Does our president need to have experience before getting into office? Dubya was a two term governor, and look where that got us. On the other hand, Bill Clinton served as governor for even longer, and that wasn’t too bad. All the major candidates running now have very little experience, but is that such a bad thing? Are we better off or worse when we have someone who’s career has been molded by political jobs?

One of my favorite editorial writers, Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times, has written a fantastic column examining the previous experience of presidents passed. In it, he points out the relative lack of experience of some of the giants in American history - in particular, Abraham Lincoln. Now, a couple of weeks ago, another blogger on this board took some heat for comparing Barack Obama to Abraham Lincoln, but it appears, Mike, that you have been vindicated by a writer with slightly more clout than the S&P staff.

It has gotten me thinking about experience more than I was before. What kind of experience do we need in a president? Would Chris Dodd and Joe Biden and Bill Richardson have been the best presidents in history? We will never know. Or, will someone like Obama or Hillary Clinton turn out to be the best in history? No matter what, we will never know since history will have to be the judge long after we are gone, but we can still speculate about it.

What kind of experience is the best for a president to have?