. She had no position on the Iraq war, no position on health care, no position on ... well, ANYTHING. That's not an experience problem, that's a character problem.

3. Why do Republicans keep contorting themselves with nonsense like she's "Commander-in-Chief of the Alaska National Guard!" and "Alaska is next to Russia!" It's worth keeping the attention on their nonsense because it demonstrates what shameless monstrous liars they are. That doesn't mean, however, that we need to get into all this tit-for-tat who has more years when and where stuff. Just point out how ridiculous the things they say are, and move on.

There are four presidents carved onto Mount Rushmore. What was their experience in government?

Jefferson: 17 years (VP, Secretary of State, Ambassador to France, Virginia Governor, Virginia State Legislature)

Roosevelt: 4 years (VP, New York Governor, Assistant Secretary of the Navy)

Lincoln: 2 years (House of Representatives)

Washington: ZERO, NADA, ZIP.

So "Mr Mayor" are you saying that the father of our country was less experienced than Obama and therefore the USA should have never been born?

Politicians never need consistency or facts to persuade. Just a loud mouth.

I'm a total Obama supporter, but this poring over their respective records, trying to twist the narrative and cast Obama as the more experienced, strikes even me as just desperate spin. A couple of days ago former Bush speechwriter David Frum had this to say about Obama:

Can we conservatives please stop kidding ourselves about Barack Obama's "qualifications"? Yes, if I had been a Democratic donor back in 2006, I'd sure worry about whether Barack Obama had what it took to be president. That was before he took on the toughest political operation in America, before he beat Bill and Hillary Clinton, before he won 18 million primary votes.

Obama's nomination was not handed to him. He fought hard for it and won against the odds. "Qualifications" predict achievement. Once you have achieved, it doesn't matter what your qualifications are. Who cares whether the guy who built a big company from nothing didn't have much of a resume when he started? But if you are applying to run a big company built by somebody else, the resume matters ...

The worst mistake in any fight is to under-estimate your opponent's abilities. Look what happened to the people who under-estimated Reagan. If conservatives are to have any hope in the coming weeks, we should wake up to the fact that we face in Barack Obama a formidable man, who appeals to something important and deep in the American electorate. He's not a superman, he has vulnerabilities, he can be beaten. But he won't be beaten until we who are trying to beat him understand why and how he has come so far.

I think we would do well to heed his advice re Palin.

The simple fact is, Palin has made more nuts and bolts decisions in the running of an actual government than Obama has. There is simply no comparison. Obama has more experience in the legislative branch than Palin, but his experience has been as part of a group. He's had experience crafting legislation, but he has had very little experience implementing it. This is an absolute fact that we, his supporters, must face honestly.

For me, Obama  is about two main things:
His strength is in his inspiring vision of where he wants to take this country. He speaks to our inner adult when he says that we need to face up to our challenges and work together to turn this country around. As evidenced by his polling, this message resonates pretty well with voters.

His weakness is that he hasn't yet convinced a lot of people that he could actually achieve these inspiring objectives.

Apples to oranges experience comparisons don't really accomplish anything. I don't have any magic bullet solutions that would assuage voters' nervousness about Obama's lack of experience except perhaps comparing his potential in terms of other improbable success stories.

In the business world, Steve Jobs springs to mind. Jobs and Wozniak started Apple in their garage financed with money Jobs got from selling his car. Today, Apple is one of the world's most recognized corporate brands.

If he can successfully alleviate voter fears about national defense - a very important issue - he could ask the American people to take a chance on energy independence, health care, job creation etc.

So, Giuliani lied about experience.  So what?  As far as I could tell from hearing her speech and reading the transcript, Palin lied practically every time she opened her mouth.

It's just political rhetoric. I happen to believe that Bush is the worst president in history, but is it necessarily TRUE? Who's to say?

A lot of Democrats don't seem interested in winning this election. I don't like him, but Obama is trying to keep his eye on the ball. (Did you see him on the campaign trail yesterday?)   He could use a little more help. You don't have to attack everything.

Wendell Wilkie? Uh, yeah, and he lost in a landslide. Most of those people did.

Jonathan, your list only highlights Obama's resume shortcomings. Engaging in the "who has enough experience" debate is a bad idea. We lose every time.

Many of the people on your list were governors, and governors have executive experience, something Obama lacks.

Let voters decide for themselves whether or not a candidate is ready. This issue is exactly the kind of distraction that takes focus away from the real issues in this election, the substantive debates in which we have a far stronger position. We're better off focusing attention those issues.

Further, we're hypocrites for saying Palin lacks experience. It fails to stick because she's running for VP, not president. We should leave it alone and let the GOP be hypocrites for attacking Obama's readiness for office when they themselves nominate a novice.

Giuliani is an adulterer who gets slapped down by his party and then runs back to them saying "I'm sorry, I'm sorry."  I can't believe this is the same guy that we looked up to in NY.  What a fool.  In a way I'm happy he was the keynote speaker because he disgraced himself with his middle school insults abouth Obama.  The GOP is out to lunch as the nation in economic turmoil.

That speech was even more repugnant than lieberman's. He lied about many things and it is unbelievable the crowd at that convention has the gall to be self congratulatory about the Iraq war which has been a massive disaster to our reputation and economy.

Not too mention the balls it takes for a party that was "founded" by a 2 year congressman, 8 year state rep Illinois lawyer going after obama on the inexperience thing.  

Lincoln's probably spinning like a rotisserie chicken ~  

would we take the bait on this?  Do we really want to be arguing that there have probably been a few less qualified candidates than our own in the last 100 years?  Can anyone muster the necessary indignation?  "You lying bastards!  what about WILKIE?? he was even greener!" Every minute w spend arguing about this is a minute the republicans are laughing their asses off.  Just imagine if Hillary called GWB the worst President ever, and Dana Perino came out to the podium in high dudgeon and insisted that Hillary is a damned liar, there are at least two or three presidents who would have to be considered even worse.  Drinks for everyone!

Woodrow Wilson had been Governor of New Jersey for two years when he was elected President in 1912.

Woodrow Wilson was president of Princeton University before his governorship.

Helming a major research university certainly qualifies as executive experience -- indeed, given the fierce independence of constituencies at a major university, it is arguably a tougher challenge than heading a public company.  Look at what happened to Larry Summers at Harvard.

General Eisenhower was also president of Columbia University before his presidency.