>You mean besides community organizer, civil-rights lawyer, being elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1996 and to the U.S. Senate in 2004.?? It's a rather substantial amount of political experience. I do not understand why people seem to have this notion he didn't have any.Just look into it for like 20 seconds and you'll see a vast amount of experience.
>

He didn't author a single paper for the Harvard Law Review where he served as President.

He was a full-time civil rights lawyer for 3-4 years, and then "of counsel" for several years after that. Much of his work involved research, writing motions, etc. According to reports, he wrote a large # of memos (obviously an important function), but had very little trial experience. Yes, not all lawyers are directly involved in litigation, but I would hardly call his legal experience substantial. Some of his co-workers stated (anonymously) that his work ethic wasn't that great, and that other lawyers complained that he spent quite a bit of time writing his book while in the office.

As for his first victory in 1996, look at his actions. He ran unopposed on the D ticket by invalidating the voting petition signatures of three of his challengers.

In 2004, Jack Ryan arguably would have defeated Obama for the U.S. Senate, but then you had the unsealing of Ryan's divorce papers (thanks in part to the Obama campaign), and Ryan was forced to drop out.

I would say Obama's rise is more dubious than anything else.

I think the strongest indictment of Obama's "legal skills" is the # of times he's been defeated by federal judges.