The experience part, I second your opinion. Clinton has way more political experience than Obama – she’ve gone through almost the same thing when Bill Clinton was elected as president – at least she knows the ropes behind all those stuff. Obama is experienced as well, but he pales in comparison to Clinton. I’m not saying that Obama is inexperienced, since he has a fair share of political experience from his first year as a grassroot political leader. In this sense, Clinton seems to be the better candidate.

No matter who wins, America will change for the better. That’s what I believe. Bush gotta go! He’s done way too much things that I personally can’t agree with, including the much unneccessary Iraq war and bills and etc.

I didn’t say he was young; I said he was inexperienced. This means that it’s not his age that’s the problem, it’s his political experience. Clinton was first lady/co-president before he was even involved in federal-level politics, thus he has had very little experience in foreign affairs – an area of concern for America today.

Furthermore, by comparing ages of presidents and staking his eligibility based on the comparison is faulty logic. This logic rests upon the assumption that age has a positive correlation with experience and knowledge – which is not necessarily true as evidenced by the sleuth of young internet millionaires like Mark Zuckerberg.

It would be wise to read the entry carefully before coming into your own conclusions.

@K

Oh yeah, Bush has gotta go. At this point, I couldn’t really care if Romney or McCain won. I just prefer Clinton to win, that’s all.

@Simply Precious

Good luck voting!!