If you're going to discount what Obama said because he didn't have to vote in the Senate, shouldn't we discount everything Edwards, et al (those not currently senators) say about what we should do about Iraq now?
"It is most important for those of us who want revolutionary change to understand that revolution must be preceded by reformation. To assume that a political revolution can survive without the supporting base of a popular reformation is to ask for the impossible in politics."
As much as I'd like it to be different, I don't think we are ready for the revolution. Obama is the candidate to give us the reformation.
Obama has more experience as an elected representative than either Clinton or Edwards. Or does it mean more that Clinton and Edwards had all of their experience in the U.S. Senate?
Two of the most powerful people in Washington these past six years have more 'experience' than all the Democratic candidates combined: Cheney and Rumsfeld. That suggests that something besides experience needs to be added to the equation.
None of the top 3 Democratic candidates have 'management' experience if that means running something by yourself (i.e., governor. Look what that did for Bush). Does this mean none of them should win the primary - or could win the general election?
I will vote for the Democratic candidate in Nov. '08. In the primary I will base my vote on who I think can best take us to an America I can be proud of. Intelligence (besides being able to pronounce nuclear), integrity, and sharing most of my views are far more important to me than 'experience' in politics and management.