"If a woman were trying to enter the race with only 2 year experience

[question everything]

in the Senate, she would be laughed out from the race"

Was an interesting commentary that I heard yesterday; do not remember the source.

Just one more example about the double standards that we have had in this race.

(For those with weak math skills: Obama became a Senator in January 2005 and entered the race in February 2007).

[SharonAnn]

1. Yes, she would. Actually, she wouldn't have been able to get in it.

She'd have less support than Kucinich and wouldn't be considered credible at all.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

2. Correction.

Obama became a Senator in 1997, making it eleven years in public service.

Clinton became a Senator in 2001, previous to that she was unemployed.

[jasmine621]

8. Previous to that she was still doing much public service but un-pressed.

Just because she was a Governor's wife and First Lady doesn't mean she wasn't involved in anything significant. It's all a matter of what the media wants to tell you, what they want you to know.
She was the first to make an attempt at a huge healthcare problem in this country and unafraid to take on the rest of Congress to do it. She wasn't successful but she did try. We learn more from our failures than from our successes...or at least some of us do.

[question everything]

14. She was also behing the children health care

that passed Congress while she was in the White House, that Bill did not think could pass.

And, traveling the globe, she had opportunities to meet foreign leaders and regular folks, to understand their way of thinking and of viewing the world.

I'd hate to think that Obama, like Bush, will rely on unelected, behind the scene advisers who would direct his foreign policy.

[Muttocracy]

15. like Bill C?

[zanne]

3. Hillary has two more years' experience than Obama.

Being married to a president doesn't count.

[terisan]

7. Clinton completed her first Senate term and is now in her second. Her Washington exp. much greater.

[Skidmore]

10. You know, sometimes Washington experience is nothing to brag about.

There are a lot of people that claim those bragging rights but who deserve condemnationfor their actions in DC.

[terisan]

13. I think it is valuable for presidents. They have to work with the Senate of the US

[NYCGirl]

4. And what other elective experience does the woman have?

Was she a state Senator like Senator Obama?

[Fresh_Start]

5. sadly, we should expect to see fewer and fewer natl politicians

in the race in the future because its more difficult to live under the scrutiny that a fully documented voting record provides.

[Barack_America]

6. Actually Governors are the preferred Presidential candidates...

And they often get elected with zero Washington experience, technically speaking. So you've really got to figure in experience at the state government level too.

[THUNDER HANDS]

9. not if she spoke like Obama

or had the ability to captivate and motivate people like he does.

[bigwillq]

11. You are probably right

Sad but true.

[Muttocracy]

12. depends on total experience

ever held elected office before?
ever had executive/bureaucratic experience?
local government?
state govmt?
federal govmt?
judiciary?
other political activity?
military experience?

Don't oversimplify it.

And I wish everyone would quit nitpicking the experience difference between Clinton and Obama. I wish both had more experience. They've both been in community service / law / elected office their whole adult lives. Enough. If you cared about years of experience that much, you had to support someone other than the 3 we're left with now.

[Tess99]

16. Obama has more years in legislature than Obama. What is your point?

[auburngrad82]

17. Just out of curiosity, why doesn't experience count with Edwards

He's held one office, Senator, for one term and for half of that term was actively running for President or Vice President.

Clinton is into her second term and has been a part of Washington politics for many years, even being part of the impeachment team against Nixon.

Obama has about fourteen years experience in Illinois state politics and was highly respected there. He was easily elected Senator and has, from all accounts, been very busy there.

I'm from North Carolina and I like all of our candidates, including Edwards. But I'm surprised that experience is such a negative point for Obama and for Clinton while Edwards seems to be given a pass.

Why is that?