With the presidential race (at least on the Democratic side) showing no signs of coming to an obvious conclusion as of yet we have heard a great deal about experience. Pundits have summed it up this way: Obama is the change candidate and Clinton is the candidate with the experience. Both champion themselves as change candidates, lets just hope we have change in our pockets when this election is over, but what of the issue of experience, and what type of experience truly matters?

Hillary Clinton, with clockwork like regularity claims she has the experience to lead from day one, but does she in realty she is no more "experienced" in the conventional sense of the term as her chief rival, Barack Obama. In truth Clinton's experience has been limited to 7 years in the United States Senate. While she may claim experience based on her marraiage to Bill Clinton, marriage is hardly a basis for actual experince. Who, afterall, would trust the spouse of their surgeon to perform a critical operation or teh spouse of an airline piolt to land a 747? The premise would be laughable if it did not have such negative implications for our nation.

The inescapable truth is, either of the two leading Democratic candidates for president would be among the least qualified inidividuals ever to obtain their party's nomination.

But what of expereince, what kind of experience truly matters when it comes to a presidential candidate? A quick perusal of history tells us that "experience" in the traditional sense has not been an accurate barometer is evaluating potential success. Perhaps the most obvious example is Jimmy Carter, a businessman, an engineer, a decorated Navy veteran and a succesful former governor, yet Carter's presidency was an unqualified disaster. And Carter isn't alone, Herbert Hoover, Warren Harding, Ulysses Grant, and James Buchanan. All were touted as highly qualified candidates and all were colossal failures as president. And when we look at some of our more inexperienced candidates we witness a strange dicotomy. Kennedy clearly was teh lesser qualified candidate in 1960 and in 1860, Lincoln, perhaps the most inexpereinced person ever to hold the office, is widely recognized as one of the best presidents.

Perhaps political, business or military experience is a secondary factor compared to other factors. Intellectual fortitude, analyitical and problem solving ability, strength of character, these ceratinly are qualities that have proven far more critical for our nation's leaders than how many years they served in this or that office. In this race only time will tell what factors will prove decisive.