Is Obama as unexperienced as the Clinton campaign claims?
WASHINGTON (CNN) - I just finished watching the Monday night piece on Sen. Barack Obama that aired on ABC’s Nightline. During the broadcast, anchor Terry Moran read a comment from the Clinton campaign that said if the junior senator from Illinois was elected president, he would have less experience than any president in the 20th century.
Here is what Deputy Communications Director Phil Singer wrote Tuesday after an Obama foreign policy speech:
"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."
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.
Obama is in his 11th year as an elected officeholder – eight years in the Illinois state senate, followed by three as a U.S. senator. Clinton is in her seventh year of elected office.
So the question has to be asked: Is the Clinton campaign struggling with their math, or hoping we all can't add?
If the Clinton camp is saying state experience doesn't matter, does that apply to Bush, who never served at the federal level prior to coming to the White House; President Jimmy Carter, who was governor of Georgia before residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue; and even her husband, Bill Clinton, who was governor and attorney general of Arkansas before being elected in 1992?
I sent Singer an email asking for a clarification. I'll let you know if he gets back to me.
- CNN Contributor Roland Martin