The inexperience myth... or how the Clintons sold their supporters and half the electorate a bunch of lies.

Over the past several months I've heard from countless people, both talking heads featured in the media and average voters, that Barack Obama is inexperienced. The other part of this myth is that Clinton is running on decades of experience.

I'll deal the Obama's supposed inexperience first. This idea that Obama is inexperienced is just total nonsense. Obama has eleven years experience in public office as an Illinois state senator (1997-2004) and he has been in the US Senate since 2004. Prior to that he gained experience as a civil rights attorney, university lecturer, and community organizer. You could say many different things about these facts, but one thing you just cannot say is that he is inexperienced. Then there is the argument that his experience isn't the right kind of experience that a potential president should have. What?!?! First, I must ask; What is the right type of experience one should have before serving as president? Never mind that. Let's compare Obama's experience to those who have served as president. The most common comparison that has been made is the one between Obama and John F. Kennedy. When JFK was elected president he had just three more years experience in public office (US Representative, 1946-52 and US Senator, 1952-60). Obama is also three years older than JFK when he was elected to the presidency. Here's a list of presidents that Obama has had more experience in national political office than they had when they were elected to the presidency: Andrew Jackson, Woodrow Wilson, Dwight Eisenhower, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton (Obama is also older than Bill Clinton was when her was elected), and George W. Bush did not serve in any elected office in the federal government prior to being elected president. Some of these men were great presidents, others mediocre or just plain bad. The best comparison one can use is Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln had served just one term in the House of Representatives (1847-1849) prior to his election to president in 1860. So, is Obama experienced enough to be president? Yes, of course he has enough experience.

Now let's turn to Hillary Clinton, who is running on 35 years of experience. This is preposterous! Hillary Clinton has served in national elected office longer than Obama (US Senator 2000-2008), but this is the only public office she has ever been elected to serve. This means that Obama has had more experience in elected office (national and state) than Clinton. Clinton also resorts to arguing that the years she spent as First Lady and the First Lady of Arkansas makes her more prepared to be president. Well, the last time I checked, the First Lady was not an elected office nor does it carry any duties that can be comparable to being the president. I concede that Bill Clinton put Hillary in charge of certain policies such as health care. What was the result? Well, Hillary failed at bringing about universal health care and her attempt to do so resulted in a landslide for the Republicans in the 1994 midterm elections that brought about 12 years of a Republican controlled Congress. I am left to ask; does simply being married to a president mean the you are experienced and qualified enough to be president? No and to think so is sheer stupidity. Is the spouse of a lawyer qualified to try cases in a court of law? Is the spouse of a heart surgeon qualified to perform open heart surgery? Of course not and being the spouse of a president is not the measure of whether or not one is qualified or experienced enough to be president.

Hillary should stop trying to feed us the lie that Obama is inexperienced. If she wants to play that game we can discuss how inexperienced she is compared to John McCain. All in all, this talk about experience is a waste of time. One's experiences prior to entering the Oval Office cannot be used as an indicator of the successes or failures that one may bring about as president.