Take that back!

He is almost as qualified as George Bush Jr was.

Surely that lack of experience and good judgement didn't hurt Georgie now did it?

I completely agree with you.  I hope that before people actually vote, they will actually think about this...

Electing a president with no foreign policy experience and practically no national experience would be a disaster...  

I'm sure the republicans will eat Obama alive.  

Vote for Hillary...  She's our only chance.

I support Obama but agree. You're right. By any objective measure, he AND Hillary lack the executive experience to be president.

Truth is, most recent presidents were not prepared to be President. W has been a disaster (keep in mind the role of governor in Texas is smaller than in other states). But so was Bill Clinton. His being governor of Arkansas did not prepare him to face the challenges of the White House.

The only advantage Hillary has over Barack is that she will have an experienced president at her side. Otherwise she too lacks executive experience.

That's not the kind of "experience" we want.

Hillary and McCain want to continue Bush/Neocon style cowboy brand unilateral foreign policy (their war votes and explanations prove that) of the kind that got us the current war. Why would we then empower them?

If he is a natural-born citizen of the United States and at least thirty-five years old and has been resident in the United States for at least fourteen years and wins the nomination, and the general election, I reckon he is in like Flynn.

What the f*ck else is there to discuss?

I remember in 2004 when everyone was throwing around Hillary's name as a nominee I said I couldn't support her at that time because she hadn't even finished 1 term as a U.S. Senator.  So now our choices are a 7 year U.S. Senator or a 3 year U.S. Senator (deduct 1 year on each since they have been running for president, not working in Washington).  Add in Obama's years in state legislator, but no national experience.  Add in Hillary's 8 years as first lady - good diplomatic experience.  They have both been community activists and worked on their important causes.  I would have preferred that they both have a little more experience, but I think Hillary has to come out on top of this argument.

Anyone else remember John Kerry's qualifications based on experience in 2004?
He was probably the most qualified in the past..well whenever in my lifetime.

You all want to embrace the DLC of Ford, Carper and Clinton go ahead. If the DLC makes you feel secure, fine.

If you would feel more secure with Mark Penn playing a significant role in the White House fine.

The security I want is a big time Dem 50 State landslide..Obama can deliver that.

The best candidates have already dropped out.

by 50 State Dem Landslide...of course I meant Senate and House.

Please  comparing Bush and Obama?
Does intellect even factor into your equation?

The question is Does Obama have the intellect to lead our nation?
coffee's up
enjoy the day...

We saw it in  2004 when many shrugged their shoulders and refused to accept Al Gore.  We got Bush.

In 2004 and 2006 many realized their error and  fought.  2004 didn't go so well, but 2006 did.  Now off a big 2006 win many are feeling fat, dumb and happy again, and are again sliding back to their old ways of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

The White House can be ours like cycle.  But Obama can't win it.  A strong, experienced, Republican white male will mop up the floor with Obama.  Obama has ALREADY dug a hole in FL he won't be able to escape.

Interesting diary, but I think you are forgetting a few things:

1. 'W' had never left the country before becoming President.
   
2. Bill had limited international  travel (Oxford) before his time in the White House.
   
3. Barack by comparison, has bona fide roots in Africa, Southeast Asia and a couple of other places.
   

By far, he would have a better grasp of world interpersonal dynamics than his two predecessors, especially from a grassroots level. It's not even close.
Now in all fairness, Hillary has logged in many, many hours of travel and experience in meeting international people. But this has to be tempered by the fact that they were  all in  "first lady" status, with her wielding no real power. (And if she did, that is a an entirely  new set of violations)
Barak's  world experience was on the grassroots level, while Hilary's was not.
I'm not sure either has an advantage, but I would not say that Barack isn't  qualified.

As one of the other diarists noted, Bill Clinton was similarly inexperienced with respect to foreign policy, and most people agree he was an effective leader in that regard.  
Experience matters, but to quote Obama, "so does judgment."  George Bush is the worst president ever, but that's not because of a lack of experience, it's becauase he's an idiot bully.  He could have had decades of experience and that wouldn't have affected his ignorant cowboy world view.  Nobody was more experienced than Cheney and Rumsfeld and how'd that work out?
If elected, Barack will surround himself with capable advisors, and he's a smart enough guy to listen to them, something Kennedy was known to be good at, but George Bush is not.
I hesitate to say experience is over-rated, it matters, but having the correct worldview, approach and judgment matter just as much or more.