ACORN

[kandrathe]

Not quite. He's only not the lowest, he's probably not even in the bottom quintile. 7 years as a state senator, followed by 3 as a US senator, gives him 10 total years of legislative experience. That's longer than 14 elected presidents, counting only pure years served. Among candidates, I assume the ratios would be similar, although perhaps not. Now, there are some obvious gaps in that count (John Adams' relevant experience is hardly summarized by such a time count, for instance), but it does show that Obama is not exceptional.

And, in any case, it hardly seems to matter. Other factors having to do with personality, talent, and historical context seem to almost totally eclipse experience as a relevant factor in determining the success of a presidency.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/In...ience.html

-Jester

Not all experience is equal. For example, experience as a governor of a State does better qualify someone to be the POTUS. Here is a more objective measure of the more recent history. I don't think we need to go back and compare Obama to Abe now do we? I doubt Abe would have done the things that Obama did to attain his State legislature job. As for raw talent, would you point to something exceptional that Obama has done in his 10 years of legislative experience?