"No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States."
Art. II, Sec. 1, Paragraph 4, Qualifications for President.
Which qualification is he lacking?
Yes, there is a definite need for change in our system and who runs our country, both executive and legislative branches. However, voting in a totally unqualified person just because he isn't the "typical politician" is just insane.
This is such a ridiculous argument that I keep hearing that he doesn't have enough experience. There is no experience that will prepare a person for being President of the US. The job is so difficult and so unique that it is impossible to be adequately prepared.
Look at the other candidates: Romney was a Governor, Huckabee a Governor, McCain a Senator, Hillary Clinton a Senator, Obama a Senator. Insanely, the same people who supported Giuliani, whose experience was being a mayor, argued that Obama lacked experience.
None of the candidates have ever been President (and no, being First Lady does not equate to being President).
I think Hillary Clinton would be a good president and I think its high time that a woman is elected to lead our country, but Hillary getting the nomination is an assurance that the Republicans will be in office again in 2009. She is too polarizing a figure and with the likely victory of McCain on the other side, her lack of moderate support will ensure the Democrats defeat in November.
Exactly where in my post did I say he was inexperienced?? I said unqualified. There is a big difference between these two words and you should know that.