There's a very interesting point being made by
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/10/123720/302">this diarist in response to the Clinton experienced vs. Obama inexperienced claim.
I have to say, I understand why Obama hasn't really drilled in this point because he'd rather be on the correct side of the change vs. experience dichotomy, but it's a sad day when a candidate with twenty-five years at the federal, state, and local level and dealing directly with Constitutional law is considered less experienced than a former first lady with seven years at the federal level and a corporate law background, simply because she has more national POLITICAL experience in the partisan mudfight; it's kind of appalling that this edge in political experience has been cast as a policy advantage, when Obama is in fact the one with the vast advantage on policy experience.
When did experience in corporate or trial law become as relevant to the Presidency as Constitutional and civil rights law, considering that the President is sworn to uphold the Constitution, and needs to do so now more than ever?
When did having experience at the local, state, AND federal level become a throw-away credential in a system of government based on the intricacies and interplay of those hierarchies?
When did being a legislator for longer and at two different levels of government become a sign of less government experience?
When did an International Relations major, four years on the Foreign Relations Committee, and years more living unsecluded in Indonesia become negligible foreign policy experience relative to eight years on Armed Services and secluded trips abroad as first lady?
When did the amount of time served in national political food-fights overcome all these important questions of relevant policy experience for an office as important and pivotal as the Presidency of the United States?
The sad answer all of the above is the same: when Barack Obama ran for President, and people got used to believing what the media repeated everyday.