Obama is definitely more qualified to be President than George W. Bush was, and is definitely more qualified to be President than McCain. How so? Well, on the former point, one only has to look at Bush’s history to have that question answered. If Bush was qualified for the job, then Obama certainly is. On the latter, one only has to look at McCain’s lack of grasp of economics & foreign policy, & his continued blunders, plus his rather shady history in the Keating 5.
Obama has served 11 years in elected office, including 8 years in the Illinois Senate and 3 years in the U.S. Senate. He is the only candidate to begin a presidential bid with experience at both the state and federal levels. He brings more elected experience to his presidential campaign than Ronald Reagan (8 years as California governor), Perot (zilch), George W. Bush (6 years Texas governor), Hillary Clinton (7 years as senator), John Edwards (6 years as U.S. senator), Giuliani (8 years as NYC mayor), Mitt Romney (4 years governor). Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected.
But if the best candidates are those with the most experience, then you surely believe that Strom Thurmond should have become president.
Remember: The three presidents who historians consider the greatest of all time (Lincoln, Washington, and FD Roosevelt) all had much less legislative experience Obama. Abraham Lincoln served but a single term in the United States House of Representatives and less time in the Illinois Senate. Even Eisenhower had virtually no political experience.
Experience? 30 years in the senate will not necessarily mean you will make good decisions on foreign policy, or will choose smart, pragmatic advisors/cabinet members. There are few people with more experience in public life over the past 40 years than Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld – and George W. Bush was around politics his entire life. Have they done a decent job? Do you trust ’em? If so, you’re a chump.