There is a huge difference between experience in the United States Senate and the Illinois State Senate. In the U.S. Senate, foreign dignataries from all over the world are always camped at the doorsteps of Senators and Members of Congress. There is a lot of interaction with the Executive Branch. I worked on Capitol Hill on the House side for many years and it is a real shame that more people don't understand what goes on up there.

It is my deepest regret in watching this election that the average American understandably cannot know this.

My own personal guess is that it will take Obama and/or Edwards at least several years if not the first full term to make the friendships and judgements about people you can trust both within the Congress and White House and among foreign dignataries all over the world.

Bobbi, Bar Harbor, Maine

After reading several all of your comments, I must say that a majority of you missed the real point of the article. Martin made the important assertation that Clinton and Obama probably have the same amount of foreign policy experience. For you Clinton apologists, being First Lady does not bring about Foreign Policy Experience. This logic seems to tell me that if a woman marries a lawyer she will eventually gain enough experience to also be a lawyer. This simply isn't true. On a final note, I must defend Martin to you ignorant people that would attack him as being a apologist for Obama. The last time I checked, Obama was leading the polls in Iowa, and Clinton's lead was dropping.

Not a probl;em with math, It's just a problem with the truth. The Clintons are unable to tell it for what it is.
The truth never helps a Clinton, so they live in a different reality than the rest of the world. Where Smoking pot is not inhaling, where having sex isn't having sex if someone else is doing it to you, where campaign funds aren't taken, they are given freely and checked etc etc etc

Response to Rodney Dallas TX.
Of course you're real. My point is if Hillary is the front runner, as most the media states, then why is it that a majority of the comments are negative about her. Surely if her base is so large and active, then we'd see a larger volumne of commentors coming to her defense. The only place you'll see a majority base of commentors is on her front groups and campaign site. Face Reality bud, she's the Titanic and all but a few will go down with her.

FINALLY! After literally years of the media not even attempting to do their job of reporting fact to Americans, we finally have a story with some actual fact based information. I sure wish this trend would continue, but I'm not holding my breath.

Can someone tell me how traveling about the world on the taxpayer dime somehow constitutes "experience"?

Clinton is a nutcase.

Singer won't get back to you Roland. You point out a simple but effective truth. When it comes to holding an elected public office, Hillary has one of the fewest years of experience for Democrats and Republicans. Phil Singer can't throw 8 years as First Lady as relevant experience without some type of documented backup. Most of us that remember Hillary's leadership in 1992/93 was for National Healthcare, which was a disaster. After that, Hillary was never offically appointed to anything else by Bill Clinton.

Next thing we will hear is that Chelsea Clinton has experience to be President.

Experience is important for gaining wisdom and judgment. Some people learn from experience much better than others. Clearly it will take many more years before Clinton can be said to possess good judgment. Obama, though having less time in Washington, has proven he has much better judgment. We aren't electing a president to come up with all the options on their own. As our current president said in his own cute way, the president is the "decider". Obama is clearly going to be a better decider than Clinton.

Oh, Rodney of Dallas TX, your fuzzy Clintonian math is old news. Everybody knows they just looked at 2 months to come up with that "missed 80% of votes" fake stat. If you really cared about being fair you would demand to see voting stats based on the entire year, which Obama's record was in line with the other candidates. Stop spreading your fuzzy math, it's not patriotic.

Two weeks after Clinton accused other candidates of what she called "mudslinging" she has repeatedly slung negative accusations at Senator Obama. Of course Obama is going to defend himself!

AWESOME!!!!!! THIS IS WHAT THE MEDIA IS SUPPOSE TO BE DOING. MAKING SURE THAT TRUE INFORMATION IS GIVEN. NICE JOB CNN!

Roland, HRC will win. LIVE IT!

P.S. CNN, please stop deleting posts that disagree with your chief shill for Obama.

It really depends on how you qualify experience…it could be argued, and should be, that serving as a Governor for six years far outweighs the "rinky dink" dealings of a state legislator (no matter how long he served) and a measly three years as a Senator. Compare experiences and you will get at the correct answer.

obama will be sworn in as president and i can see America slowly start to heal from all its hurt!!! No more clinton divisive politics, if clinton as president had done his job right he would have gone after bin laden and 9/11 would have never occured, lets end the bush/clinton power hug/ dynasty, let hope, peace determination and prosperity prevail God bless America, obama 08!!!

In Texas being governor is primarily a p.r. job. All the legislative agendas are set by the Lt. Governor. So, W. really had very little experience (except for all his failed business dealings) before becoming president.

If you think experience is the biggest deciding factor, vote Richardson. If you think judgment, intelligence, integrity and the ability to work well with people with differing views, are the deciding factors, vote Obama.

Let's not forget that Carter was also a one term governor from Georgia when he was elected and Ronald Reagan was only a governor from California. Thus, as is well stated, Hillary makes no sense, but idiots will still vote for her.

This story isn't worth the digital ink it was printed on. There's a presidential campaign going on. Are we going to have to read about it every time a campaign makes a dubious claim about an opponent to make a point? It's not like Clinton is claiming her opponent is a militant Muslim trying to take over the government from the inside or anything (what Republicans are sending out as a lying email about Obama).

What she is doing is more like exaggerating, and it's what they are all doing to some degree. That's what always happens at this point in the campaigns. It's not that big a deal. Listen to the point she is making and see if you agree or disagree.

The person with the most meaningful experience of them all seems to be Joe Biden. I wish people would give him a little more air time and not decide from the beginning who the front runners will be. When the media only focuses on a couple of people and declares them the frontrunners so early in the process, the people follow along with their voting patterns. Allowing the other candidates to appear on the debates is just trying to give the appearance of fairness. There has been zero fairness in the coverage of these candidates.

I would love it if ANY of the Democrats win. But I will not feel too bad even if most of the Republicans win. No matter what happens… No matter who wins…

…it will be better than Bush.

It will be the most satisfying election in the history of this country. No way to lose in this one. They are all better than Bush. It's going to be a win for the country no matter what.

Everyone prepare for the huge collective sigh of relief that the nation and rest of the planet will release. It can't get here soon enough.

And most likely, it will be Hillary being sworn in, Bill on stage at her side. Smiling that smile…

Thank you Roland for reporting the facts. I am a "Ronald Reagan" Republican but I hope Obama gets the Democratic nomination. He is honest and intelligent. I hope I can vote for him for president in the general election next November!

George Bush only having 6 yrs. of elected office before becoming the president? I don't get the point. Bush being Governor of the 3rd dumbest state in the Union doesn't qualify him for nothing, let alone the presidency. If you don't think so, take a closer look at the State of our Union.

Amen to CNN for showing some good journalistic integrity and exposing spin. This is the way journalists should respond to spin with fact checks and heavy criticism. I don't care if you criticise any candidate just do it as fairly and objectively as possible. Good catch on this one.

All candidates use fuzzy math and other tactics as ammunition as the primaries approach - not just Senator Clinton. Roland Martin chooses to highlight this because he is African-American, and automatically supports Senator Obama. Maybe CNN should start hiring contributors that are more neutral.

IMHO, both Hillary and Obama are extremely intelligent individuals. I've listened to both of them in their speeches (scripted) and in unscripted interviews and have come away thingking how very intelligent that person is. Both have relavent experience as US Senators and either one of them is much more preferable than any of the GOP candidates.

That being said, let's put this 'experience' thing to bed and admit that it really doesn't matter. history has shown that we get good and bad Presidents from both experienced and non-experienced individuals. It's not even the 'character' of a person that matters as much as how that person will actually do the job. We've had great Presidents that were absolute 'rascals' and absolutely horrible ones that had not a single character flaw.

Personally, my feeling about Hillary is that she is a little too slick and really represents the status quo in politics while Barak doesn't. He seems much more honest and forthcoming and all of the 'attacks' the Hillary fans accuse him of are just responses to her attacks. He either shows how something they said is not true or points out the hypocracy of the Clinton camp pointing out a 'failing' (haven't heard a valid one yet) of Obama when they have a few skeleton in their own closet.

One thing I've also noticed is that there are quite a few Republicans who either outright support Obama or say that if he is the Democratic nominee, they would vote for him. Even they respect his honesty and openness. I have yet to hear about a Republican supporting Hillary. Who would be more electible? Obama.

My prefered picks (no special order): Obama, Richardson, Edwards. Who would I vote for in the general election? Any of the Democrats who are running. I want hope, peace and properity, not fear, war and a growing national debt.

The article states that Clinton said that Obama "would have less experience than any president in the 20th century." But uses George W. Bush to refute it. While the statement may be misleading, George W. Bush was not President in the 20th century. He was elected in 2000 and took office in 2001. Both of which were in the 21st Century

The Clintons must not have taken too good a look at the presidents of the 20th century and their elected experience.

And guess what, not one of them is claiming experience because a relative held that position in the past.

Judgement and integrity matter - and the Clintons have neither. I use the plural Clinton since Hillary is running on Bill's experience as president. Even though nothing he did was very profound and a lot of our problems (bin laden) exist due to Bill's mismanagement.

Elaine, are you pretending to write in the future?

How could American voters have spoken?

The american voters have spoken on this experience topic. Hillary won over Obama.

Good story Mr. Martin! The Clintons are spinning bigger lies the further she falls in the polls. Yesterday Bill claimed he was against the Iraq war from the start. Outright LIE.

"Yeah Hillary was soooo experienced in foreiegn policy that she VOTED TO AUTHORIZE THE WAR IN IRAQ… THE BIGGEST FOREIGN POLICY DISASTER IN AMERICAN HISTORY!"

Ok, Brad, I don't normally nit-pick about this sort of thing but….Last I checked, Vietnam was the BIGGEST FOREIGN POLICY DISASTER IN AMERICAN HISTORY! Even one single soldiers' death is unnecessary. But Bushie & Dick made sure that it was misinformation upon which the Congress made their decision, so that Jr could go forth & right the wrongs of his father's administration.

Great job, Roland Martin. When are the American people going to learn that Clinton is a bunch of hot, or cold rather, air, and that she just is not the person for president! Obama and Obama campaign needs to take this MATH and run with it! Thanks.

This discussion is ludicrous! Obama, listen to me — your rebuttal to this stupid claim is EASY! As other VERY bright leaders have stated in the past: No leader can claim an expertise in all areas in which he/she must be effective. No leader can claim relevant experience in all of these areas. The mark of a wise and effective leader is one who has the intelligence to surround him/herself with those who possess the expertise and experience necessary to get the job done. Hello ….! And, remember, Hillary has little of the experience she is claiming. Come on Obama - hit back with the OBVIOUS!

I think perhaps the point is that if you've actually governed something, you're already ahead of whoever doesn't have any governing experience at all. So, GW would be ahead of both Obama and Clinton, who have only been in legislative positions.

However, Clinton's had more experience as a legislator at the federal level, forcing her to familiarize herself with foreign and national policy, whereas Obama's experience as a state senator is less relevant to what he'd be doing as President.

But by all means, don't let that get in the way of your specious comparisons. I don't care about any of these people… each is as bad as the other, from what I can see… and I'm perfectly happy to let them eat each other before election day.

Good God!! There is a "huge" difference in HIllary's exp. and Obamas!! She has been in the senate 6 years and traveled to around 82 countries. She had an inside seat in the Oval Office for 8 years. She has been dealt hard blows by the rabbid Republicans and handled it with grace and intelligence!! She is ready to deal with tough issues and dirty nasty Republicans. Obama will be like a deer in the head lights when the Repubs start on him. Especially if Karl Rove is operating on the side lines. Good Grief, people, Wake Up!!! This country NEEDS Hillary right now, especially!!!!

There is a distinct bottom line here. The Clinton campaign has resorted to lying and distortion to attempt to breathe life into a dying campaign. Bill is on the campaign trail, lying to voters, saying that he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning, in spite of numerous prior videotaped statements to the contrary.

Hillary could have lived in the White House for her entire life, and she would still not possess the judgement necessary to lead this nation. Her war votes, her vote on Lieberman-Kyl, her inability to clearly communicate where she stands on any given issue, tell me that she is not a leader.

Recent polls indicate that she will not succeed in a general election against any of the republican candidates. How much louder can the message to democrats be? A HRC nomination will result in 4 more years of a disasterous republican lead government.

The math is that 80% of the democrat voters do not like Obama's experience, as he only gets about 20% support while Hillary Clinton gets over 50% votes.

If you're looking at experience, then Bill Richardson should win hands-down. He has the wealth and breadth of experience that should, by Clinton's logic, make him the best choice. I would vote for him except for that whole "issues" thing. I just don't seem to agree with him on the issues. But, then, I don't agree with Hillary either. Oddly enough, that doesn't seem to make much difference to a lot of voters.

I suppose the case could be made that most people look at Federal service or serving as a governor, and generally don't consider service in state legislatures, when they take experience into consideration. To extend that argument, you could say that governors have to play on a national stage, to a degree, while state legislators focus on the needs of their local constituents. I say that because, quite frankly, that's more or less the way I tend to look at it.
Nonetheless, I still don't put governorship at the same level as service at the federal level and the Clinton camp made no such qualifications.
It would be interesting to see the service of all 20th Century Presidents compared. I'd like to see how far off the Clinton camp is - and whether it's an argument with any merit (i.e., did less service make for poorer Presidents?). Perhaps CNN could put those stats together and create a link.

James, Forest Grove

So those of us that show support for her are not "real folks"? It's funny, I'm here typing an email…I thought I was real.

Sen. Clinton is both smart and experienced and thus a better pick than Sen. Obama. Incidentally, I hope that Sen. Clinton's critics will continue to ignore the fact that she was President Clinton's closest and most trusted political and (foreign)policy advisor, or treat it as irrelevant because she was also his wife. The American people are smart enough to see through that.

Posted By dawn — Gaithersburg, MD. : November 28, 2007 12:19 pm

Hi dawn, how you been, haven't "read" you in a while and I hope your Thanksgiving was good and you are well.

Now if we are going to use the rational of her "experience" as first lady, does that include the bad with the good that happened during those eight years?

How are we going to parse through the BS if all of the papers during that time are locked up?

Nothing negative about Hillary in my post, just looking for some answers on how we are going to gauge her "factual" experience on what high level meetings she sat in on and what advice did she give that "helped" Bill.

It's tough to take Bill's word as well, you know……… and then there's that Sandy Berger thing where he STOLE many documents so gaining actual proof is kind of vital.

Glad to have you back dawn, though I mainly disagree with you, I respect you greatly.

How can anyone say Obama has experience being in the Senate? He has missed 80% of the votes including the big one he keeps talking about. I work in a law firm. Does that make me ready for the Attorney General position. Just because your in the room doesn't mean your gaining experience, especially if your not doing the job you were elected to do.

Mr Martin, the last example you have to give us is that "George W. Bush only held elected office for six years before becoming president. He was elected governor of Texas in 1994 and won the presidency – OK, liberal bloggers, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor – in 2000." Can't you find anything else? As far as I know Bush is Republican so who cares?

The truth is that it doesn't matter if Clinton campaign is good or not at math, what it matters is that Obama is NOT good to be President right now. He has lots of homework to do.

With no doubt Clinton 08!!

Clinton's citing of her "qualifications" follows an embellishment trend by job applicants that seems to be growing and to some extent is encouraged (see CNN's articles on job hunting). I volunteered on my son's baseball team and wrote some checks for some equipment purchases…so on my resume I put "accountant for local non-profit" and send it off to Enron. At work the V.P. of Marketing asked me where someone sits…resume: "assistant to vice president" and send it off to Tyco for an executive position. Here's one better…I marry someone who becomes important, don't have any real responsibilities or power, also don't have real consequences for my actions because I'm just the spouse, and jet-set around enjoying the perks of my spouse's position…resume: clearly I'm the best candidate when the position becomes vacant (not to mention you get my spouse back…wink wink).

It is obvious Hillary will do and say anything to get elected. She is a fraud and if people can't see that, god help us.

Good job Roland! Just one thing… Using Bill Clinton in your defense is OK, maybe, and Jimmy Carter has improved his dismall image, but to use 'W' Bush as an argument that lack of long-term federal experience is OK for Mr. Obama is not helping the Obama campaign at all! LOL

THANK YOU! I've been yelling this at anyone who pulls the "experience" card when telling me Hillary is better than Barack. Thanks Roland.

Ryan Indianapolis

Do your homework kiddo. Bush did not WIN the election. Gore had more votes that Bush did. The Supreme Court awarded the presidency to Bush.

Pretty subjective history by the Clinton campaign, the candidate herself has not had a long electoral career, but several Presidents in the 20th C were short on elected office.
Eisenhower was never elected to anything before being President
Neither was Herbert Hoover
Woodrow Wilson was Governor of New Jersey for only two years before being elected President in 1912
FDR was Governor of New York for only one term, 1928-32.
Jimmy Carter served only 4 years in the Georgia State Senate from 1962-66 before running for governor in 1970. He served only one term before running for President.

Obama stacks up reasonably well against them and the Senator from NY.

Obama has more experience in elected office (11 years) than Hillary Clinton (6 years) and John Edwards (4 years) combined. But you'll never hear that fact from the media. For some reason, you're not even hearing that fact from the Obama campaign. Somebody needs to start fact checking Hillary's claims of experience and questioning John Edwards' one-term Senate record (which he's spent his entire presidential campaign so far trying to distance himself from).

Why are people so hung up on experience? Experience does not gaurantee success. How can Hillary Clinton get anything accomplished, especially when the country is divided, and Republicans do not like her? Hillary = waste of time. This is no longer the 90's. We need someone that can get the job done, not just sit around and talk about a blown-up resume.

"With the critical foreign policy challenges America faces in the world today, voters will decide whether Senator Obama, who served in the Illinois State Senate just three years ago and would have less experience than any President since World War II, has the strength and experience to be the next president. Sen. Clinton, who has traveled to 82 countries as a representative of the United States and serves on the Armed Services Committee, is ready to lead starting on Day One."

That's awesome, Hillary. I've been on a trip to the state of Florida. Does that mean I can run to be their governor?

You know something, Hillary? America needs a change from the Bush-Clinton dynasty. The experience you tout is also the same experience that contributed to much of the problems we currently face. The experience you have helped contribute toward the creation of a political rift within our nation that we have not seen since the Civil War. The experience you tout is full of half-truths, falsehoods and logic twisted to your favor. And that experience isn't going to get this country moving forward again. If anything, that experience will beget further division among Americans, along with further problems. And instead of going forward, we'll have gone backward 10, 15, 20, maybe even a 100 years.

America is in a dire state. Real change is desired from the majority of the public. Who among us really thinks that things are going to change so much if Hillary is our president? Can we really expect to change the system by going back to someone whose part of the problem rather than part of the solution? The decision rests with you.

I try to be an informed voter which means objectively researching the candidates and their resumes and their convictions. I am good a math, so I've known since the Democratic presidential candidates started running what their political experience were. The Democratic presidential candidates with the least amount of elected experience are Edwards (one term senator) followed by Hillary (currently two-term senator).

Hillary serves on the Armed Services Committee. You would think that Hillary would have the most detailed plan out there for the US military withdrawal from Iraq. Also Hillary has traveled to 82 countries as a representative of the US? Barbara Bush and Laura Bush both traveled to many countries (as first ladies) as representatives of the US. They don't consider that relevant strong foreign relations experience. Going to dinner parties in other countries is not strong foreign relations experience.

I agree with a previous responder that Hillary has problems with the 3Ms (Math, Memory and Misrepresentation).

Obama in 08!

Okay, I know I was a fairly young kid when Bill Clinton was elected, but in the eight years that followed, I was never "aware" of Hillary doing a whole lot of foreign policy visits. Has anyone actually done the research on this? How much handshaking and visiting with foreign dignitaries has she really done. My guess is that it's not nearly so much as the Clinton campaign would like us to believe. CNN, sounds like some journalism you could do and report on….oh…wait.

I'm sorry, but the by the logic presented in this article the man or woman who has been elected dog catcher for 20 years would have more experience than both Clinton and Obama. I think that we can all agree that there are much better ways to evaluate experience rather than just adding up all the years a person has held elected office. Thank you CNN and Roland Martin for doing yet another great job of oversimplifying and dumbing down an important issue. Keep up the good work.

[quote]…Obama has opposed the war since the beginning, but didn't he have to cast a vote because they don't deal with large issues like that in state senates.[/quote]

And Hillary, with the benefit of hindsight regarding her vote on Iraq, has now voted to give Bush another loaded gun to use on Iran. Hardly a display of good judgment, is it?

[quote]He has not truly been tested in a large scale heated campaign.[/quote]

And so, Hillary, who was the appointed heir apparent of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, takes New York — and New York is representative of the US electorate?

And a campaign by the very well known Hillary Clinton against — Rick Lazio — is your definition of "a large scale heated campaign?"

Again, running against the mayor of Yonkers (whoever he was) is your definition of "a large scale heated campaign?"

Hmmm.

Who is counting? The good math shows that Hillary is winning, and Obama is losing.

Hillary has good experience after being first lady of Arkansas for 12 yrs, first lady of USA for 8 yrs, and US senator for 7 yrs. Hillary and Bill Clinton are a political couple. The powerful people that Hillary met and networked, and the issues that Hillary learned and worked on (e.g., health care in 1990's), far outweigh what Obama would have.

Hillary's better experience over Obama is supported by the dem voters. There is not a single poll or survey of the dem voters that does not say Hillary has most relevant experience over Obama and other dem candidates.

Thank you, Roland, for raising this important point. I hope this article gets lots of discussion. The Clinton campaign probably thanks you also. They would love to have this debate. No matter how you try to skew the facts, Senator Obama simply does not have the experience and Senator Clinton does have it. A good debate on this by the candidates will make this very clear. You did a fine job, sir.

So Hillary is touting her experience as first lady …. to one of two presidents in history to be impeached.

I believe the references' weren't being directed towards the mans resume–but as to the publics perception of his preparedness for the throne. He indeed has a hefty resume. But honestly–his efforts @ foreign policy discussions have been all over –from wierd–to frightening. And of course we all know that he doesn't understand how to show reverence in a flag ceremony. I still believe he lacks the "knowledge base" to make the cut as Commander-In-Chief.

Whoever says CNN means Clinton News (or Nomination) Network has forgotten Roland Martin (a obama supporter) being a CNN commentator.

Hilary has no chance at bringing swing voters over to her side. She can only bring in Democrats. If elected how is she going to reconcile with republicans in any way when ther absolutly despise her. Barack is our best chance to get something done between the 2 parties.

To Ike, Woodbridge, VA
You wrote, “Obama is African American, and there is no way he could win a single state in the south.”

1. Kerry could not get southern states so he chooses Edwards. That’s the way it works as no Candidate can identify with the entire country.

2. What poll are you basing that on? I have not seen anyone poll white southerners about Obama not being their choice because he is African American.

3. Bush had no Foreign Policy experience so he chose Chaney to get the hard core Republican states.

4. Obama will choose a Vice President running mate that will bring in the Southern Votes just like any other candidate would do.

Lets STOP acting like this is so different just because Obama is Black. He is the best Qualified to be President at this moment in time.

Tyler, Mrs. Clinton always talks about she knows the foreign diplomats on a first name bases from her time as first lady. But they are not in office anymore.

Posted By Patrick, Atlanta GA : November 28, 2007 11:29 am

Good Point. How is knowing former elected officials going to help her when she has to going in front of new officials and discuss real issues. Not how she got her nails done with the other first wives when she last visited there country.

Experience doesn't just mean years in elected office, HELLO? And a state senate should hardly be counted in the same amount as being a U.S Senator. It's pretty simple CNN.

There is a very big difference between being a governor or being a US Senator versus being a state senate member. The idea that the years Obama spent as a state senator should be compared to Clinton's time in the US Senate is totally ridiculous.

Yeah Hillary was soooo experienced in foreiegn policy that she VOTED TO AUTHORIZE THE WAR IN IRAQ… THE BIGGEST FOREIGN POLICY DISASTER IN AMERICAN HISTORY. Come on Democrats!!!! We aren't seriously thinking about nominating someone who voted for this fiasco are we? Do we really want to walk around defending HER for the next 4 years? I've had it with the Clinton's BS.

Yes, just 7 years as a Senator but 8 years in the White House where she may not have been a cabinet member but, she sure wasn't Ladybird Johnson or Jackie Kennedy either. I would stack up one year as the First Lady, say 1993 when she was trying to push the Health Care plan through Congress, against all 11 of Obama's do-nothing-but-talk-a-big-game years in public office.

Honestly, what does this guy have to stand on besides saying he was against the war from the start. Didn't we learn our lesson over the past 7 years about electing unproven entities?

I think we should wait for their response. My feeling is they will have a good rational that will back up what they say. If there is one thing we can say about Hillary is that she does her homework. In regards to President Clinton being against the war everyone needs to read what he said in it's "entirety" and from all sources. The media often wants to "create" then news instead of report it. They have their own agenda too so be carefule and critical in your analysis. The Clintons are widely popular and respected in this country and around the world, that's a fact and the Clinton haters will just need to get used to it. Hey you can join the Repugs who spent all their energy on pursuing impeachment over a bj? Now that's problem solving at it's finest (snark)!

people are nit picking everything the clintons say while giving other candidates the pass.if the others come under the same scrutiny we'd find a lot of their slip-ups as well.the media and general public seems to have really hostile views on people they dont agree with. can you not just disagree and not hate.they are our fellow human beings and this kind of hatred /intolerance to a differing view is what is responsible for our isolation from the rest of the world

Look, if you media types are going to start digging for facts instead of parroting the one-liners and soundbites this could turn into the sort of campaign that's decided on objective data. Then where will we be?

Now, I start to think that Clinton isn't that experienced, because if she was having a 35 years public life experience as she claims, why wouldn't she have stopped her unexperienced husband from from … in the oval office an intern. Experience counts on both personal and professional life

The way the Democrats are running their campaign against each other, any Republican candidate will surely win the Presidential Election. Because whoever wins the Democratic Presidential nomination, the other half of democrats are too sick and angry about the other that they will either ended up not voting for their party or vote for the Republican candidate. The Democrats are too busy hating each other rather than working together to get back the White House. So, if the Republicans regain the White House, the Democrats have no one else to blame but themselves. Get your act together and let's focus on getting back our country’s future and not focus on attacking our own candidates. Let us convince the undecided in this country to vote Democrats. Everyone wants change at this time. The Republicans are sitting idle watching the Democrats kill each other.

Obama is just as experienced as Bush 43 was. Bush worked for the State of Texas' executive branch for 6 years….Obama worked for the state of illinois' Legislative branch. No one brance is more powerful than the other….

I actually don't like Hillary, but I do agree with her on this one. Obama has hardly any experience and it's not that state experience doesn't matter. It's just that state experience other than being Governor doesn't matter. The Governorship allows an individual to exercise Executive decisions whereas state senators are more or less a stepping stone to a higher office. In addition, the responsibilities and roles of a state rep or state senator are so tailored to their particular state that any experience garnered from these positions can't possibly be applied to any other state, let alone the entire country.

Thank you for the article. I dislike Hillary's condescending and cavalier attitude so much that this gun-owning republican is hoping for Obama if any democrat should win. How come Hillary was never asked about NYS's handgun laws after she said similar laws were too dangerous for folks in MO???? The career woman didn't care once she was on her stepping stone!

Where's the fuzzy math? Bush was elected in the 21st century. You do know we're living in the 21st century, right?

I'm an Obama guy, but I think we need to be fair to Clinton, too. It is customary to disregard state offices lower than governor when talking about a presidential candidate's experience. Clinton didn't invent this standard; it is an unwritten rule.

Cleave, he wasn't praising Bush for anything…he was using his record in comparison to the candidates' to shed light Hillary's false claims of having 'more experience'. Wake up, everyone with a brain does not care about her first lady crap…since we did not vote for her to be first lady, her experience in that area is irrelevant.

The Clinton definition of truth goes a little something like this:

'I don't say things because they are true, they are true because I say them.'

I'm telling you now…if Hilary becomes the Democratic nominee, then this nation will suffer through another 4 miserable years of Republican administration.

Hilary…with her double talk on the issues of the war and immigration..can't be trusted.

Vote John Edwards…by far the most candid, truthful and "real" candidate out there. CNN..you really need to do a better job on focusing on his campaign. The only reason why Hilary and Obama "appear" to be the front runners is because those are the only two candidates the media is really focusing one.

Obama has the right experience and the right judgment to be the best president since FDR.

He will have the best policy advice from both (all) sides of an issue. He is not a slave to democrat dogma. He has the experience, wisdom, humanity, and judgment to make the right choice from the options available. I don't trust Clinton - at all - to make the right decision. I have studied Obama enough to see that I can trust him to do what is in the best interest of the country. He earned my vote. My great-great-grandfather came to this country from Italy. I love this country. I am moderate down the line, neither democrat nor republican. So voting for Barack Obama is an easy choice.

I agree with Dave, Cheverly MD.

Clinton often boasts about her executive experience as First Lady but won't give up the Clinton White House records detailing these vast "experiences." Her words don't mean a thing. She's attacking Obama because he is rising fast and making her look like the desperate attacking liar that she is. I think it would be cool to have a woman making history in the White House, but certainly not this nasty woman!

OBAMA 2008!!!!

"If the junior senator from Illinois was elected president, he would have less experience than any president"

This statement doesn't make any refrence to years. What it is saying is that as a state senator, you deal with issues very different than those of a governor or national senator. For example, Obama has opposed the war since the beginning, but didn't he have to cast a vote because they don't deal with large issues like that in state senates.

Also, people should look at his election into the senate. He got extremely lucky, both in the primary and against his republican opponent. When facing an oponent who has to drop out due to sexual allegations and child custody payments, its not going to be a difficult race. He has not truly been tested in a large scale heated campaign.

Where does Hillary get off stating that she is ready to lead from day one? She is the one with zero experience. Since when does your spouse's experience count as your own? Are you qualified to perform your spouse's job, or is your spouse qualified to perform yours?

Just for the record I believe Bush technically wasn't a President in the 20th century as the 20th century ended December 31, 2000.

Being a governor, or mayor of a large city, is more applicable experience than being a legislator. Fred T. is one with little experience.

I don't mind Roland's article, it is part of Clinton News Network campaign to bog down Sen.Obama. What I am having problem with is trust in my goverment and that is all what I care this time around. Hillary has not told me truth any one time or her plans

Hillary Clinton has no experience other then being a Senator. She has never run a company, never supervised or managed a group of people in the real world. She has no experience to lead one to believe she can be the leader of the free world.

Well, I do appreciate the criticism Mr. Roland. I like someone that looks past the illusions of politics and honestly searches for facts. My question, however, is do you analyze/criticize all of the candidates, or just the ones you don't like? We don't need more biases. We need some level of objectivity. And, honest to God, the last thing this country needs is another biased media voice.

Sen. Obama was a state legislator and now he's a federal legislator. There's very little relevant foreign policy or executive experience in his resume. President Bush was a governor before his selection in 2000. From this sentence, you can tell I'm no fan. However, governors, in theory, run states: so at least he had some executive experience. As an advisor to his father, a president with considerable foreign policy skills, Bush certainly had the opportunity to acquire some skills of his own. Unfortunately, he lacked basic intelligence.

Sen. Clinton is both smart and experienced and thus a better pick than Sen. Obama. Incidentally, I hope that Sen. Clinton's critics will continue to ignore the fact that she was President Clinton's closest and most trusted political and (foreign)policy advisor, or treat it as irrelevant because she was also his wife. The American people are smart enough to see through that.

And for those of you still clinging to the fact that Sen. Obama was against the Iraq War when there was no price to pay for it as evidence of his "superior judgment," just think a little on the quality of his judgment (not to mention his courage) when he ran away from Kyl-Lieberman. And if you can point to a single relevant difference between him and Sen. Clinton, on, say Iran — other than his determination to meet with figurehead Ahmadinejad — I'd love to read about it.

Mrs Clinton also counts her husbands time served as hers - sort of community property!

With what has been going on with the Clinton (Village) camp lately. I would have to say that they have raised a bunch of idiots. By the way Hillary + Anyone = 0.

I really don't mind Barack. I am just tired of Bush,Clinton,bush clinton. I want change in this country. Go Barack we have your back!

I am not currently an Obama supporter, however, I am not supporting anyone else at this time either. But Obama can probably handle foreign affairs at least as well as the current adminstration. Of course, there are plenty of big businesses that would challenge me on Bush's "successes".

Barack Obama is the right person for this job. He brings a perspective and world view that no other candidate even comes close to offering. It is not a matter of Hillary being the wrong candidate (which, by the way, she is), it is a matter of Obama being the right one.

It is true Clinton is ready to lead on day One but, where would she lead? Surely not where she has been afraid to go this last 7 years. We have had 7 years of siding with GWB when it comes time to cast her vote in the senate. We need someone who is not the statue quo. We need someone that can not only take the heat in the kitchen but willing to turn the heat up somemore.

Why would anyone want 4 more years of clintons. Please asmerica for the love of God. No more clintons. We are finally on the threshold for a better and stronger America. our dollar is not worth a dime. The rest of the world is leaving us behind in so many ways
Our Healthcare is in shambles both for citizens and veterans.
We have really hard working immigrants here illegally that just want a better life for their families.
And if I can remember. Bin Laden is not nor was he ever in Iraq.
Need I go own with crime, corporate mismanagement and the global warming issues.
Obama is a good man and no one can touch his character. As we can Hillarty's.
Edwards, Bidden and Richardson heck even Kuscinich. but as president
Obama. I would like to see
Obama/Edwards '08 or
Obama/Richardson '08 or… well you all get the point

There is a big difference between experience in the executive branch of a state government and the legislative branch. In that respect I think Presidents Bush, Carter, and Clinton have more relavant experience. While Obama has more experience if you do the math, he really does not when you do the science.

I haven't seen a single site, that allows comments, that even shows Clinton with 5% approval. Wake up people! If all the real folks that read these articles show no support for her, then where is her support?

roland, I most say you are right and you are wrong. It depends on how you want to interpret the data. experience at state level doesn't quite match up to congressional experience…they deal with two different scope of issues….so while you are right in that he has been in an elected office for longer he still doesn't win the argument over more experience with your math.
anyways good of you to present facts always good

Another Clinton in the Whitehouse is the scariest math fact out there. Exactly HOW MANY deaths (ESPECIALLY the "questionable" deaths) happened during the time Bill was in office with Hillary right there beside him?

That is a scarier math fact than how many years experience someone has in office.

Its clear to me that Hillary expects that voters will just take her word for it and not actually do the math. As long as it makes it on the news, she probably figures its enough to sway some voters. Afterall, in the age of 30 second soundbites, most people won't hear that Hillary can't add. They will only hear her say Obama is the least experienced.

Of course this is another piece of typical Clinton misinformation.

Woodrow Wilson was a president of the 20th Century (at least, according to what I've read other than Clintonese History) and the only elected office he held previous to becoming president was a 2 year term as Governor of New Jersey.

Before that, he was in academia and law practice.

Tell me again — why should I believe anything Clinton or her minions say?

Altho I back Bill Richardson, Barack Obama is much more qualified to be president than our former first lady, who has just come from off of her sanctimonious pedestal since her poll figures have dropped. Now the truth is out:

Bo knows blues.

Hillary knows mud.

Thanks Roland, I agree. It's also clear that Obama has the skills, integrity, honesty and authenticity to pull our country together and at a time when we're so divided. With all due respect to HRC supporters she seems to be just more of the same old politics. Yes she has learned the tricks of Washington well, and that's the problem.

This is a great article. I never even looked at Hillary's time spent as an elected official. I am always too busy looking at the color of her pants suit for the day. Wow, this is really good information. Thanks

All this experience argument is all about posturing, spins and no substance. What is federal experience? and What is State experience? Or Legislative experience? Should we include "First lady experience." If all these is confusing, why dont we try clear math like Good judgement, Honesty and Common sense" Thats where Obama beats Hillary hands down.

President Eisenhower hadn't served in any elected position before eight years in office. Regardless of what side of the aisle you sit on, cannot say that Ike wasn't a successful commander-in-chief.

Hillary has less experience than Obama.

Maybe it's time for someone other than a Bush or a Clinton to be in office. There are 20 year old adults that don't remember anyone else but those two names as being a president… It is time for some new blood, not family dynasties!!

The real issue is how will Hillary continue to play this if she wins the nomination. Will she then say Giuliani, McCain or Romney have less experience then she does. Will she claim eight years as First Lady trumps the experience of these other three. There is a reason the Republicans are chomping at the bit for Hillary to win the nomination.

I'm so sick of people saying that Bush is the worst president in the history of the U.S. Doesn't anyone remember the days of Jimmy Carter? People have such short memories it's sickening.

They do alot of foreign policy stuff in the Illinois State Senate do they???

You American are about knowing the fact, I follows American Politics than ours here in Canada, But I almost getting tiried when I saw those politicians talking about so called ExP'e any one would be a President as long as you follows what is in your heart. Good Luck Guys

Oh come on, you're putting state senator on par with governor? You can't just lump all elected offices together and call them relevant presidential experience, they have to be qualified. For example, Giuliani was only a mayor, but for a city of 10mm people. How can you compare a lowly Illinois state senator's experience to Clinton and Bush's as governors?

So yeah, with her seven years in the Senate, Hillary has more experience than Obama. The debate should be over whether her eight years in the White House count more than his three in the state Senate. My money's on yes.

Mr Martin, let's look frankly at your article. You've hated on the Hillary campaign from day one. I called you a sexiest and compared your piece you wrote on her "woman card" eerily similar to your childhood days (cry baby). There is no problem with the math. Perhaps a sports analogy will help some of your readers. A 10 ft. jumper is not worth the same as a shot behind the arc. That's with good reason–a two point shot by principle is easier then a three pointer. You are trying to compare Obama's years as a state legislator (small fish) to one of two STATE SENATORS. Hillary has not represented less then a few million people for 7 years. She also spent 8 years in the white house as first lady. Don't try and put a junior senator from Illinois on the same experience pedistle as a first lady of Arkansas, first lady of the United States, and a 7 year New York Senator. Really, did you think they were even in the same league?

I would like to point out something to most of you. The Governor of Texas does not have that much power or duties. Look it up for yourselves. At this point in his career, Obama has more experience than George W Bush had in 1999.

Maybe comparing Obama's length of service to Bush's isn't comvincing evidence that Obama can run the government. Look at how terrible Bush is.

Ronald Reagan ran for President in 1968 after only 1 year as Governor of California. He was elected President in 1980 with only 8 years as Govenor. Unless you count his time president of the Screen Actors Guild that's less than Barack Obama.

Hahahahahaha! I love this story! Go Obama!

I'm convinced that many Americans are either afraid of the truth and facts or just hate facts. Lol this is nothing new to Obama supporters. And those on this page who hates Obama for whatever reason FACE THE FACTS!

Thank you so much for writing this. I wish more reporters would talk about things like this!

This isn't the first time her math hasn't added up…

It's hard to read Roland's "objective" comments since he's so obviously skewed toward Barack - his home Senator. Still, whether experience is actually an asset toward Presidential success or not, Hillary wins hands down. The respective years in office for each, is deceptive. The majority of Barack's service has been limited to STATE legislature. Mrs. Clinton has been an exceptional senator for us New Yorkers. However, she's also run successful state and national campaigns for her husband and was intrinsically involved in her husband's administration. I've no doubt Michelle Obama would be an asset, 'should' Barack ever get to The Office - but, she has not and neither has he…and neither will he - at least in 2008.

It just occurred to me that Roland Martin is an Obama supporter. I have seen him and his wife (who is a Clinton supporter) speak on Television a few times. Therefore, his comments are bias and I do not feel this article should even be on the Political Ticker. Roland Martin is dishonest by not saying up front on this article that he is an Obama supporter.

For Obama, being a STATE Senator is nothing and does not show he has FEDERAL experience.

Check out the videos from the Obama Foreign Policy Forum yesterday. You'll see, for example, Tony Lake (National Security Advisory to President Clinton) discuss Obama's experiences in comparison to several recent presidents (including Bill Clinton). Obama looks terrific! Obama in '08!

Great job, Roland. I can't wait to hear the answer.

This was an eye-opening revelation. I guess "fuzzy math" is alive and well in the Clinton Campaign.Barack clearly has more experience in a meaningful capacity in public office by far. I wonder if Bill O'reilly will announce this "revelation" on his show? Lou Dobbs will I'm sure! — Lou Dobbs for president '08!! (We still can dream right?)

If the election were held today on only one issue - character - Hillary Clinton would lose by a landslide and Obama would be our next president. Until they step into the Oval Office for the first time no one has any experience.

Having been in the White House for 8 years and the Senate for 7 far exceeds any state legislating that Sen. Obama might have done while elected in Illinois. There is no need to cite George Bush's experience before being elected as what qualifies a person to seek the Presidency, we see what kind of trouble him limited experience got us into.

Good article! This is clearly another incidence of distortion of facts by the Hillary campaign.

The real question is, "Does Obama has enough experience and the right experience for the White House?"

My answer is YES. He understand the issues from local (as community organizer), state (as state senator), and federal (as U.S. senator) levels. He understands ordinary people's struggles. His experience is better than those who have been in the U.S. senate for 30 years or the White House as a wife for 8 years.

We are electing a president who has the judgment, leadership, character, and the right experience. We are not electing someone who has the longest resume in Washington (If so, Hillary does not win this contest, either). Obama is most qualified.

Sometimes I feel that some politicians as well as the media (with the exception of this article) have underestimated the collective intelligence of the American people.

Tyler, Mrs. Clinton always talks about she knows the foreign diplomats on a first name bases from her time as first lady. But they are not in office anymore.

You go Roland! Thank you thank you thank you.

"Not to mention, I personally don't count being "First Wife" as any real political experience."

Then you're being narrow-minded. I wouldn't, of course, give it the same weight as elected/appointed experience, but she *was* right there and is intelligent enough to learn plenty during that time.

I was going to say that our current, though actually unelected, president had less experience. Judging by his being a complete disaster, I would say experience matters. Obama is lacking. Clinton did more than just traveling about. Saying otherwise is disingenuous. She clearly has more experience.

It may be a slight stretch, but Hillary *was* First Lady for eight years, and not as a wallflower either (SEE Laura Bush).

While I find all the bashing between the different candidates humorous, I do have one comment on what Sen. Obama said. While he listed past presidents with out federal level experience, he neglects to mention that they have executive level experience. Sen. Obama has only served on the legislative side of the government, which is very different from the executive side. I would argue that running a state is significantly more related to running the country then representing constituents on Capital Hill. Granted, Sen. Clinton doesn't have the executive experience, but the First Husband would.

Good point Tyler. Traveling by government plane and motorcade to staged photo-op events and staying in five star hotels with a massive Secret Service detail protecting you from anything and everything really gives someone a great perspective of foreign affairs.

Please.

Good for your Roland!!! Go get them! I'm sick of the lies and falsehoods the Clinton campaign are throwing out there. If ever there was evidence of "more of the same" all you have to do is read all the crap that Clinton and her people do from staged questions to false claims to skewed math. Do we really need another liar and fraud in the White House? What "experience" does Clinton have except being able to laugh at questions posed to her, look innocent well, and, most of all, be such a failure on her own abilities she had to call in Bill to sav her campaign.

And you're seriously telling me that having traveled and met foreign dignitaries in any way prepares you to be president? No matter who the president is there is going to be a learning curve– Clinton supporters who ignore this are simply naive. She knows where the East Room is so she will be better prepared after inauguration. In your words: please.

GO CNN!!!!

Finally a little hard nose reporting on the misrepresentations and evasions from the Clinton camp.

GO EDWARDS!!!