Your posts get more out of order all the time <g>. Replies inserted after your most recent comments....

>I'm confused. I thought experience didn't matter from your other posts. I will agree that I think it does though - except in the case of Lincoln. Are you suggesting that Obama is another Abe Lincoln? You could be right, we won't know until he is there.
>

I didn't say it doesn't matter, only disagreed with the notion that Obama is "too inexperienced" to be President. There are precedents, including JFK and Teddy Roosevelt.

>>And that's never having been elected anything but Senator from New York. What would she be like if she had the most powerful position in the world? I don't think it's irrational at all not to want that.
>
>I'm just not sure how Obama's experience is better? In fact, his experience consists of 8 years in the Illinois state senate, not the U.S. senate. He has a whopping 2 years in the U.S. senate... (Ok, I won't bring up that he voted present 130 times so he wouldn't have to take a position on an issue which is something he won't be able to do as president - oops wait - I did bring it up, didn't I?) :o)
>

Although voting "present" is a localized custom in the Illinois legislature and is not necessarily as bad as it sounds, I also wish he had voted yes or no in most of those cases. Nobody's perfect <g>.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/20/us/politics/20obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

>Just trying to keep it real. I think Hillary would be the absolute worst thing that could happen to this country.