George W. in 2000 had more experience than Obama does now. W. was not a one-term Texas Governor. He was in the middle of his second term as governor. Compared to Obama, who was mid-way through his first term as Senator when he started running. Moreover, being governor of the second largest state, is considerably more important that being the junior senator from Illinois. And despite George W. having more experience than Obama, W was still perceived by many to be too inexperienced for the job. The reason Cheney was picked as VP was to counterbalance Bush’s perceived lack of experience.

As to Walt’s other claims, Obama and not Bush is the one who has admitted cocaine use. And to go slightly further, Obama not only admitted to trying it but to using it on a periodic basis. I don’t think that should count against Obama, but Walt you obviously do. Unless your argument is somehow that Obama using it is okay but Republicans cannot. Serving in the national guard is perfectfully respectable. However, if you want to vote for a person based on military experience, you can’t do much better than McCain and you can’t do any worse than Obama, who did not serve at all. Although, I am guessing in this election that Democrats like Walt will revert to their standard line, which they conveniently diverged from when Kerry ran, that military experience does not matter.

That said, this is going to be a close election and Obama has at least a 50% chance of winning. Most current polling puts Obama ahead.

Hey if the GOP could get a one-term Texas Governor elected President who had never been outside the US, let alone had any foreign policy experience, who had used cocaine in the White House, been arrested for DWI, and sat out the Vietnam War in Texas & Alabama, then I wouldn’t be so quick to write off Obama, Mike.