That's more than what Abraham Lincoln had when he took office (the state legislature experience).

Seriously? You don't think the presidency has changed just a wee bit in the last 148 years?!

Does not 8 years in Illinois State Senate count?

No.

Gen. Dwight Eisenhower had no prior political experience.

You mean other than his years managing the largest international military alliance during the biggest war in the history of mankind?

I don't understand your comment about Obama's "thin resume". Does not 8 years in Illinois State Senate count? Gen. Dwight Eisenhower had no prior political experience.

a candidate with the thinnest resume of any major party presidential candidate in a century or more.

And we all know how critical this is. After all, GHW Bush had the thickest resume in history, and he was one of our greatest Presidents a one-term mediocrity.

More appropriately, I think the best argument is to accept the fact (as in the primaries) that there may be a candidate with more experience available, but to follow with the retort, "So what?" Democrats and many independents IMHO are attracted to an Obama candidacy because of his policy positions and vision for the future of the country, as well as his pragmatism and cerebral demeanor. The key is not to get into an argument about who has more experience--that's an argument to be advanced when things are going well and the status quo is desirable. This year, the vast majority of the public is upset with the current course, and change trumps experience.

Excellent point, duckspeaker. Experience is overemphasized and is in any case a judgment for the voters to make.

I too believe that it is a candidate's vision that is of primary importance, and that experience just adds to the resume. (Seriously, in hindsight, how many great leaders throughout history emerged from nowhere to lead their countries? Would Honest Abe himself have ever been elected if experience--especially executive experience--was as important as some claim?)

I'm just saying that they are going to be very concerned about their re-electability, and that means that they're going to need someone at the top who can work the electoral politics...

Agreed Brett... the electioneering of the 2010 campaign begins on Nov 5, 2008.

I just couldn't pass up the opportunity.

That is why (at this point in time) he is losing. Time will tell if he can rid himself of the albatross that is the past 8 yrs.

a candidate with the thinnest resume of any major party presidential candidate in a century or more.

I don't think it's necessarily desirable for pro-Obama folks to vigorously argue against this point. I wouldn't take the thin-resume critique as unassailable, but on the other hand, Obama's experience is not the thing to hang a proverbial hat on.

More appropriately, I think the best argument is to accept the fact (as in the primaries) that there may be a candidate with more experience available, but to follow with the retort, "So what?" Democrats and many independents IMHO are attracted to an Obama candidacy because of his policy positions and vision for the future of the country, as well as his pragmatism and cerebral demeanor. The key is not to get into an argument about who has more experience--that's an argument to be advanced when things are going well and the status quo is desirable. This year, the vast majority of the public is upset with the current course, and change trumps experience.

he thinnest resume of any major party presidential candidate in a century or more.

I hate to jump into this since I think character and ability are more important, but even just in recent history, he has more Washington experience than did W, Clinton and Carter combined. The governorships of GA, TX and Ark are not so clearly first-tier preparation for the Presidency.

And at least Obama's resume isn't written in crayon.

Oh! The horror! A return to balanced budgets and a decent economy! How I hate that!

I'm just saying that they are going to be very concerned about their re-electability, and that means that they're going to need someone at the top who can work the electoral politics in their favor to get them on board tough issues (like major health care reforms, and so forth). It was the fact that Clinton wasn't able to do this successfully that got his health care plan nuked back in 1993.